Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 30 2006 @ 07:51 AM CST

Sorry for any misunderstanding on the use of terms "anarchist-communist" and "insurrectionalist"... I come from South America, Chile, and there we use the term "anarco-comunista" as a synonym of Platformists (a word we don't use actually much). Anarchist communists of other types use "comunista libertario" or "anarquista comunista" more often. So that's really what I mean. Sorry if the translation could be a bit misleading from that point of view and in order to avoid that becoming a hindrance to proper understanding of what I'm trying to say, I clarify that.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 30 2006 @ 11:03 AM CST

(1) It is unclear to me whether ChuckO is just against the labels of organizationalist/ anti-organizationalist anarchism or whether he is denying that there is an issue in dispute among anarchists. If the first, I do not see why he has so much emotion invested in this matter of labels. If the second, then he is virtually alone in denying that there is a real debate among anarchists on this topic.

(2) Personally I dislike the use of the label Insurrectionist, since it implies that other anarchists are not for insurrections (that is, revolutions). Actually we are for eventual mass uprisings. I dislike the use of the term Individualist anarchist, because it implies that collectivist anarchists are not for individual freedom. I dislike the term Green anarchist ( by primitivists) or Social ecologists (by Bookchinians), because they imply that other anarchists do not care about the ecological crisis. I even dislike the use of term anarchist-communist (and have said so to my comrades) because, to most U.S. workers, communism signifies totalitarian state-Communism (as opposed to the vaguer term socialist).

But I have to accept that these are the generally used labels, whether I like them or not. I live with it. There are more important things to get excited about. If ChuckO thinks that he can change the internationally accepted term, organizational anarchism, by his complaints, then good luck to him.

(3) BTW, neither I nor anyone I know has called ChuckO an anti-organizationalist anarchist. He has neither worked to build specifically anarchist federations nor worked to prevent them from being built. Therefore it would be wrong to label him as either pro- or anti- organizationalist (in the sense of being for or against specific anarchist federations within the broader movement).

Wayne

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Admin on Saturday, December 30 2006 @ 11:33 AM CST

Hi Wayne,

I think you've given a hint as to why many anarchists don't like labels or reluctantly identify with hyphenated versions. This is one reason I just call myself an "anarchist" or "anarchist without adjectives." I identify myself this way because I think it minimizes the baggage associated with the different terms. My actual politics, if you talk to me about them over a period of time, is far more complex than any label.

I'm actually in favor of workplace organizing, federations, class struggle and so on. I prefer to support those ideas in the ways that work for me. I'm uncomfortable with pinning a label on myself that reads "class war anarchist" and I don't like anarchists who reify class struggle anarchism or the label. I also don't like anarchists who play games with who is and isn't a working class anarchist. I'm a working person who has worked numerous wage slave jobs. I have to pay the bills and deal with a system that penalizes working people without capital. I hate bosses. All of this motivates me as an anarchist. I don't go around calling myself a "class struggle anarchist," but I think my daily activism, networking and organizing help build the foundation for the bigger class struggle.

I'm also sympathetic to anarchists who are "on the other side", such as Zerzan, the primmies, the individualists, the nihilists and so on. I think that these people have interesting things to say and they are involved in sueful struggle and activism. I've also learned from really talking to anarchists that we have much more in common than we have differences. Labels are a problem because they oversimplify and create divisions that look bigger than they actually are. I know class struggle anarchists who are concerned about the environment. I know primmies who are working class people who get pretty fired up about bosses. There are probably a few primmie Wobs out there.

I've used the "anti-organizationalist" label to describe myself several times in the past, although I use it less often these days. I feel an affinity for that tendency because they are asking some tough questions about organization and strategy. I'm always interested in being self-critical about my own pariticipation in groups and organizations. I also want to be critical of big strategies. I can understand why people push a label that describes a big strategy to create something like a revolution, but I would hope that even these folks are critical and have doubts. There haven't really been any successful anarchist revolutions, so our level of experiential knowledge is quite low. We do know what works in terms of workplace organizing and dissent, but we know far less about taking these tactics and strategy to new levels.

I'm in favor of federations and I'll do what I can to support ones that exist.

Is there a real debate among anarchists about the topic of organization. Sure there is and it goes back for over a century. "Anti-organizationalist" was a word that was even being used in the U.S. anarchist movement as far back as 1899. Of course, the word has meant different things. I think that the current debate over that topic involves a bunch of talking past each other and not enough reflection on what people are actually arguing. Much of this debate is pure politics--people have set positions that are critical of the other side. My beef with the labels "anti-organizationalist" and "pro-organization" is that the obscure some deeper discussions about strategy and tactics. I think that the positions held by the "pro-organization" side have been oversimplified by critics. It's really unfair to them to describe their positions as being "quasi Leninist" or whatever. I also think that it's been unfair to those in the "anti-organizationalist" camp to describe them as being toally against organizations, or favoring "structurelessness" and so on. There is a spectrum of opinions among this tendency, ranging from the nihilists who want to tear everythign down first, to people who just don't like mass or leftist organizations, to people who are critical of reified forms of social relationships that produce alienation and mediation between people. The latter is the more interesting critique of organizational fetishism, because anarchists really want people to interact with each other directly and organically. Formal organizations are usually highly artificial constructs with sets of processes and rules that govern how people interact with each other.

Anyay, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Chuck

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 30 2006 @ 04:42 PM CST

Thats it? Nothing about how the basis of your argument is false?

[ Reply to This | # ]