Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth

Welcome to Infoshop News
Tuesday, February 09 2010 @ 03:05 PM UTC

A Reportback From the Class Struggle Anarchist Conference

Anarchist MovementThe Class Struggle Anarchist Conference (CSAC) is an event for pro-formal organization anarchists who believe in class struggle, involvement in mass movements, and that revolution is only possible coming from the diverse working people of the world--not an isolated or select minority of radicals. It is an invite-only conference and this year's was the second annual gathering of this sort in North America.

The sponsoring organizations were Buffalo Class Action, Common Action (Pacific Northwest), Common Cause (Ontario), Four Star Anarchist Organization (Chicago), Miami Autonomy and Solidarity, Michigan-Minnesota Group, Northeast Federation of Anarchist Communists (NEFAC), Solidarity and Defense (Detroit/Lansing), and the Workers Solidarity Alliance (WSA). This is my personal account of the weekend.

My arrival in Detroit preceded the start of the conference by one day. It was seemingly unexpected, but Solidarity & Defense folks responded well. One S & D comrade gave me a nearly 3 hour tour of the city, telling me various stories of working class agitation, whether it involved socialists, fascists, unions, or black nationalists. After a 15 hour bus trip and a combination of these tales, the site of hundreds of burnt out, abandoned buildings and devastated infrastructure was somewhat overwhelming for me. While definitely depressing, there's a feeling one gets from Detroit of potential and history that's inspiring, as well..

On Friday, I was mostly a passive observer while the local organizers of the conference found housing and made various plans for airport and bus station pickups. Wish I could have helped, but as an out of towner with no vehicle, there wasn't much I could do.

People were slowly and steadily coming into town and we met at a local bar that once served as the headquarters for the intense 1995 newspaper strikes. Over too many whiskeys on my part, I finally met folks that, until then, had only been faceless email addresses, browser crashing myspace profiles or impersonal Facebook accounts.

Although I woke up on Saturday suffering from a cold, a hacking cigarette cough and a general hangover, remembering the panels and workshops ahead, as well as unsafe amounts of black coffee, re-energized me. Here's some summaries of the what I attended.

Our Anarchisms

This was the opening panel and consisted of short overviews of the history of the participating organizations. While a decent thing for people unfamiliar, I would have liked to have seen a more theoretical or tactical explanation of these groups. Time probably would have constrained this. Hearing “Andrew Flood is the Johnny Appleseed of North American anarchism” made me laugh, though...

Worker Centers

Began with excellent explanation of what a workers' center could be and how it can prefigure the goals of anarchists and libertarian socialists. It is true that, in this country, the concept is one that does not have one, solid definition and because of this, there is unlimited potential.

Organizer's experiences with the newly formed Lansing Workers Center, Centro Obrero in Detroit and direct action casework in Seattle were recalled and analyzed in a critical way by the four members of the panel.

Direct action casework was referred to as the class struggle anarchist's Food Not Bombs, and I would have to agree with this. This model, while having problems of its own, doesn't take a whole lot of resources besides having a telephone number and people willing to go and confront bosses and landlords with those having grievances. The model could definitely be tweaked to fit the purpose of whatever group of people decide to do it as well, just like FNB differs in its aims and purposes from city to city (and within cities?).

Intersectional Class Struggle Anarchism

Had a creeping feeling that this was going to be a point of contention and bitter disputes, but it went well. Knowing marginally what the two panelists meant by the title, I felt already in agreement, but they provided more. They provided a theoretical framework and background for this conception, where it came from, how some have misused it, its potentials and limits in a way I was only slightly familiar with previously.

While most likely directed or geared towards those who are or deal with class reductionists, it was personally valuable as a way to deal with gender, sexuality and race reductionists. That is something I deal with far more.

Anarchists In The Workplace

This consisted of folks involved with the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) or traditional trade unions and their experiences with agitating and organizing. One account that I enjoyed was a Wobbly describing how some of their co-workers became acquainted with anarchism to the point where they either acknowledged its worth or eventually became anarchists themselves. It is often underestimated how these types of day-to-day interactions lead people to become radicalized.

There were two important issues raised, while not having too much discussion around them, need to be explored if we are serious about a revolutionary movement.

What is the role, if any, of anarchists in relation to the AFL-CIO/Change to Win unions? While some of the participating organizations have position papers and such about this question, some do not. And regardless of a paper, what is a concrete strategy to implement these positions?

Is it time to seriously start a dialogue about where anarchists should work? While I realize this isn't something that everyone can choose, for some it is. Where are areas where we can have the most influence, success and spread our ideas? These questions tie in to our relations with the unions as well, as they would often determine the character of our struggles.

Regroupment

This has been a topic of debate going on several months now. As the level of duel members, increasing cooperation and closer outlooks have manifested, so has the idea for a national or continental body of class struggle anarchists. The three people on the panel gave their own or their group's views on the question.

Some of the pros for regroupment given were a larger skillbase, no replication of isolated work, increased financial resources, improved ability for “social insertion”, more political development and better to reach the outside world with.

Among the cons stated were the possibility of an energy drain for the decision making process if delegate structure isn't used, political differences arising, and if the process is done quickly, it may fall apart just as quick.

In the end, it seemed most of everyone is for regroupment, there are just disagreements on the process and timetable of it.

Nature Of the Period & The Task Ahead

I wished this had been given more time and been more focused. Unfortunately, it was cut short and people were also generally tired because of the previous night's social gathering.

The first panelist stated that in Latin America and Europe, many groups frequently assess the situation and context they find themselves in. This helps them decide what work they will do and how they will do it. With the economic crisis, demobilization of what pathetically passes as the left following Obama's election, and the rise of a right-wing populist movement, we find ourselves in a very particular situation. One in which American anarchists have not done a good job in assessing.

The second panelist mentioned that during The Great Depression, stabilization in the markets occurred before a movement with revolutionary potential sprung up. Taking anarchists to task for our lackluster response to the crisis, he suggests that people are going to look for answers and they will or are turning to the Democratic Party, social democracy, religion, black nationalism, neofascism and Leninism for them.

Conclusion

Eventually, I had to leave and missed the informal discussion as the conference came to a close. Leaving energized, I look forward to any projects, campaigns, discussion or work that may come out of CSAC-II and immensely enjoyed the company of the individuals attending, even if it required two 15 hour bus trips on my part...

http://www.anarkismo.net/article/14863

Trackback

Trackback URL for this entry: http://news.infoshop.org/trackback.php?id=20091101132655675

Here's what others have to say about 'A Reportback From the Class Struggle Anarchist Conference':

Social comments and analytics for this post from uberVU - social comments
This post was mentioned on Twitter by jewishanarchist: A Reportback From the Class Struggle Anarchist Conference http://bit.ly/2IIIZD [read more]
Tracked on Saturday, November 07 2009 @ 09:36 AM UTC

A Reportback From the Class Struggle Anarchist Conference | 28 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
A Reportback From the Class Struggle Anarchist Conference
Authored by: Admin on Sunday, November 01 2009 @ 07:55 PM UTC
"... that revolution is only possible coming from the diverse working people of the world--not an isolated or select minority of radicals."

Yet, this conference, as well as much of class struggle (organizational anarchism) is based on a small movement of isolated radicals who are familiar with the jargon of this branch of anarchism. How is any of this moving beyond the narrow ghetto of anarchism and finding aw ay to connect with poor and middle class workers? Given how shitty the economy is right now, you'd think that anarchists would have an easy time organizing and attracting people. Why aren't anarchists connecting with peopl? Is it because we are wedding to our sectarian ideologies, instead of writing, speaking and connecting with working people in their own language?

One of my main methods of promoting anarchism over the past two decades is to focus on connecting with people without using anarchist jargon or even the word "anarchism."

"It is an invite-only conference..."

Now this is beyond ironic, coming directly after a sentence that explained how class struggle anarchism seeks to move beyond a movement of isolated radicals. If your goal is to involve working class people in your movement, then shouldn't a conference be open? Shouldn't it also be oriented around sessions that are practical and motivational for non-anarchist working class people?

Chuck
A Reportback From the Class Struggle Anarchist Conference
Authored by: a student on Sunday, November 01 2009 @ 08:43 PM UTC
I enjoyed this reportback, but Chuck raises some really good points.

I'd be interested if you could (re)post some pieces that you see as promising in terms of language appealing to poor and middle class workers?
A Reportback From the Class Struggle Anarchist Conference
Authored by: Admin on Sunday, November 01 2009 @ 09:09 PM UTC
Don't have the time to list articles, but I suggest reading articles over at Counterpunch. That's the site I read when I want to read political articles. Frankly, I don't read many articles written by anarchists. I generally don't read the anarchist press these days, mostly because I never see any anarchist magazines.

I've haven't seen Fifth Estate lately, but I thought their turn towards a general interest anti-authoritarian magazine with many contributors produced a very readable magazine. Anarchy magazine has excellent book reviews, but the rest of the magazine ceased to interest me years ago. I haven't seen Social Anarchism in years, but that journal had good writing, but not really aimed at working people. I think that Left Turn has been a good attempt to create a magazine with radical politics, minus the sectarianism, political jargon, and activist navel-gazing. Crimethinc, of course, publishes writing that is accessible to normal folks, but again, I've only read a few things by them.

The Industrial Worker newspaper has some accessible writing, but that publication is still mired in the trappings of left unionism. People also don't read newspapers anymore. I always liked the personal anecdotes and how-to articles in the IW. Never had any interest in articles about workplace struggles. That stuff generally puts me to sleep. I already work a shitty ass job, so reading about work really bores the shit out of me.

As far as books go, I think that I'd give "Anarchy in the Age of Dinosaurs to a non-anarchist interested in anarchist ideas.

Chuck
A Reportback From the Class Struggle Anarchist Conference
Authored by: Dead End on Sunday, November 01 2009 @ 11:41 PM UTC
So....I'm confused. You criticize anarchists for not speaking to working poor and "middle class" people then slag off reports of workplace struggles?

Then suggest Fifth Estate and Crimethinc as better alternatives? Maybe we come from different employment backgrounds, but if I showed either of those two magazines to other working class white and Latinos I grew up with/worked with, they would simply view anarchism as how the media portrays it: white, middle class adventurism. A sort of tourism for those who listen to obscure rock bands.
A Reportback From the Class Struggle Anarchist Conference
Authored by: Admin on Monday, November 02 2009 @ 07:16 AM UTC
Well, I know enough people from different walks of life to know that some of them would be turned off by current anarchist publications and others would like them. I think the huge mistake you are making is assuming that certain publications, which you obviously don't like, have no relevance to working class people. I'd point out that the success of projects like Crimethinc mean that some working class people are interested in what they have to say.

Now I'm more interested, as I've always been, in sharing anarchist ideas with working class and middle class people. Not only sharing anarchist ideas, but contributing anarchist analysis and opinion about contemporary topics. This is where anarchists really fall down on the job of connecting with people. Where are the anarchist articles and analysis about health care in the U.S.? This is a huge issue for most people right now. Can any of our regular readers even cite a recent anarchist article on this topic?

I read and appreciate the occasional article on workplace struggles, but I'm not interested in reading an entire anarchist publication about workplace struggles if most of the articles are simply journalism about workplace struggles. I'm not going to pretend that as an anarchist that I keep up with that stuff constantly. I'm a working person with a variety of interests. My life doesn't revolve around work or workplace organizing. Like most working people, I prefer to minimize the time I spend working and thinking about wage slavery related issues.

If we're talking about what anarchist publications could be doing better, I'll point out that the Industrial Worker shouldn't continue as a monthly newspaper. I'm not current with the happenings of the IWW, but I hope some members have pointed out that printing a newspaper is throwing money down a hole. People aren't reading newspapers anymore and print magazines aren't doing much better. If people wanted to continue the IW, I would suggest moving the news content to the website and changing the print publication to a quarterly magazine. The IWW could then move towards publishing more online e-books and develop other online news features like RSS and Twitter feeds.

I love print publications, but the fact is that people aren't buying, reading or subscribing to newspapers and magazines.

Chuck
A Reportback From the Class Struggle Anarchist Conference
Authored by: laozi on Sunday, November 01 2009 @ 10:39 PM UTC
as much as this conference looked cool i'd have to say it is an example of when theoretical and tactical unity possibly gets in a way of platformists' goals of intervening in and working with autonomous mass movement struggles.

but obviously that is not what this conference was about. this conference was about gathering with the choir. the problem with this being invite only is that invite was to those class stuggle anarchists who are already members of groups or that partake in the internet platformist milieu (aka anarchist black cat forums) which in effect possibly neglects the recruitment of autonomous class struggle anarchists that are unaffiliated or those that are class struggle questioning.

maybe a future csac should be split between class struggle 101 and then days of invite only events. either that or these groups should really do more effective recruitment. i mean seriously if i didn't lurk around anarchist black cat i wouldn't have even known this conference existed.
A Reportback From the Class Struggle Anarchist Conference
Authored by: Dead End on Sunday, November 01 2009 @ 11:32 PM UTC
American anarchism, period, is a tendency of mostly isolated radicals---whether it is class struggle, insurrectionary, post-leftist, primitivist or what have you. The reasons differ, of course, but we are all largely irrelevant to various extents.

As far as jargon goes, this tendency can be accused of many things, but jargon is not one of them, especially if we're going to compare it to the often impenetrable manifestos coming out every other week, reproduced here among other places, of the dominant insurrectionary strand of anarchism.

I'm assuming you didn't read the article, or scanned it so quickly that you neglected to see the panels that had people in the IWW and their interactions with co-workers pertaining to anarchism or the 2 worker centers and 1 direct action casework panel that I described. That would address your concerns about doing practical work with people.

"writing, speaking and connecting with working people in their own language?"

Their language? What is 'their' language? You are either advancing the notion of a monolithic block of semi-illiterate workers who need every thing dumbed down considerably or that whatever I described was so academically dense as to be unapproachable by anyone without an education of some sort. Both sentiments would be false.

"If your goal is to involve working class people in your movement, then shouldn't a conference be open?"

Unless, I missed something, this was not a conference of CEO's, industrialists, bureaucrats or middle management, so automatically working class people make up the entirety of the movement. Also, short term goals of a conference (building working relationships between groups) can differ from long term goals of a tendency (building a large working class movement). Or should we refuse to use money of any sort during the time of the conference because the abolition of currency may be part of some of our goals?

The reason it is not an open conference is because it is not meant to be Anarchism 101, nor can I imagine are the resources there for such a thing. If, in the future, a UK style Anarchist Movement Conference can be pulled off, which is open to anyone and everyone (literally thousands of people), that would be great. People here can barely organize a gathering without some crazy nonsense going on (see Pittsburgh).

It's also not the purpose of the conference to get together class struggle anarchists, primitivists, insurrectionarys, anarcho-punks, post-leftists, primitivists, pseudo-third world nationalists, queer separatists, mutualists, ancaps, and Alan Moore enthusiasts so they can have a real life experience of what anarchist internet comment sections look like. I know I'm not interested in a synthesist conference, at all. I wouldn't help organize one, nor would I attend.

But as of now, it's either this or the Crimethinc convergence, which is implicitly invite only by way of how it's organized (camping in the wild, dumpstered food, etc). That is the state of American anarchism.
A Reportback From the Class Struggle Anarchist Conference
Authored by: talia on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 01:07 PM UTC
If CrimethInc. camps in the wild, they're being exclusive. If they attempt to answer these critiques by holding their convergence in the city, they're gentrifying. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
A Reportback From the Class Struggle Anarchist Conference
Authored by: corporatecrimina on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 02:56 PM UTC
There's a difference between someone choosing not to go to the Crimethinc Convergence because it's not their scene and not going to CSAC because the organizers have made it clear that they're not welcome there.

I agree that anarchist events that aren't invite-only can also be exclusive. And I think you're right, the state of anarchism in the U.S. is either this model of formal, membership-based, invitation-based groups or the alternative of informal groups that revolve around social scenes that are limited to small cliques of friends. My question is how can we change that? How can we encourage the spread of anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist thought and action? I think having a movement that revolves around events that are explicitly or implicitly invite-only isn't particularly helpful on that front.
A Reportback From the Class Struggle Anarchist Conference
Authored by: socraticpunk on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 03:34 PM UTC
It's about building relationships and the work people do. If people see what's going on as valuable, there's no reason that they can't reach out to groups doing these things to help expand on it. If people come up with other means for carrying the struggle out that have proven effectiveness, then you'd more than likely also be greeted with open arms. Many of us just don't want to see infighting, moving the movement forward is far more important.
A Reportback From the Class Struggle Anarchist Conference
Authored by: Necrotic State on Monday, November 02 2009 @ 08:19 AM UTC
I have no problem whatsoever with an invite-only event. Opening it up would make sense if its an intro to anarchy kind of thing, but not for strategizing and such. I've seen too many events ruined by allowing just anyone in -- especially when you let people in who are not in general agreement with you (not to mention cops, fascists, etc). It just wastes everyone's time. That said, I also think it's important to critically question one's own tendency. As a strong sympathizer with the class war folks, it has some problems that are as unresolved now as they were ten years ago. On the plus side, good on these folks to hosting a social night at a bar. That's one way to reach out, believe it or not. And as for appealing to regular folks, some day we'll realize that we are them. One last thing: PCWC is going to be in NYC in a few weeks, so if there are some class war folks that want to meet up for beers, hit us up!
A Reportback From the Class Struggle Anarchist Conference
Authored by: Perica on Monday, November 02 2009 @ 12:48 PM UTC
I really really like the focus on worker centers. Houston has an interfaith worker justice center [http://hiwj.org], and while there is tons of room to critique or find in un-anarchist, it has been way more efficient in supporting worker organizing (most of which is autonomous from unions) and supporting workers in class struggles than any anarchist project in Houston that I've come into contact with in the last 5 years. They facilitate weekly placticas/trainings for workers and have documented more than a million dollars of wage theft as well as won tens of thousands of dollars of back from employers who didn't want to pay. While many of them are awfully christian, they are very radical and have started and supported multiple struggles related to worker rights and immigrant rights. While couching political arguments in religious terms is certainly not my politics, it has proved very useful in addressing workers and bosses in a conservative and often religious town.

I'd love to see documentation and ideas about how worker centers can be organized along anarchist principles, and how the work can be sustained outside of the 501c(3) framework.

I also disagree with Chucks assesment that because this conference was for a target audience or people already using a specific organizing strategy means that it is somehow willfully "ghettoizing." My experience with worker centers, as well as what is written here indicates that these projects reach a much broader audience (and a more "useful" audience, if you are coming from a class struggle perspective) that radical bookstores and infoshops.
A Reportback From the Class Struggle Anarchist Conference
Authored by: Admin on Monday, November 02 2009 @ 01:00 PM UTC
I just have lots of doubts about the efficacy of the current class struggle anarchist sub-movement. I have the same doubts about the rest of anarchism. I think people should spend more time building their own projects, instead of sniping and attacking this or that tendency of anarchism for "holding things back."

Chuck
A Reportback From the Class Struggle Anarchist Conference
Authored by: socraticpunk on Monday, November 02 2009 @ 01:42 PM UTC
Having attended the conference, the discussion was never about sectarianism or attacking other "sub-movements." For your comments, I'd prefer a non-reactionary critique that looks at what happened and is going on in the movement, rather than uninformed retorts to peoples' efforts.
A Reportback From the Class Struggle Anarchist Conference
Authored by: socraticpunk on Monday, November 02 2009 @ 03:03 PM UTC
Reading the replies from everyone, I think it important to note a few items about purpose and on-the-ground observation that everyone is neglecting to acknowledge.

The point of the conference's invite only isn't to be divisive, but to make sure actual work and conversation occurs. Knowing the prevalence of "Smack a White-Boy," "Ultra-Catronist" type (a)politics and at the current time- as mentioned already- it ultimately makes sense to have an invite only basis. Likewise, much of the inviting had more to do with what networks people have built and who is able to come. Case and point, through contact with WSA members that attended a forum at Purdue- set up by the Purdue Alliance of Libertarian Socialists- people were able to start talking about their place within the movement. This contact lead to PALS being invited to the conference, though the group still takes the informal network model that most anarchists wet themselves over these days. So, if people are interested in these kinds of events, maybe establishing some ties to groups like NEFAC, Common Action, etc would be beneficial. Just a friendly piece of advice.

Furthermore, I'd like to see some actual evidence for claims that Crimethinc reaches and is accessible to people other than punk subculturists. I apologize for the terminology, but having been a punk subculturist for some time I don't mean any offense by it. Having participated with Crimethinc in the past, I didn't and don't see it as having the potential for reaching a mass base or being anything other than subculture (something that the post-left tends to brag about and support, i.e. statements like "I have no interest in building a mass movement"). Evidence for this is the age, gender, orientation spread seen at CSAC which is far more representative than the other movements within anarchism that I've experienced. I will say that there is a lack of racial diversity in all groups, but it is more evident with Crimethinc/insurrectionist tendencies.

The entire point of the conference was about building the anarchist movement to not be something marginalized and irrelevant. The fact that anarchist workers centers, that provide on the ground support to people outside the movement, are a common theme in the groups representing "class-struggle" anarchism shows that there is little to no desire to be insular. Getting together for a conference to discuss these prospects in a concerted manner is not exclusionary, it's a logical following for trying to attempt to build a meaningful movement. It is also not back-patting for reaching the same conclusions, which I would venture to say this is the only part of the movement I've experienced that DOESN'T fall victim to this at their gatherings. It's about work.

We don't have time during the strengthening of the State and Capitalism to run about willy-nilly, especially considering the amount of working going into those two. I can't see any better way than having some form of unity in politics and direct contact with workers, social movements for combating these two monstrosities, period.
A Reportback From the Class Struggle Anarchist Conference
Authored by: Al Ligator on Thursday, November 05 2009 @ 11:41 AM UTC
"Furthermore, I'd like to see some actual evidence for claims that Crimethinc reaches and is accessible to people other than punk subculturists."

Have you seen their publication, "Rolling Thunder"?
It is not like some punk zine, it is meant to be accessible to the average joe, it's even fucking glossy and shit instead of a zine copied 100 times over.
(Not that I'm opposed to zines, shit, in the 1920's, people like Severino Di Giovanni in Argentina had trouble printing his work because revolutionary material was outlawed, and no printer would print his stuff for fear of repression by the authorities, being able to freely make copies is something I don't take for granted)

I'm not a part of the crimethInc. group but for the most part, I dig their stuff, even if it is a little too-acitivisty sometimes.

In the beginning they may have had a more adventurist bent because, well, there wasn't as much resistance going on then - they were 'dreaming of new possibilities' in an economy that was plentiful, but a social landscape that was dead. And one lesson I'll never forget from them is the realization that these are our lives, they are very finite, and we should fight for pleasure, (not just survival) in our life instead of some future revolution we may never see.
Now we find ourselves in a different situation, the economy is going to shit, but there is more conscious anti-authoritarian resistance, so what can we do with that?
A Reportback From the Class Struggle Anarchist Conference
Authored by: c. alexander on Monday, November 02 2009 @ 03:38 PM UTC
first, Thanks to the friend who posted the report on the CSACII.

a couple of things to say:
- infoshop still continues to be one the biggest online resources for anarcho news. despite differences, some major, props to ChuckO.

-the CSAC was not a "platformist" gathering. some groups take cue's from the paltform seeing it as a "living document" that needs to be put into its historical context with key points on organization to be further debated and assessed for their relevance.

other groups at the CSAC might me membership groups but may be syndicalist ie. WSA. other groups still might consider themselves fellow travelers of the broad anarchist and revolutionary camp and while having a "class" concept see the limits of viewing the entire System solely through the lens of class. many of us take a more nuanced view of the global capitalist and authoritarian social organization of society. but one of the weakness of current anarchism is that it has few links and little base in the masses of people, the marginalized, and the poor. as sh*t gets worse people are going to looking around for some answers - anarchism in any of its forms is far behind various authoritarian ideals whether of the Democratic, Republican, Religious sects, or fascists. and where anarchism is present it has few models of social survival and resistance on any (semi)mass scale.

- the invite WAS based on the various relationships, networks and previous histories of working with one another. the conference was a space to explore common work and issues. it was also envisioned as a place to debate and start some basic conversations around whats facing us and the need for different approaches to work and organizing

-uh, yeah. people can hate on the CSAC. people can call it elitist or whatever, but no group participating is against broader gatherings or collaboration. but at the same time they urge for smaller and more focused discussions if necessary.
A Reportback From the Class Struggle Anarchist Conference
Authored by: MD on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 03:58 AM UTC
I have no problem with this conference or the "invites only" thing. Actually sounds pretty intressting although i may have a different opinion about many of the conclusions and so on. But i still get annoyed that only platformists and syndicalists gets to be interested in class struggle or communism. Whats up with that false divide?

---
Omnia sunt Communia!
A Reportback From the Class Struggle Anarchist Conference
Authored by: laozi on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 01:16 PM UTC
yeah really i must second this.

why is that?

i mean many insurrectionists believe in class struggle, but then go further and argue for social struggle (social war if you will) as well.

many insurrectionists (modesto anarcho, war on misery, etc) argue for intervening with their class and autonomous initiatives within it and argue for more direct action than liberal reformist activism.

i have a critique of the left (i guess that makes me post-left) but i also give a shit about anti-capitalist class struggle? why can i or others like me not be invited?

i think the problem is this false dichotomy between "organizationalists" and "insurrectionists" that is perceived to still be true. platformist communists and class struggle syndicalists are obviously not doing a good job of agitating and organizing with other class struggle anarchists if they keep on neglecting to try to work with folks they deem to be too "unorganized" or not part of their groups or networks...

...if anything this recent upsurge in "insurrectionist" thought demonstrates that the new generation is actually interested in class struggle but not that alone. they wish to go further and address social struggle. many have even started to discuss the "networking" of formal affinity groups or "crews"

i don't know. i just don't get the hesitation. i think insurrectionary types only hesitation of their own is that they distrust class struggle groups commitments to other struggles. they want to end to all forms of domination. not just red and black issues but also green, purple, pink, yellow, orange, blue, etc...
A Reportback From the Class Struggle Anarchist Conference
Authored by: socraticpunk on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 03:21 PM UTC
I think we're all guilty of being exclusionary in some ways, because I don't remember seeing class struggle as a topic at any Crimethinc events I've been to. At the same time, I stand by what I said before when it comes to making sure effective work gets accomplished.

What you're mentioning is more a lack of communication between sects than anything. The workshops during the conference included such as queering anarchism, intersectionality, and housing. These might not necessarily be the totality for social struggle, but are definitely important components. Being an anarchist, to me, means fighting hierarchy in whatever form it takes, not reducing all forms of oppression to class or economics; this is what separates us from Marxists right? That said, if we are going to fight on all fronts, then it makes more sense to unite all of these struggles with an emphasis on effective practice. If this is going to happen, then I think having some form of theoretical unity (i.e. a coherent definition of Capitalism and/or Patriarchy that is widely agreed upon) that leads to the fore mentioned practice.

So, I don't think anyone at the class-struggle end is anything beyond just an anarchist. The point is building effective, consistent strategy rather than just short-term goals that rarely result in victory or reaching out to the greater community. I hope that this clarifies some difference between approaches.

P.s. if you want to help or to attend next time, let's start building a relationship now and I'm pretty sure I can get you invited!
A Reportback From the Class Struggle Anarchist Conference
Authored by: MD on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 05:42 PM UTC
Again with the false dichotomy. Why do you put me together with crimetinc? I have as little to do with them as anything else.

I understand that we have different apporaches and perspectives. Thats fine. But why do you call platformists and syndicalists "classwar anarchists", and the rest....something else? I dont understand that, im just as involved in the class struggle as anyone else.

---
Omnia sunt Communia!
A Reportback From the Class Struggle Anarchist Conference
Authored by: socraticpunk on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 09:52 PM UTC
I wasn't meaning to, it's just my experience that other parts of the movement neglect certain parts.
A Reportback From the Class Struggle Anarchist Conference
Authored by: terracide on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 10:43 AM UTC
so my problem with "Class Struggle Anarchism" is simple I think it doesn't a lot room for people to define their own relationship with capitalism and social relationships.

Most of BB! early communiques talked about the mainstream queer movement selling out working class queers.

I think my problem with "class struggle anarchism" is I think it simplifies all struggles into fitting into class, while many can and should relate to each other, I think to only think in terms of libertarian socialism seems odd to me.

Also NCOR existed a few years ago that brought together loads of different types of anarchists from around the United States. The New York Anarchist Book Fair also kinda rules.
A Reportback From the Class Struggle Anarchist Conference
Authored by: socraticpunk on Thursday, November 05 2009 @ 04:39 PM UTC
Again- and the point was made in this thread already- there was conversation directed entirely toward the issue of being class-reductionist and nobody was in disagreement that such reductions should be avoided. There was also a very well attended queer caucus speaking to the question of the role of the queer movement, so if we want to consider the reductionism of groups I think it warrants looking at the evidence (rather than using knee-jerk reactions). If anarchists aren't supposed to be reductionist about their goals, the current amalgamation of BB! seems to be doing far worse about it than "class struggle" anarchists. Compare conference schedules and see which one talks about insular topics more.

How does one go about "defining their own relationship to Capitalism" exactly? I'm not really sure what that means or whether it's a logical concept anyway. Do you mean having your own definition of Capitalism? Deciding where you fit into Capitalism? I'm confused. I think this has more to do with the focus of attempting to affect Capitalism and I don't see how having a consistent definition hurts that cause. Why? If there are 10,000 different definitions of what Capitalism is floating around, then how do you intend to fight what it actually is? To tie it in with what was written above, if you concentrate your time on defining social relationships exclusively, then you leave economic issues to the side- which of the two in your daily life is harder to control? I definitely have no problem controlling who I talk to, how I relate to them, or how I fuck. I do have a problem with the ability to eat and have a roof over my head, on a fairly regular basis.

So, tying the social into the economic/political is direly important, just like tying the economic/political to the social is as well. I think having some understanding about who IS working with the making these knots is very important.
A Reportback From the Class Struggle Anarchist Conference
Authored by: Thugarchist on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 10:38 PM UTC
Laozi,

Why do you think having an invite only conference with groups that have been working together for awhile and are trying to build closer relationships means there's any disregard for folks who aren't part of the participating groups (and therefore not invited? I wouldn't consider myself a platformist and I'm certainly not in any way a syndicalist. I am a member of a participating organization though. So I went to the conference.

Most of the people who were there are either members of the anarchist groups participating or personally and politically close to one or more of them. This wasn't an open call out. It was people who are working on similar projects with similar politics getting together to figure out how to work together better.

I'm frankly surprised that anarchists would have a problem with the concept of freedom of assembly, solidarity and affiliation.
A Reportback From the Class Struggle Anarchist Conference
Authored by: Admin on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 11:09 PM UTC
Good point. Anarchists should always respect that our ideas about freedom of association means that groups have a right to set the criteria for membership, attendance, policies and so on. You would think that anarchists, of all people, would understand this, but so many anarchists don't get this.

Chuck
A Reportback From the Class Struggle Anarchist Conference
Authored by: Thugarchist on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 11:53 PM UTC
I was pretty impressed with the focus of the conference btw. The workshops and discussions were totally focused on practical stuff relevant to the politics of the groups who were participating. There wasn't one single bit of insulting other tendencies at all. The one time I heard CrimethInc. come up was someone pointing out that they have better design and production value on lit than any of our groups do. Very exciting, enjoyable and productive gathering of folks for me.

And Chuck thats saying something. You know how much I hate being near anarchists. ;)
A Reportback From the Class Struggle Anarchist Conference
Authored by: Al Ligator on Thursday, November 05 2009 @ 11:48 AM UTC
I consider myself an insurrectionary anarchist, but I think I approach things a little more differently than others who use that moniker.
I could give a fuck less about name-dropping and theories that are uncomprehensible.
But a class/social war should be fought, and I think we still have a lot to learn as far as actually encouraging a constant critical assessment of the situations we find ourselves in as crisis and crisis (read: opportunity & opportunity) arises in our lives.
I don't give a fuck if the current anarchist movement dies tommorrow, I have read enough history to know that there will always be resistance to oppression popping up in places we didn't see it coming. I could give a fuck less about those in the movement who are trying to be a cult of personality,or trying to bring some ideological-as-fuck revolution on, I got friends that have my back for life, and we have our own desires.