Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 30 2003 @ 10:52 AM CDT

Furthermore, given the criticisms of political organizations in this article, why does the author think that anarchists should form mass organizations?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 30 2003 @ 04:14 AM CDT

From the article:

\"Affinity groups can then build base structures, mass organizations with precise objectives and a hostile position towards all political forces.\"


Doesn\'t being against \"all political forces\" part contradict the possibility of having \"mass organizations\"? Aren\'t \"mass organizations\" big and alienated enough to have a form of de facto politics come about?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 30 2003 @ 02:47 PM CDT

Autonomous Base Nucleus

Mass structures, autonomous base nuclelii are the element linking the specific informal anarchist organisation to social struggles.
The autonomous base nucleus is not an entirely new form of struggle. Attempts have been made to develop these structures in Italy over the past ten years. The most notable of these was the Autonomous Movement of the Turin Railway Workers(l), and the Self-managed leagues against the cruise missile base in Comiso(2).

We believe the revolutionary struggle is without doubt a mass struggle. We therefore see the need to build structures capable of organising as many groups of exploited as possible.

We have always considered the syndicalist perspective critically both because of its limitations as an instrument, and because of its tragic historical involution that no anarchist lick of paint can cover up. So we reached the hypothesis of building autonomous base nuclei lacking the characteristics of mini-syndicalist structures, having other aims and organisational relations.

A considerable barrier of reticence and incomprehension has been met among comrades.

Through these structures an attempt has been made to link the specific anarchist movement to social struggles. A considerable barrier of reticence and incomprehension has been met among comrades and this has been an obstacle in realizing this organisational method. It is in moments of action that differences emerge among comrades who all agree in principle with anarchist propaganda, the struggle against the State, self-management and direct action. When we move into an organisational phase, however, we must develop a project that is in touch with the present level of the clash between classes.

We believe that due to profound social transformation it is unthinkable for one single structure to try to contain all social and economic struggle within it. In any case, why should the exploited have to enter and become part of a specific anarchist organisation in order to carry out their struggle?

A radical change in the way society-exploitation-is being run can only be achieved by revolution. That is why we are trying to intervene with an insurrectional project. Struggles of tomorrow will only have a positive outcome if the relationship between informal specific anarchist structure and the mass structure of autonomous base nuclei is clarified and put into effect.

The main aim of the nucleus is not to abolish the State or Capital, which are practicably unattackable so long as they remain a general concept. The objective of the nucleus is to fight and attack this State and this Capital in their smaller and more attainable structures, having recourse to an insurrectional method.

The autonomous base groups are mass structures and constitute the point of encounter between the informal anarchist organisation and social struggles.

The organisation within the nucleus distinguishes itself by the following characteristics:

1. autonomy from any political, trade union or syndical force;

2. permanent conflictuality (a constant and effective struggle towards the aims that are decided upon, not sporadic occasional interventions);

3. attack (the refusal of compromise, mediation or accommodation that questions the attack on the chosen objective).

As far as aims are concerned, these are decided upon and realized through attacks upon the repressive, military and productive structures, etc. The importance of permanent conflictuality and attack is fundamental.

the objective of the nucleus is to fight and attack this State and this Capital in their smaller and more attainable structures

These attacks are organised by the nucleii in collaboration with specific anarchist structures which provide practical and theoretical support, developing the search for the means required for the action pointing out the structures and individuals responsible for repression, and offering a minimum of defense against attempts at political or ideological recuperation by power or against repression pure and simple.

At first sight the relationship between specific anarchist organization and autonomous base nucleus might seem contradictory. The specific structure follows an insurrectional perspective, while the base nuclelii seem to be in quite another dimension, that of intermediate struggle. But this struggle only remains such at the beginning. If the analysis on which the project is based coincides with the interests of the exploited in the situation in which they find themselves, then an insurrectional outcome to the struggle is possible. Of course this outcome is not certain. That cannot be guaranteed by anyone.

This method has been accused of being incomplete and of not taking into account the fact that an attack against one or more structures always ends up increasing repression. Comrades can reflect on these accusations. We think it is never possible to see the outcome of a struggle in advance. Even a limited struggle can have the most unexpected consequences. And in any case, the passage from the various insurrections-limited and circumscribed-to revolution can never be guaranteed in advance by any procedure. We go forward by trial and error, and say to whoever has a better method-carry on.

o.v.

(1) See Workers\' Autonomy\' (Bratach Dubh);

(2) See Insurrection No. 0

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 30 2003 @ 03:49 PM CDT

You can call a mass organization an \"autonomous base nucleus\" if you want to, but it is still a mass organization, and will still be structured like one. Furthermore, I find the whole idea of anarchists forming separate, ideologically-based mass organizations in order to influence social struggles to be an obnoxious remnant of leftist thinking in our movement - and the sooner such ideas are discarded, the better.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 30 2003 @ 04:21 PM CDT

Furthermore, I find the whole idea of anarchists forming separate, ideologically-based mass organizations in order to influence social struggles to be an obnoxious remnant of leftist thinking in our movement - and the sooner such ideas are discarded, the better.

Last I checked, \"ideologically-based organizations\" and \"mass organizations\" were two totally seperate things. Do you even think before you write your tired and predictable critiques, or do you just keep some post-left flashcards by your computer?

Furthermore, I find the whole idea of anarchists forming separate, ideologically-based mass organizations in order to influence social struggles to be an obnoxious remnant of leftist thinking in our movement - and the sooner such ideas are discarded, the better.

As opposed to the obnoxious remanents of pre-anarchist individualism?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 30 2003 @ 04:31 PM CDT

Flamebait deleted.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 30 2003 @ 04:39 PM CDT

To satisfy Mark\'s objection, let me re-phrase my previous statement:

Furthermore, I find the whole idea of anarchists forming separate, ideologically-based organizations [or, as this author puts it, \"specific anarchist structures\"] in order to influence social struggles to be an obnoxious remnant of leftist thinking in our movement - and the sooner such ideas are discarded, the better.

In any event, the way that \"autonomous base nuclei\" are described in the passage posted by Insurgent-S makes them look exactly like ideologically-based organizations.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 30 2003 @ 05:11 PM CDT

To satisfy Mark\'s objection, let me re-phrase my previous statemenyt

Thanks. Now you come off as irrelevant, as opposed to simply ignorant.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 30 2003 @ 06:59 PM CDT

Oh, good comeback, Mark! How can I compete with your theoretical rigor and crystal-clear exposition? Go back to nursery school, boy.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 30 2003 @ 07:24 PM CDT

Its does seem like you did not actually read the article. Both the \"Actvist Practice\" and Autonomous Base Nucleus article from the Insurrection magazine specifically describe the base structure as a non-anarchist specific organization. From an insurrectionary anarchist perspective these organizations should be against any ideology (as rigid and dogmatic science of ideas), including anarchism. At the same time, there is nothing about masses of people organizing and attacking capitalism that contradicts anarchist communism. We simply propose that no single organization should act like a political party, whether they are an anarchist union or federations or something else, and attempt to act as the controlling center of the struggle, from beginning to end.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 30 2003 @ 08:11 PM CDT

I would humbly suggest that the various parts of this proposed non-anarchist org be kept small in a cellular form and operate on a strict \'need to know\' secuity conscious manner.(That is if you don\'t want to commit suicide like lemmings.)
We have seen a functioning Animal Liberation Front,an Earth Liberation Front so I see no reason not form an International Liberation Front especially one performing full spectrum resistance.Believing global revolution is possible is just the beginning.
Good luck with your mission.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 30 2003 @ 09:00 PM CDT

Well, Insurgent,

You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand you insist that these \"autonomous base nuclei\" - or mass organizations - should be against any ideology; yet your second post defines them in this way:

The autonomous base groups are mass structures and constitute the point of encounter between the informal anarchist organisation and social struggles.

The organisation within the nucleus distinguishes itself by the following characteristics:

1. autonomy from any political, trade union or syndical force;

2. permanent conflictuality (a constant and effective struggle towards the aims that are decided upon, not sporadic occasional interventions);

3. attack (the refusal of compromise, mediation or accommodation that questions the attack on the chosen objective).

As far as aims are concerned, these are decided upon and realized through attacks upon the repressive, military and productive structures, etc. The importance of permanent conflictuality and attack is fundamental.

the objective of the nucleus is to fight and attack this State and this Capital in their smaller and more attainable structures

These attacks are organised by the nuclei in collaboration with specific anarchist structures which provide practical and theoretical support, developing the search for the means required for the action pointing out the structures and individuals responsible for repression, and offering a minimum of defense against attempts at political or ideological recuperation by power or against repression pure and simple.

Now, this description of mass organizations sounds extremely ideological to me; these structures are to be created with a particular ideological perspective in mind, and to receive constant ideological guidance from \"specific anarchist structures\". It is precisely this notion that anarchists need to provide any kind of guidance or \"leadership of ideas\" to social struggles that I find so reminiscent of traditional leftist political organizing, and so objectionable. Furthermore, you have not addressed the concern originally raised in this discussion that any type of mass organization will inevitably develop some type of political - and hence bureaucratic and alienating - structure.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 01 2003 @ 07:25 PM CDT

I can\'t believe Chis Day hasnt posted 100 comments to this article yet. Maybe he doesnt have the time, with all that organizing of the masses he does.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 02 2003 @ 02:46 AM CDT

I can\'t believe you people spend so much time obsessing over Chris Day. Maybe you all should spend a little more time organizing the masses.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 02 2003 @ 01:36 PM CDT

mahkno, i think insurgent will agree that by mass organization(or autonomour base necleii) he means an insurrectionary group that gets involved with a community based group who aer struggling against a specific manifestation of the state or capital, and trying to help that group achieve their goal, while providing insurrctionary attack and no-compromise as a method of struggle for the community group, and also relaying to that group the ideas of the insurrectionary group, but not making the community group into anything more than a single-issue community group, although with the aim and hope that insurrectional ideas will come to be seen as a favorable way to liberation, and then those who think that could then form their own insurrectionary group(s). blah... i hope that makes some sense.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 02 2003 @ 01:39 PM CDT

mahkno, i think insurgent will agree that by mass organization(or autonomour base necleii) he means an insurrectionary group that gets involved with a community based group who aer struggling against a specific manifestation of the state or capital, and trying to help that group achieve their goal, while providing insurrctionary attack and no-compromise as a method of struggle for the community group, and also relaying to that group the ideas of the insurrectionary group, but not making the community group into anything more than a single-issue community group, although with the aim and hope that insurrectional ideas will come to be seen as a favorable way to liberation, and then those who think that could then form their own insurrectionary group(s). blah... i hope that makes some sense.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 02 2003 @ 03:47 PM CDT

Oh, good comeback, Mark! How can I compete with your theoretical rigor and crystal-clear exposition? Go back to nursery school, boy.

Does Makhno remind anyone else of Rick Mayall\'s charachter from \'The Young Ones\'?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 02 2003 @ 05:33 PM CDT

actually thats the first post ive ever seen critisizing chris day himself instead of his ideas

thousands of people visit this site, a tiny few actually post anything

[ Reply to This | # ]