user preferences

Debate: Insurrection vs. Organization

category international | anarchist movement | debate author Tuesday April 10, 2007 18:10author by Peter Gelderloos Report this post to the editors

Reflections from Greece on a Pointless Schism

Splits within the anarchist movement in Greece reflect a schism that runs throughout the movement internationally, and also mirror a debate that is growing in the US anarchist movement. At a theoretical level, this is the debate between insurrection and organization. However, the situation in Greece, and elsewhere, shows insurrectionary and organizationalist approaches to be compatible, if anarchists can finally drop that lingering Western monotheistic worldview that is the cause of much factionalism. This article examines the strengths and weaknesses of insurrectionary and organizational positions, and then analyzes four articles, two from each side, that have come out in recent months.

Insurrection vs. Organization

Reflections from Greece on a Pointless Schism
by Peter Gelderloos

“I consider it terrible that our movement, everywhere, is degenerating into a swamp of petty personal quarrels, accusations, and recriminations. There is too much of this rotten thing going on, particularly in the last couple of years.”
--out of a letter from Alexander Berkman to Senya Fleshin and Mollie Steimer, in 1928. Emma Goldman adds the postscript: “Dear children. I agree entirely with Sasha. I am sick at heart over the poison of insinuations, charges, accusations in our ranks. If that will not stop there is no hope for a revival of our movement.”

Fortunately, most anarchists in the US avoid any ideological orthodoxy and shun sectarian divides. Unfortunately, most of us also seem to avoid serious strategizing. Those who do take this on tend more towards one or another orthodoxy, and reading the pages of the country's anarchist journals an outsider would get the impression that the movement here is indeed sectarian. In fact there are many controversies, and no clear tectonic splits, but one divide that is growing more sharp is the same one that runs through much of Europe, the debate between insurrection and organization. The former overlap with post-Leftist anarchists, the latter are often anarchist-communists. Here in Greece, where I’ve spent the past couple weeks, the divide is very strong between insurrectionary anarchists associated with the Black Bloc, and the heavily organized Antiauthoritarian Movement (AK, in Greek).

In this and most other controversies I see anarchists becoming embroiled in, there seems to be a lingering affinity for certain Western values that are at the heart of the state and capitalism: a worldview based on dichotomies, and a logical structure that is startlingly monotheistic. For example, when there are two different strategies for revolution, many of us do not see this as two paths for different groups of people to walk, taking their own while also trying to understand the path of the Other, but as evidence that somebody must be Wrong (and it is almost certainly the Other).

Those of us who were raised with white privilege were trained to be very bad listeners, and it's a damn shame that we still haven't absorbed the emphasis on pluralism taught by the Magonistas and indigenous anarchists. I would love to blame our current disputes on the internet, because clearly it's so easy to be an asshole to somebody and sabotage any healthy, two-way conversation of differences if you've already abstracted them to words on a glowing screen, but schisms are much older than telecommunications (though no doubt our heavy reliance on the internet makes it more likely that disagreements will turn into counterproductive squabbles).

Call me naive but I think that a large part of the infighting can be chalked up to bad communication and a fundamentally monotheistic worldview more than to the actual substance of the differing strategies. No doubt, the substance is important. There are for example some necessary critiques of how the Left manages rebellion that have been circulated by (I hesitate to use easy labels but for convenience sake I’ll call them:) insurrectionary anarchists, but even if certain people have figured out all the right answers nothing will stop them from going the way of the first anarchist movement if we don’t all learn better ways of communicating, and understanding, our differences.

In Greece, the schism between insurrectionists and the Antiauthoritarian Movement has even led to physical fighting. There are people on both sides who have done fucked up things. The Black Bloc threw some molotovs at police in the middle of a melee, burning some of the protestors. People with AK bullied and beat up anarchists whom they suspected of stealing some computers from the university during an event AK organized, getting them in trouble. In response, some insurrectionists burned down the Antiauthoritarian Movement's offices in Thessaloniki. If we generalize, the stereotypes quickly step in to assure us that the other side is the enemy: "those disorganized insurrectionists are even throwing molotovs at other protestors!" or "those organizationalists are acting like the police of the movement." In each case, we can quickly see a preconstructed image of the lazy, chaotic insurrectionist, or the practically Marxist authoritarian so-called anarchist, and what we're doing is abstracting the actual people involved.

I don't want to suggest that certain or all of these groups don't have serious flaws they need to work on. I don’t even believe both sides are equally to blame. In fact I tend to get into pretty nasty throw-downs myself with people who prefer some bullshit, hippy “I’m okay, you’re okay, everyone’s okay” form of conflict resolution that avoids criticism in favour of an appearance of peace. But in Thessaloniki and Athena I met people from both sides, and most of them were very nice, people whom I would love to have as neighbors after we smashed the state together. Some of them badmouthed the other group, some of them were really trying to make peace, also talking critically to members of their own group who had wronged someone from the other side. On the whole, though, they are a minority, and the divide grows. Posters for a presentation I was giving in Athena got ripped down because the social center hosting me was associated with AK (though the people actually organizing the event and putting me up were not members, and tried to stay in the middle). The squat I stayed at in Thessaloniki was occupied by people aligned with the insurrectionists, and several of them told me not to mix with the AK people in Athena.

I might classify those problems as peculiar to Greece if I had not seen similar divides in Germany and Bulgaria, heard invective from the same kind of infighting in France spill over into the Montreal Anarchist Bookfair, and read plenty of these arguments in the anarchist press of the UK and US. Since the US is where I’m from and where I’ll return, I will focus on the schism as it appears there. Because most US anarchists seem to focus on their day to day activities, I think many have not taken sides in this schism, are not even aware of it. So to a certain extent it exists as a theoretical disagreement, without yet the improbable weight of strident personalities thrown into the fray (well, some people from Anarchy magazine or NEFAC might say otherwise), fixing intransigent frontlines by virtue of the fact that an ideology personified is all the more stubborn. So we have a greater opportunity, for now, to deal with the problem theoretically.

As a sort of appendix, I’ve included critiques of four essays from the two sides of the debate, but first I will generalize what I see as the strengths and weaknesses of each. Insurrectionists make a number of vital contributions, perhaps the most important being that the time is now, that the distinction between building alternatives and attacking capitalism is a false one. The critique of leftist bureaucracy as a recuperating force, the state within the movement that constantly brings rebellion back into the fold and preserves capitalism, is also right-on, though often the word “organization” is used instead of bureaucracy, which can confuse things because to many people even an affinity group is also a type of organization. Or it can lead to a certain fundamentalism, as some people do intend to excommunicate all formal organizations, even if they are understood by the participants as a temporary tool and not a “one big union.”

The insurrectionists also nurture a number of weaknesses. Their frequent criticisms of “activism” tend to be superficial and vague, reflecting more an inability to come to terms with their personal failures (or observed failures) in other modes of action, than any improved theoretical understanding, practically guaranteeing that the faults they encountered in activism will be replicated or simply inverted in whatever they end up doing as insurrectionists. (This point will be developed more in the appendix). There is also a certain lack of clarity in insurrectionist suggestions for action. Insurrectionists tend to do a good job in making a point of learning from people who are not anarchists, drawing on recent struggles in Mexico, Argentina, Algeria, and so on. However this also allows them to blur the difference between what is insurrectionary and what is insurrectionist. Much as most of them forswear ideology, by mining historical examples of insurrection to extract and distill a common theory and prescription for action, they earn that “ist” and distinguish what is insurrectionary from what is insurrectionist. They have perceptively grasped that what is insurrectionary in a social struggle is often the most effective, most honest, and most anarchist element of the struggle; but by seeing through an insurrectionist lens they discount or ignore all the other elements of the struggle to which the insurrectionary is tied, even, in many cases, on which it is based. In this instance the “ist” carries with it that monotheistic insistence that any elements reducible to another “ism” must be incorrect. So we are told to open our eyes when the people in Oaxaca burn buses and defend autonomous spaces, but close our eyes when the strikes carried out by the teachers’ union give birth in large part to the insurrection, when the rebels choose to organize themselves formally or above ground for a certain purpose.

Insurrectionists call for action inside or outside social movements, which I agree with. People should fight for themselves, for their own reasons and own lives, even if they have to fight alone. This is, after all, how many social movements exist at the beginning, before they are recognized as social movements. To contradict a criticism I have seen from some more organizationally minded anarchists, it is not at all vanguardist to take action first or even attempt to escalate actions, because fighting for your own reasons or attempting to inspire other people to action by example is quite the opposite of vanguardism. In fact a common sign of a vanguardist is one who objects to other people running ahead of the flock (and consequently ahead of the flock’s vanguard). However this insurrectionist stance is sometimes accompanied by a disparaging view of social movements, as though any movement is inherently authoritarian, inherently bureaucratic, inherently recuperative (in Green Anarchy I even read one fairly silly call for “momentum” instead of movements, though if the author of this piece was doing anything besides redefining “movement” as “the bad sort of movement” and defining everything else as “momentum” it wasn’t very clear, because of that preference for words instead of meanings fashionable among many (anti)political writers). But we should not underestimate the importance of social movements. I recently had the opportunity to spend five months among anarchists in the former Soviet bloc, primarily in Ukraina, Romania, and Bulgaria. Unanimously, the anarchists I met told me that the socialist dictatorships had destroyed and subsequently prevented any social movements, and left a legacy of people who hate and distrust the government (many of them are also dissatisfied with capitalism) but who also have no tradition or inclination to trust and participate in social movements, or even cooperate with their neighbors. The anarchist situation there is far bleaker than it is in the US: the anarchists are alone, isolated, without any clear starting point for action, much less insurrection. One Romanian anarchist said organizing in his home country was like going to a foreign country where you don’t speak the language and trying to build anarchy. (In Poland and Czechia, the anarchist movement is much stronger, and these are also the countries that developed dissident social movements in the ‘80s. Incidentally the dictatorship in Romania was toppled not by a movement but by an insurrection that was largely stage-managed—these too can be recuperated). In light of this, it seems a glaring absence that insurrectionists tend to avoid actions or analysis focused on building up social movement (if by movement we only mean a large informal network or population, that may include formal organizations, and that constitutes itself as a social force in response to perceived problems, initially acting outside the scope of previously routinized and institutionalized forms of social activity).

Insurrectionist suggestions for action tend to revolve around creating autonomous spaces that support us, allow us to practice communal, anarchist living now, and serve as a base for waging war against the state. This is as good as any other singular anarchist strategy, in fact it’s a good deal better than a few, but also like the other strategies in circulation it has already been defeated by the state. Insurrectionists in the US don’t even need to use that typical American excuse of amnesia; in this case, isolationism is to blame. The largely anarchist squatters’ movement that thrived across Western Europe in the ‘70s and ‘80s (and shadows of which still survive), including the German Autonomen, already attempted—in a very serious way—the same strategy that US insurrectionists are now circulating without any differences serious enough to be considered a revision or lesson from past failures. And they are likely, if they ever get a half of the momentum the Europeans had, which under present circumstances is improbable, to end up exactly the same way: an isolated, drug-addicted wasteland of ghettoized subculture frozen in a self-parodying gesture of defiance (yes, this is a pessimistic view, and one that discounts the several wonderful squats and social centers that are still hanging on, but I think insurrectionists would agree there's no point in looking for the bright side of a movement that has come to accommodate capitalism). It goes something like this: the state and the culture industry isolate them (operating almost like Daoist martial artists, pushing them in the direction they’re already going, only harder than they intended), by many accounts flood in addictive drugs, which come to fill a new need as the stress mounts from the prolonged state of siege brought about by frequent attacks from police; not everyone can live under those conditions, especially older folks and those with children drop out or turn to more escapist, less combative forms. The militants stay within their circle of barricades for so long that in-crowd aesthetics and mentalities entrench, they are, after all, at war with the rest of the world by now. Eventually the rebels lose any real connections with the outside world, and any possibility to spread the struggle. Thus weakened and lacking external solidarity, half the squats are evicted, one by one, and the others become exhausted and give up the fight.

Because of their proximity to that history, a particular group of French anarchists could not just ignore the weaknesses of the strategy. This group, the authors of Appel (Call), the most intelligent and insightful insurrectionist (if I can give it a label it has not claimed for itself) tract I have come across, hit the nail on the head when, advancing a more developed and lively form of this strategy, they pointed out that the squatters’ movement died because it stopped strategizing (and thus stopped growing and changing, stagnated). However, more than one nail is needed to hold the strategy together. Stagnation was the likely outcome of the squatters’ movement due to its very structure, and the consequent structure of state repression. The falling off of strategizing was a probable result of the strategy itself.

And what about the organizationalists? First I should note that this is a rather amorphous group, and few people actually identify themselves as organizationalists. A good part of them are the old or classical anarchists—anarchist-communists whose strategy rests in part on creating a strong federation of anarchists, or syndicalists building anarchist labor unions, or otherwise working in the labor movement. Some in this camp are social anarchists who prefer an involvement in mainstream society to waging anything that resembles war (class or insurrectionary). More than a few are anarchist activists working above ground with some organization around a particular issue, perhaps without a clear long-term strategy, who have been swept in with the others by insurrectionist criticisms. I will focus on the classical anarchists, because they have more clearly articulated strategies (this is not at all to criticize the others, after all no strategy can be better than a simplistic, dogmatic one). Hopefully the criticisms I make there will be informative for all anarchists who consider the use of formal organizations.

On the one hand, the emphasis of these anarchists on building social movements and being accessible to outsiders is well placed. Clearly a major problem of US anarchists is isolation, and organizing in above-ground groups around problems that are apparent to broader populations can help overcome this isolation. It is extremely helpful when there are types of anarchist action people can get involved in that are relatively easy, that don’t require a plunge straight from mainstream life into uncompromising war against the system (to go off on a tangent, insurrectionists often praise the replicability of certain actions, but I wonder how many started off as activism-oriented anarchists and how many were insurrectionists from the beginning. In other words, how replicable is insurrectionist anarchism for most people?)

The communication and coordination that, say, a federation can provide can be helpful in certain instances. In Europe many of the prisoner support organizations that anarchists of all kinds rely on are organized as federations. Organizations can also build and escalate the struggle. For example, the actions of an anarchist labor union can make anarchism accessible to more people, by providing an immediately apprehendable way to get involved, a forum for spreading ideas, and a demonstration of the sincerity and practicality of anarchists winning improvements in the short-term. I would also wager that people who have gotten some practice in a union, and learned first-hand about strikes for example, are more likely to launch a wildcat strike than people who have never been part of a union.

An approach that relies heavily on formal organizations also has a number of weaknesses. Since these weaknesses have appeared and reappeared in no uncertain terms for over a century, it’s a damn shame to have to repeat them, but unfortunately there seems to be the need. Democratic organizations with any form of representation can quickly become bureaucratic and authoritarian. Direct democratic organizations still run the risk of being dominated by political animals (as Bob Black pointed out in more detail in Anarchy After Leftism). And there is something problematic in the first instance a society separates the economic from the political and creates a limited space for decision-making wherein decisions have more authority than those decisions and communications enacted elsewhere in social life. Organizations should be temporary, tied to the need they were formed to address, and they should be overlapping and pluralistic. Otherwise, they develop interests of their own survival and growth that can easily conflict with the needs of people. This organizational self-interest has been used time and time again to control and recuperate radical social movements. It should long ago have become obvious that using formal organizations is risky, something best done with caution. Yet some organizational anarchists even persist in believing that all anarchists should join a single organization. I have never seen an argument for how this could possibly be effective, and the question is irrelevant since it is neither possible nor would it be liberating. Voluntary association is a meaningless principle if you expect everyone to join a particular organization, even if it is perfect. But I’ve still heard a number of anarchist-communists use that obnoxious line, “they’re not real anarchists,” on the basis that these not-anarchists did not want to work with them. The interest of working together in an effective organization, especially if it is singular (as in, The Only Anarchist Group You'll Ever Need to Join!), encourages conformity of ideas among members, which can cause them to waste a great deal of time coming up with the Correct Line and can make them a pain in the ass for other folks to work with. (The 1995 pamphlet “The Role of the Revolutionary Organization” by the Anarchist Communist Federation is very clear that they see theirs as only a single one of many organizations working in the movement, and they renounce the aim of any kind of organizational hegemony; perhaps the problem is the lack of a deep recognition that these many organizations may approach, relate to, or conceive of the movement in entirely different ways).

Hopefully by now it is clear how these two tendencies can cooperate for greater effect. First of all, by abandoning that horrible pretension that just because the Other disagrees with our point of view, they have nothing valid to offer. It follows from this that we recognize different people will prefer to be active in different ways, and in fact different temperaments draw people towards different anarchist tendencies before theory ever comes into it. Some people will never want to go to your boring meetings or organize in their workplace (they won't even want to have a workplace). Some people will never want to set foot in your nasty-assed squat or live in fear that the state will take away their kids because of the lifestyle of the parents (or they won't even want to subject their kids to the stress of a life of constant warfare). And guess what? That’s fine and natural. If. If we can cover each other’s backs. Above ground organizers who build support for the insurrectionists, who stand by those masked terrorists instead of denouncing them, will create a stronger movement. Insurrectionists who carry out the waves of sabotage the organizers are too exposed to call for, who keep in touch with the outside world and also keep the organizers honest and aware of the broader picture, the horizon of possibility, will create a stronger movement. Organizationalists who exclude the insurrectionists help them isolate themselves. Insurrectionists who see the organizers as the enemy help them recuperate the struggle. These are self-fulfilling prophecies. Insurrectionists can be helped by the movement-building and social resources of the organizationalists, who in turn can be helped by the more radical perspective and sometimes stronger tactics, the dreams put into practice, of the insurrectionists.

Because the US anarchist movement often looks to Greece for inspiration, especially the insurrectionists, I find it interesting that the Greek experience seems to show the two approaches to be complementary, even if the organizations involved are bitter enemies. In the States we usually hear about the Greeks when they attack a police station or burn surveillance cameras; basically every week. But we do not hear about the foundation that makes this possible. For starters Greece enjoys a more anarchic culture. Family ties are stronger than state loyalties (Greek anarchists were shocked to learn that a number of prisoners in the US were turned in by relatives), there is widespread distrust of authority, and many people still remember the military dictatorship and understand the potential necessity of fighting with cops. US culture is not nearly so supportive of our efforts, so we need to figure out how to influence the broader culture so it will be more fertile for anarchy. The state has been doing the opposite for centuries. I couldn't tell how much the anarchists in Greece influenced the surrounding culture and how much they just took advantage of it, but there were many clearly conscious attempts to influence the social situation. A great deal of activism goes into opposing the European Union immigration regime, working with and supporting immigrants, and the squatted social centers play a role in this. Such work also helps make the anarchist movement more diverse. Labor organizing plays a role in Greece, though I learned much less about this while I was there. In Athena the foundation that keeps much of the local anarchist movement alive and kicking is a neighbourhood—Exarchia. This entire quarter, located in the center of the capital, has the feel of a semi-autonomous zone. You can spraypaint on the walls in broad daylight with little risk (wheatpasting is even safer), you see more anarchist propaganda than commercial advertising, and you rarely encounter cops. In fact you’re likely to find nervous squads of riot police standing guard along the neighbourhood's borders (nervous because it’s not uncommon for them to be attacked). The autonomous spaces, the destruction of surveillance cameras, the Molotov attacks on cops are all characteristic of the insurrectionary approach. But also important to the rebellious makeup of Exarchia are the language classes for immigrants organized by social centers, the friendly relationships with neighbors (something the Black Bloc types don’t always excel at cultivating) and even, curiously, some anarchist-owned businesses. In the US, the phrase “anarchist business” would be scoffed at contemptuously, though one would also avoid applying it to anarchist bookstores, which are recognized as legitimate. But in Exarchia (and this was also the case in Berlin and Hamburg) the anarchist movement was bolstered by a number of anarchist-owned establishments, particularly bars. I think the rationale is fairly solid. If some anarchists need to get jobs in the meantime, and this is certainly more the case in the US than in most of Europe, it can be better to own your own bar that you open as a resource to the movement than to work at a Starbucks. Likewise, if anarchists are going to gather at a bar every Friday night (and this could also apply to movie theaters and a number of other things), why not go to one that supports a friend, and supports the movement (as an event space and even a source of donations)? It can also provide experience building collectives, and edge out the local bourgeoisie who would otherwise be a reactionary force in a semi-autonomous neighbourhood. I sure as hell ain’t advocating “buying out the capitalists” as a revolutionary strategy, but in Exarchia and elsewhere anarchist businesses, in this strictly limited sense, have played a role in creating a stronger movement.

Most important, if we want to consider the strength of Greek anarchists, has been the student movement. For a year, university students (along with professors and even many high school students) have been on strike, protesting a neoliberal education reform that would corporatize universities, privatize some of them, and end the official tradition of asylum that forbids police to set foot on Greek campuses. At the most superficial level, this student movement has allowed the anarchists many more opportunities to fight with the police. Getting a little deeper, it is perhaps the social conflict in Greece with the most potential to lead to an insurrectionary situation, similar in some regards to Paris in 1968. A strictly organizational strategy, whether of the typical syndicalist or anarchist-communist varieties, will be too weak, and too tame. Another organization will just be a competitor with the communist parties, and will have a conservative effect on the passions of the students, who show the tendency to blow up and act out quite ahead of the plans and predictions of the organizations, which are the ones getting the heat from the authorities. A strictly insurrectionary approach will isolate the anarchists from the student movement, who will increasingly view them as parasites who only come to fight with the cops. Without the involvement of an anarchist perspective, nothing will stop the political parties from controlling the movement. And anarchists are unlikely to gain much respect in the student movement if they disdain working for the short-term goal of defeating this education law. Putting aside the dogma about reformism, everyone should be able to see the tragic tactical loss anarchists would suffer if the universities had their asylum privilege revoked (right now, people can attack a group of cops and then run back into the university and be safe), and of course a fierce movement using direct action is much more likely to dissuade the government from putting this education reform into effect than a passive movement dominated by party politics.

By fighting the police, taking over the streets, and squatting the universities, anarchists can inspire people, ignite passions, capture the national attention and raise the fear, which everyone immediately smells and is intoxicated by, that things can change. By spreading anarchist ideas, turning the universities into free schools, setting up occupation committees, organizing strikes, and preventing the domination of the student assemblies by the political parties, other anarchists can provide a bridge for more people to be involved, make overtures for solidarity to other sectors of society, and strengthen the movement that has provided a basis for the possibility of change. If these two types of anarchists work together, the insurrectionary ones are less likely to be disowned as outsiders and isolated, thrown to the police, because they have allies in the very middle of the movement. And when the state approaches the organized anarchists in the movement in an attempt to negotiate, they are less likely to give in because they have friends outside the organization holding them accountable and reminding them that power is in the streets.

Similar lessons on the potential compatibility of these two approaches can be drawn from anarchist history in Spain of ’36 or France of ’68. Both of these episodes ultimately showed that insurrection is a higher form of struggle, that waiting for the right moment is reactionary, that bureaucratic organizations such as the CNT or the French students’ union end up collaborating with power and recuperating the movement. But what is easier to miss is that insurrectionary tactics were not the major force in creating the necessary foundation. The CNT and the French students’ union were both instrumental in building the revolution (the former by spreading anarchist ideas, launching strikes and insurrections, building connections of solidarity, preparing workers to take over the economy, and defeating the fascist coup in much of Spain; the latter by disseminating radical critiques (at least by certain branches), organizing the student strike and occupation, and organizing assemblies for collective decision making). The failing was when they did not recognize that their usefulness had passed, that as vital as they were those organizations were not the revolution. (This is not at all to say there should be a preparatory period, during which insurrectionary tactics are premature. Clandestine attacks at any stage can help build a fierce movement. Waiting to attack until the movement is large leaves you with a large, weak movement, with no experience in the tactics that will be necessary to grow or even survive the mounting repression. It might even leave you with a large, pacifist movement, which would just be awful.)

Between living in a squat or living in an apartment and organizing a tenants’ association, there are inevitably going to be people who strongly prefer one or the other, whether or not we bring theory into the picture. This should be a good thing, because both of these actions can help bring about an anarchist world. When anarchists give up our narrow dogmatism and embrace the complexity that exists in any revolutionary process, we will closer.

Because I guess I’m not really happy with a happy ending, I’ll conclude by pointing out some problems that I think are common to both tendencies. I’ve already mentioned the monotheistic mentality that leads to schisms within the movement, but especially in the US this exists on a larger scale as an inability of most anarchists to work in a healthy way with those outside the movement. This has been a failure to figure out what makes other Americans tick, what they are passionate about, what sphere of their lives is illegal, under what circumstances they will rebel, and how to engage them on this. There is no simple answer, and the complex answers will differ between regions, communities, and individuals, but I think most anarchists of all stripes have struck to self-referential and repetitive actions rather than plunging into this tedious work. Granted, people in the US aren’t the easiest population for anarchists to engage; our culture encourages conformity, isolation, and the Protestant work ethic more strongly than most others. But we should take this as a challenge and get on with it.

The inability to work well with others is also the manifestation of another Western value that contradicts anarchism more blatantly than monotheism, and it is the Risk board mentality, that ingrained view of the world from above, with ourselves positioned as the architect or general. It is the understanding that you change society by forcing people to organize themselves in a certain way. The more classical anarchists put themselves at one extreme, thus occasioning many of the criticisms that they are authoritarian or Marxist, by pushing a program or insisting that revolution only occurs when people see the world through the narrow lens of class consciousness. The insurrectionists have caught a whiff of this and they go to the other extreme by forswearing activism and to a large extent avoiding contact with people who are much different from them. That way they don’t have to worry about forcing their views on anyone. It should be apparent that both of these approaches rest on the assumption that contact between people who are different must result in a missionary relationship, with one converting the other. The idea of mutual influence, of organizing as building relationships with people rather than organizing as recruiting people, is generally absent.

In my view, the largest problem shared by both the insurrectionary and organizational camp, and most other anarchists, is whiteness: and even more than the failure of white anarchists to solve the mystifying problem of checking our white privilege, I mean intentionally preserving a movement narrative that tells the stories and contains the values of white people, and refusing to recognize the importance of white supremacy as a system of oppression every bit as important as the state, capitalism, or patriarchy.

Different white anarchists find different ways of minimizing race, depending on their analysis. But a common thread seems to be that perennial colonial belief that for salvation—or hell, just for us to get along, the Other must become like me. On the one hand, this could be the insistence that white supremacy is nothing but a tool and invention of capitalism, perfectly explainable in economic terms, and that for people of color to liberate themselves, they must surrender whatever particular experience and history the world's ever present reaction to their skin color may have given them, and identify primarily as workers, with nothing but fictive barriers standing between them and the white anarchists sitting in their union halls waiting for a little diversity to wander in. The minimization of race can also mask itself behind a misuse of the recognition that race is an invention without physiological justification. I've heard many anarchists take this further to say that race does not exist. I imagine this could come as a slap in the face to a great many of the world's people, it certainly contradicts my own lived experiences, and it is also a supremely idiotic statement. By definition something that does not exist cannot cause results in the real world. I think most anarchists who make this statement would be horrified by someone who denied the existence of racism, but they must be using another kind of denial, that which accompanies abusive relations, to not see this is exactly what they have just done. (Other anarchists take a more dishonest but unassailable route by simple denouncing as “identity politics” any excessive preoccupation with race). Race is a harmful categorization that must be abolished, and like capitalism or the state it cannot be wished away or solved by exclusion from one's analysis any more than AIDS or the scars of a beating can be wished away. The liberal “color blind” mentality to which so many anarchists adhere can only be a way of prolonging white supremacy.

Until white anarchists of all stripes allow—no, encourage—anarchism to adapt to non-white stories, anarchism is likely to remain about as relevant to most people of color as voting is to immigrants. And as long as anarchists continue to view differences in the same way the state and civilization we oppose has taught us to, we will never encompass the breadth of perspective and participation we need to win.

author by Joe Blackpublication date Mon Apr 09, 2007 06:28author address author phone Report this post to the editors

These are reviews that wouldn't fit at the end of the article above.

----

Comments on a couple articles from each side of the schism:

The two insurrectionist essays I'll touch on are "Rogues Against the State" by crudo ( http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/1105 ) from Modesto Anarchist (California), and "Fire at Midnight, Destruction at Dawn: Sabotage and Social War" ( http://www.geocities.com/amurderofcrows1/issue1/fire_at_midnight.htm ) from A Murder of Crows, out of Seattle. Both of these are well written, thoughtful pieces, and neither in itself is terribly sectarian. But they both contain weaknesses, and I think they both could have been more useful if they had not set themselves in opposition to another way of doing things.

"Fire at Midnight" advocates sabotage carried out inside of or outside of social struggles, without spending much time criticizing other methods. However, the article makes it clear that "We must be willing to examine and scrutinize the methods and strategies of the past so that we do not follow in the footsteps of history’s failed attempts at revolution. To this end we will focus on a method that is as powerful as it is easy to put into practice: sabotage." However, it does not really discuss how to build the social struggles they acknowledge are necessary for the total abolition of capitalism, and I think most readers would get the impression that sabotage itself is meant to build up such a struggle. Towards the end the article does criticize more organized forms of resistance, though it chooses its targets carefully, in a way that borders on setting up a strawman argument because the effect is that one must either be part of a vanguard party, an institutionalized group that always counsels waiting, or one must take part in autonomous and anonymous, insurrectionary tactics like sabotage. To the author, nothing in the middle is worth mentioning.

The effectiveness of sabotage is exaggerated. In fact, in most of the examples mentioned in the article, the people using sabotage lose (though it almost seems they are celebrated for maintaining a sort of purity throughout the process). Let’s look at two of the cases where people won. One is the campaign against Shell Oil and its involvement with South African apartheid. The article points out that anonymous acts of sabotage throughout Europe and North America against Shell cost them much more money than the boycott did. This is an important fact that demonstrates the effectiveness of sabotage and the silliness of those people who still claim violence (property destruction) hurts the movement, but not when it is presented as a substitute for the boycott. Generally, I am averse to boycotts because they reinforce our role as consumers, but they go along well with education campaigns about, in this case, the need to oppose Shell Oil. They are easy for everyone to do, and harmless to the movement as long as pacifists don’t try to hold them up as an effective alternative to violence. This article certainly appreciates the easiness and replicability of tactics, when it comes to sabotage. The same should apply to the education/boycott campaign because in many ways this campaign provided a foundation for the wave of sabotage. Of course sabotage is more effective, but destroying Shell Oil’s infrastructure and kidnapping their executives would have been more effective still. That's a moot point, because the movement wasn’t strong enough to do this. Its strength needed to be built up, just as it needed to be built up before a large wave of sabotage could occur. By disdaining this building process, insurrectionists would be destroying their own base. By embracing a building process, anarchists could influence the creation of an education campaign based not on values of liberal citizenship but on anticapitalist rage, surely a more supportive foundation for sabotage and other forceful tactics.

The second example comes from the Mohawk who resisted Canadian government encroachments at Oka in 1990. Sabotage was a strong tactic in this struggle, but far more important was that resistance was carried out by a well organized group united by a common culture (and also willing and able to escalate well beyond sabotage), and many of the external, non-Mohawk groups giving solidarity were also formally organized. Additionally, in such circumstances, the anonymous and spontaneous form of organization favored by insurrectionists really disadvantages the type of communication and accountability that are needed for effective, responsible solidarity actions that don't end up hurting the people you're trying to help. Once again, an exclusively insurrectionary approach would have been less effective and probably self-isolating (especially given the inescapable reality that right now most insurrectionary anarchists—most anarchists—are white, so a strong, exclusively insurrectionist tendency at Oka would have come off as yet another example of white people exploiting the struggles of people of color).

"Rogues Against the State" also comes close to building a strawman in its critique of activism. Again, it’s a bit vague as to who are the targets of the criticism, and in this haze a dichotomy is entrenched between insurrection, which is advocated as the path anarchists should take, and forms of activism that are inevitably reformist and based on getting people to join a specific organization. The essay contains a number of good points—about the problems with building “one monolithic anarchist organization,” that certain technologies such as cellphones and computers require the intensive exploitation of global sacrifice zones so anarchy cannot result from worker control of the present infrastructure—and the section on “Creating Autonomous Spaces” is especially valuable.

But there are also serious flaws. As I pointed out earlier, this strategy does not address the fatal shortcomings that became apparent when it was put into practice in Western Europe. Point 9 contains the important point that anarchists can, do, and should learn from non-anarchist struggles, and that “the masses” do not need to be taught how to act. Yet a number of examples are misleading. In Oaxaca, much of the struggle grew from the strike of the teachers’ union, and was helped along by APPO, the popular assembly (much as this organization may later have had a pacifying effect, organizationalists take note). In the countryside, a large, organized anarchist influence was CIPO-RFM, the association of autonomous anarchist communities, with whom I understand NEFAC (the Northeastern Federation of Anarchist-Communists) works. And as for “rent-strikes,” another spontaneous occurrence praised in the article, is the author aware of how many of these come out of tenants groups, organized quite often by activists (inside or outside the buildings)? In other words, the inspiring examples of insurrection do not bear out the strategy of insurrectionism.

But a great part of the essay is a criticism of activism, and here is one of the weakest parts. The author says much of her/his personal experience was with an activist group the principal activity of which was to dole out charity and try to get other people to join the group. Yeah, that sounds pretty shitty. The assumption that everyone engaged in activism, community organizing, whatever the hell you want to call it, is doing the same thing, is equally lacking in depth. Instead of taking their failures as a sign that they were doing a bad job in their chosen activities, crudo instead jumps ship and denounces activism wholesale. “Activism” is never defined, and it's too easy a term to use disparagingly—many articulate, not-so-active anarchists do. But the author gives the example of Copwatch and Food Not Bombs. I've seen examples of these groups that have been effective, examples that have been ineffective, some that have been charity and some that have been empowering. It depends a great deal, not surprisingly, in how you go about it, whether your goals, strategy, and tactics line up, or if you're just mimicking something anarchists habitually do elsewhere. If it's done well and in spite of its weaknesses, activism can teach us how to talk to mainstream people without hiding, or scaring them away with, our anarchist politics, it can help us learn how other people see common problems and thus how we can better communicate a radical critique of these problems, and sometimes even motivate people to get off the couch and respond to their problems with direct action. It can allow us to influence other people's realities, when they see that there are anarchists out there, and therefore the possibility of anarchy, and that by working together and using direct action we can change the situations most people are used to only watching on television. It's a fucking tedious process that rarely brings results quickly, and this has the advantage of teaching us that in the concrete details of people's everyday lives revolution is neither quick nor easy, that simply overcoming this stifling alienation in a single neighbourhood could take years. The built-in disadvantages are that it's too easy to burn out, lose hope, compromise your dreams, or fall into a holding pattern of habitual, uninspired actions to spare oneself the energy it takes to be constantly creative and effective, to keep attacking these walls of alienation by leaving one's comfort zone and talking to strangers. crudo seems to have an unrealistic view of this process, though since s/he mentions years of experience in an activist group, it may just be the failing of a mistakenly simplistic paragraph. But it's amazing that in an otherwise intelligent article, the author would suggest wheatpasting flyers around town calling for a general strike as an alternative to talking with AFL-CIO leaders, as though these are the two logical options, as though either one of them could actually accomplish anything. If it's unrealistic to say that a union will usher in the revolution, what is it to suggest that reading a flyer will get people to launch an insurrection? In both cases, a whole lot more creativity and patience are called for.

Point number 8 also displays an unrealistic understanding of the insurrectionist strategy (along with the obnoxious suggestion, based on who knows what, that anarchists who are activists seek compromise with authority instead of complete social transformation). “To be against activism and for a complete social transformation means that we desire the destruction of hierarchal [sic] society and openly desire it’s [sic] abolition. We seek anti-politics, meaning the rejection of representative forms of struggle and a praxis of insurrectionary attack, or the use of actions which seek to destroy any existence of the state and capital and allows for the self-organization of revolt and life. This does not mean that people shouldn’t use activist approaches from time to time (for instance organizing events to fundraise for political prisoners). But in general we need to find a strategy that exists outside of going from protest to protest and from issue to issue. We are in the middle of a social war, not a disagreement between various sides that can reach a compromise.”

Activism is a vague method, or a set of tactics, things like giving away free food or organizing a fundraiser for prisoners. How does this at all suggest activists must believe in compromise with the government? And how exactly does the author imagine setting up autonomous spaces or fighting the state, if activist approaches like fundraising for prisoners are only a part of the picture “from time to time” (has the author ever been to an autonomous space like those he advocates? In Greece and Spain for example, organizing informational events and doing fundraisers are a large part of what they do). Ultimately, crudo's call for war is meaninglessly abstract, because it lacks the understanding of what, practically, war entails.

Then there is the question of privilege. crudo says “We need to act along side and with the oppressed for we are of them...” This is another mixed bag of nuts. For those of us anarchists who were born with racial, economic, or other privilege, it is vital to recognize that this system is still poisonous for us, we don't want it, and we're not fighting to save other people but for ourselves, in solidarity with others. crudo is clear about this. But there is also a certain sleight of hand occurring in this article, and that is the conflation of all oppressions. For the most part, crudo only mentions class: “As those of the oppressed and excluded we must abolish class society and work. This is our project.” crudo subsequently identifies “we” as “proles”. Near the end of the article, crudo briefly acknowledges problems of gender and race, and concedes that whites and blacks are not “in the exact same boat” but this afterthought really does not contradict the overall mini mization of race contained in the article (in fact the very brief analysis of racism is basically the complaint that race divides the working class, “pitting racial groups against one another”). The author is surprisingly honest about the problem with this perspective, but fails to correct it: “In the “glory days” of anarchism, everyone was only oppressed by class (or at least, that’s mostly what the white men tell us). The negatives of class society was simply that of a physically impoverished existence (poverty, hunger, etc). However, modern life is much more complicated than that. We have become alienated beyond (or on top of) class.” It's telling (hell it's down right disturbing) that crudo acknowledges the white supremacist nature of this analysis, and then carries on with it anyway. We should be grateful, though, because most anarchists who discourage any emphasis on race are more sophisticated at hiding their true motivations.

The result of this is that crudo has to remind readers, and presumably him/herself, that we are oppressed too, and therefore we have license to intervene in the struggles of all other oppressed people. I think the effect on readers will be to encourage a kind of solidarity even worse than we have been guilty of in the past, approaching the movements of people far more oppressed than us (with more at stake and graver consequences for action) with a strong sense of entitlement, seeing their struggles as our opportunities.

As for the organizationalists...

“An Anarchist Communist Strategy for Rural, Southern Appalachia,” http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/1055 by Randy Lowens, written for Anarkismo.net This article seems to come from a sincere desire to increase the effectiveness of the movement against mountaintop removal (MTR) coal-mining in Appalachia. The author points out how eco-anarchists are an important part of this struggle but says they intentionally isolate themselves from other Appalachians, and moreover their strategy, centered around dramatic direct actions taken by people who operate outside of the community groups also opposing MTR, isolates them further. Randy suggests overcoming that isolation by increasing contact with and spreading an anti-capitalist analysis among Appalachians, and joining the organizations formed to oppose MTR, in order to subvert liberal leadership. Many of those are decent ideas, but given the tone of the essay, I have to say I strongly sympathized with a comment, counterproductive as it was, posted below the article that read simply: "Stay the fuck out of the dirty south, ideologues!" The author dusts off a strategy that seems not to have changed in the hundred odd years of its existence—the stated purpose of the essay is to “construct an analogy between the historical strategy of bringing a revolutionary perspective into mass organizations, and doing so in the particulars of the given place and time, Southern Appalachia in the early 21st century.” The tone with which he talks about anarcho-primitivists in one section is reminiscent of a liberal Catholic Church official during the Inquisition. Essentially: despite their heresy, many of them are good people and must be saved. The suggestion that the masses “are in dire need of a revolutionary voice” also sounds missionary.

“Over time it became apparent to me, that our direct action scenarios were not building links with the community at large.” Similar to crudo, Randy Lowens suggests changing strategic tracks entirely, again in a way that doesn't leave one very hopeful about the results. His suggested strategy basically sounds like infiltrating (“penetration” of) the reformist environmentalist and community groups and turning them against the liberal leadership, as though that will build better links with the community. As an indication of that friendly anarchist-communist outlook just destined to win hearts in Appalachia, the author refers to the membership in these organizations as “more attractive terrain” for anarchists. And once again, the locals will be required to adopt the imported analysis and identify their experiences strictly with the class struggle. Remember, I have this image of someone shouting over the bullhorn at the next protest, you are not fighting for your homes, your mountains, or your personal well being: you are fighting for your class! I'm not sure what Randy Lowens means by “fellow workers,” but many of the people in the coal-mining regions of Appalachia are unemployed, many of the most active anti-MTR organizers are grandmothers who rarely or never worked a wage job, and those who jealously hold one of the few jobs actually involved with destroying the mountains and getting the coal can be among the most strident supporters of MTR.

But the greatest weakness of this essay by far is its preference for a vague affiliation with the tried-n-true anarchist-communist strategy over any actual strategizing itself. After the analysis of the situation, the reader finally gets to the section entitled “A Strategy for Rural, Southern Appalachian Anarchists” hoping to find some intelligent or at least provocative suggestions for how to radicalize the anti-MTR movement and better connect with (other) Appalachians, only to find that this section is basically the conclusion of the article, with a one line overview of what Malatesta said a hundred years ago, little else of substance, and no details. Need it be said that strategies are best derived from the specific situation one faces? A problem with anarchist-communism, or insurrectionism for that matter, is that at least in their usage by many people these come with pre-packaged strategies that spare their affiliates from any hard thinking about what might actually work in the conditions one is dealing with.

Notes on the article “Anarchism, Insurrections, and Insurrectionism”
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20061228140637965 by José Antonio Gutiérrez D.
This article is a response to, and something of an expansion on Joe Black's “Anarchism, Insurrections, and Insurrectionism” ( http://www.wsm.ie/story/1027 ) posted on the website of the Workers' Solidarity Movement, an anarchist-communist group in Ireland. José praises Joe Black's article, which is a respectful criticism of insurrectionists, but says the latter only deals with the tactics and organizational forms of the insurrectionists and ignores the “basic political differences”. (Accordingly I will also bring up a few points Joe Black makes about organization, since this article seems to accept those points).

After the necessary introductions, the article starts out: “To understand the problem at the root of insurrectionalism’s political conceptions (fundamentally wrong, in my opinion) we have to take into account that they are the offspring of a certain historical moment...” This seems to be a typical anarchist-communist approach, and while obviously history can be elucidating, it can also be obfuscating, and in the course of this article it is primarily the latter. Quite unfairly, the author doesn't deal with actual insurrectionists today, but talks mostly about times in the past when an insurrectionary tendency has reared its ugly head, and he doesn't even do much to convince the reader the insurrectionists of today and yesterday have anything in common besides the name, which in many cases they hardly do. I'd say it's a manipulative argument but I think the author is sincerely wrapped up in the narrow and dogmatic historicism common to the dialectical and reductively materialist. It seems to me that many anarchist-communists compulsively go to the past to understand, or avoid, present situations, and I guess this has to do with their Marxist heritage and their particular subculture, which seems to favor debates and documents long since dead over innovation or theoretical flexibility.

That said, it also doesn't help that the historical analysis of this article, and the facts it pretends to be based on, are flawed (though because of the obscurantism that goes along with treating history like gospel, most people would probably be fooled, and this is another point in favor of the “emotional” insurrectionist “immediatism” that the author criticizes).
The historical rule the author is intent on constructing is that insurrectionism is a peculiar product of historical periods with high levels of repression and low levels of popular struggle. This assertion does not stand up to the facts. The first example given, “propaganda by the deed,” may or may not have arisen out of the repression of the Paris Commune as he says, but it was carried out across Europe and in North and South America throughout the next decades, at times of low or high repression, low or high popular struggle. In the US for example, the Galleanists carried out their bombing campaigns during a period of high repression, but they had started these bombings while the popular struggles were still at a high level. Terrorism in Russia did not follow the 1905 revolution (the author's second example), it was a major part of that revolution, and it was well developed before the repression began, when there was a high level of popular struggle. This insurrectionary activity was part of the struggle, largely carried out by workers. Industrial workers, peasants, poor people, and many Jewish people formed Byeznachalie and Chernoznamets groups that stole from the rich, bombed police stations and bourgeois meeting points, and so on (and nearly all of these were anarchist-communists, opposed primarily by the Kropotkinist anarchist-communists in exile or by the anarcho-syndicalists). José leaves out insurrectionism in Spain in the 1930s, at the very height of the popular struggle and occurring in periods of high and low repression—in Spain most clearly, the insurrectionists proved themselves to be more insightful than the CNT bureaucrats who always advised waiting and negotiation. And he mentions insurrectionism in Greece in the '60s, but ignores its much more important incarnations today, where it is quite at home in the high popular struggle of the student movement, and set against a state repression that cannot be characterized as particularly high.

Gutiérrez provides a good criticism that an increased reliance on insurrectionary tactics can come as a response to isolation. This is very true, but trying to make a historical rule out of it is sophomoric. Another humorous example of reductionism: “the social-democracy consolidated in the moment of low level of struggles after the Paris Commune, renouncing to revolution and putting forward a reform by stages approach as their strategy. For them, the moment of low confrontation was the historical rule –this is the main reason to their opportunism.” Oh, so that's why!

Elsewhere in the article the author strikes another low blow: “Also, the moments of a low level of popular struggle generally happen after high levels of class confrontation, so the militants still have lingering memories of the “barricade days”. These moments are frozen in the minds of the militants and it is often that they try to capture them again by trying hard, by an exercise of will alone, by carrying on actions in order to “awaken the masses”... most of the times, these actions have the opposite result to the one expected and end up, against the will of its perpetrators, serving in the hands of repression.” Saying clandestine actions serve the repression sounds like pacifism and it completely misunderstands the nature of the state, which will manufacture excuses for repression as needed (e.g. the Dog Soldier Teletypes used against AIM). The only thing that justifies repression is other radicals who backstab those using different tactics rather than helping to explain those tactics to the masses with whom they're supposedly in touch. If a population is pacified enough, indoctrinated enough by state propaganda, going on strike or even joining a union can be popularly seen as justification for repression. Anarchists should recognize there is no natural threshold of action beyond which people will automatically see repression as justified.

Gutiérrez also makes a point about insurrectionists doing the work of provocateurs, but this point is overplayed and ultimately pacifying. Provocateurs encourage stupid actions to hurt a movement or allow them to neutralize some key organizers, but they never wait for such excuses (for example they assassinated Black Panther Fred Hampton even though he never took the bait suggested by the infilitrator). And more often, the government encourages passivity, waiting, issuing demands, negotiating, operating in formal, above-ground organizations that are basically like a snatch-squad's goody bag if heavy repression is ever needed (I discuss this at greater length in How Nonviolence Protects the State). But insurrectionists in small affinity groups are better prepared to discuss, evaluate and plan clandestine and aggressive direct actions in an intelligent manner (i.e. one that does not at all serve state interests) than are organizationalists, because the former tend to take better security precautions and their structures are far more intelligently designed when it comes to surviving repression. José Antonio Gutiérrez not only misses the mark, he presents his point in an exceedingly disgusting fashion, that “irresponsible or untimely action of sincere comrades” is more dangerous than the conniving of government provocateurs. This divisive, heavy-handed denunciation is tantamount to the backstabbing obstructionism vanguardist groups always bring to bear on those who act without their permission (for example, the Trotskyists who always said the actions of the Red Brigades, or the Angry Brigade, were the work of fascist/state provocateurs, or the similar people who said the same thing about the recent rocket attack on the US Embassy in Greece). It's even worse that the article provides no examples of such “irresponsible” action. By being vague, the author covers himself from criticisms of “blanket” denunciations like the same kind he faults insurrectionists for using, but the result of his caution is to feed into an abstracted, stereotypical image of irresponsible insurrectionists that is neither respectful, productive, nor, it would seem, with much factual basis.

José dismisses the potentially useful criticism coming from insurrectionists, saying instead that insurrectionism is useful because it mirrors all the weaknesses in the anarchist movement, so it's like a clear illness to be cured. Little if any insurrectionist criticism is dealt with fairly (instead of quoting insurrectionist criticisms, the author tends to rely on generalized notions of such criticisms).

Here's a related example: “Another huge problem in discussion among anarchists is the use of blanket concepts, as demonstrated by comrade Black, that in fact help more to obscure than to clarify debate. For instance, it is too often that “unions” are criticised as if all of them were exactly the same thing... ignoring the world of difference between, let’s say, the IWW, the maquilas unions or the AFL-CIO in the US. To group them all under the same category not only doesn’t help the debate, but it is also a gross mistake that reveals an appalling political and conceptual weakness.”

Well, it's interesting to note that in the “Aims and Principles” of the Anarchist-Communist Federation (1995 edition), point number seven begins “Unions by their very nature cannot be the vehicles for the revolutionary transformation of society” and later clarifies that “even syndicalist unions” are also subject to this “fundamental” nature.

Elsewhere, Gutiérrez says “the very criticism made by insurrectionalists can work as a godsend for State to justify repression.” The example the author uses is of a Mexican anarchist group that apparently criticized APPO and CIPO-RFM in Oaxaca, during the state repression. The suggestion that insurrectionist criticism helps the state is heavy-handed and, no matter what the author may say or intend, fosters an air of silence and, ultimately, exactly the kind of authoritarianism insurrectionists have validly warned against. I have not read the criticism put out by the Informal Anarchist Coordination of Mexico that is referred to, and I don't know if it is respectful and accurate or not (though I have read a few other criticisms of APPO developing a reformist, conciliatory character towards the end), but the argument that it was untimely creates an attitude against criticism when criticism is needed most. I suppose in the autumn of 1936 in Catalonia, to beat a dead horse, criticism was also untimely, but that was when the CNT-FAI really needed to be set straight, the point of high pressure when mass organizations and representative organizations are most likely to sell out.

He makes a sometimes fair point that insurrectionists are constructing an ideology around a preference for a single tactic (though if the author has read any of the better insurrectionary writings he must not have understood (perhaps they didn't mention class enough) that they were very insightfully creating ideologies or theories out of analysis and contact with reality far more than I think any anarchist-communist has done since before World War II). But the author says insurrectionists are ineffective because they are functionally incapable of evaluating tactics due to their informal organization. The suggestion that you need a “programme” “to measure the effectiveness of the actions” comes out of left field without any justification (similar to the assumption that you need to identify with your class in order to understand your oppression), and I'm left with the image of a particularly dogmatic third-grader who insists all solemn-eyed that without your multiplication table in hand it is impossible to know what two times seven equals.

I've saved his best point for last: “Revolutionaries, above all, have to learn the art of perseverance. Impatience is not a good adviser as taught by revolutionary experience. This does not mean to wait, but to know how to choose the type of actions to perpetrate in certain moments.” As boring and wooden as organizationalists may sometimes be, I think many insurrectionists overplay the liberatory potential of fun. Granted, you can't really describe how liberating play can be if you write in as boring a way as, for example, I do, weighing the pros and cons and blabbering away for, Christ, sixteen pages already?? I don't have a problem with “Armed Joy,” to name one, but if this is the only thing you read your strategy and expectations of revolution will be sorely handicapped. I agree with the insurrectionist caution against sacrifice insofar as the Chairman Mao figures typically advocating it have all been frauds in the past, but as much as we can empower ourselves here and now we really can't totally determine the character of the revolution, and the state sure as hell has the power to make sure it won't be fun. A preference for fun too easily becomes a preference for comfort, and revolution is not comfortable. It occurs to me that an exclusive emphasis on attack, on action now, and the impatience that sometimes goes with that, leads to revolutionaries who cannot swallow the consequences of their actions. As an example I would name the ELF, and how quickly most of them rolled over and began to cooperate with the state once they were caught.

There are a few points from Joe Black's original article that also need addressing, and most relevant is his defense of formal organization. “Far from developing hierarchy, our constitutions not only forbid formal hierarchy but contain provisions designed to prevent the development of informal hierarchy as well. For instance considerable informal power can fall to someone who is the only one who can do a particular task and who manages to hold onto this role for many years. So the WSM constitution says no member can hold any particular position for more than three years. After that time they have to step down.” However, constitutions are not power. The paradox is that what's written on paper actually means nothing to the functioning of bureaucratic organizations, and if some people haven't digested that fact yet it's about as safe for them to work in a large, formal organization as it is to put a seeing-impaired two-year-old behind the wheel of a five-ton tractor. The CNT joined the government in Spain in 1936 in a procedure that violated its constitution, to refer again to that sacred font of historical anarchist examples. Structure is only part of the equation, and power-sharing structures can easily be subverted if the group culture is not also fervently anti-hierarchical. A criticism by insurrectionists which is valid in at least some instances is that organizations with formal constitutions and elected, specialized positions tend towards a rigidity and stagnation that invites the development of hierarchy. I personally don't think such groups should be off limits. It's clear that both suggested forms of organization have their weaknesses, and informal organizations are certainly vulnerable to informal hierarchies, but I think Joe Black has missed the substance of the criticism that, when apprehended, could hold the weaknesses of formal organizations in check.

I also want to point out the falsehood in the following: “Anarchist communism was clarified in 1926 by a group of revolutionary exiles analysing why their efforts to date had failed. This resulted in the publication of the document known in English as the 'Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists' which we have analysed at length elsewhere.” This is misleading—most anarchist-communists opposed the Platform. I honestly don't have an absolute problem with folks who want a platform to clarify their efforts and basic beliefs, although I don't think I could ever limit myself to a few points on paper, but this suppression of disagreement evident in Joe Black's historical cherry picking certainly mirrors the conformity that will accompany a platform unless its authors are careful, conscious, and well meaning.

Since it looks like that time to slop together some kind of conclusion, I'll say that I suppose I don't believe the structures or forms of voluntary organization we adopt act deterministically to control our outcomes (though they have a strong influence, as all tools do, on the wielder) but all the structures and strategies developed by anarchists so far have serious weaknesses, and these flaws will be fatal unless we are more honest, flexible, receptive to criticism, and energetic than we have been to date.

author by Joepublication date Mon Apr 09, 2007 06:53author address author phone Report this post to the editors

There is a lot of reading here and so I may come back to the rest later but I want to quickly reply to the section ending this piece that refers to my article.

1. On constitutional protections
Peter is of course right that the existence of terms limits in a constuition are not in themselves a cast iron gurantee that these will be observed. But he is also missing the point.

The purpose of a constitutional term limit in a formal organisation is to make it much more difficult for someone to hold a position of responsibility for longer than that term. Getting rid of the constitution does not add to this protection it subtracts from it. This is the problem with the informal 'solutions' they are not so much solutions as an attempt to define away a problem - the result is informal groups are often (informally) led by the same person until they get fed up, die or there is a split. If one was to ask who was the idological 'leader' of insurrectionalism today the answer would be fairly obvious and has been the same man for many years. There really isn't an equivalent figure amongst platformists.

There is I think much more 'rigidity and stagnation' in the editorial boards of informal organisations in general - the same names crop up year after year until eventually they decide when it is time to pass on control. The more long running informal web sites (like infoshop.org) clearly have the personality of the people who run them stamped on them - on those anarchist sites with formal organisation behind them the personalities of the moderators are almost invisible.

It is a historic weakness of anarchism that it has often failed to address the problems of informal leadership alongside those of formal leadership. In that respect insurrectionalism appears not to have developed since the anarchism of the early 1870's.

I am not sure what evidence the statement 'most anarchist communists opposed the platform' is based on but in any case Peter misunderstands the meaning of 'clarified'. It doesn't mean 'everyone agreed on'. In the context I used it 'clarified' means simply that anarchist communism was further developed by the publication of that document. Indeed part of the clarification was in the writing of anarchist communists like Malatesta who initially opposed it (before coming to write that his disagreement was with the terminology used rather than the methods put forward) and those who we presume remained in opposition to it. Unfortunatly I think at the time 'most' anarchists communists were unaware of the debate and played no role in it - it had no significant circulation outside of Europe and even within Europe the debate was limited to a few countries that rather importantly excluded Spain!

author by José Antonio Gutiérrez Dantonpublication date Mon Apr 09, 2007 08:18author address author phone Report this post to the editors

There's a lot to come back on some other day, with more time. Though dealing with a number of misrepresentations and selective quotations of of what I'm saying it is not the best way to start the discussion (I think there is far more for constructive debate in the main article), I think it is unavoidable in the face of a number of gross distortions of what I'm saying.

It is mainly the cause of distortion the inability to understand the basic idea of the article as I have stated it in numerous other occassions -not so much to discuss "insurrectionalism" per se (quite a marginal phaenomenon in Latin America)- but to discuss some basic political failures of anarchism in general. I'll take a quote from Peter's article to illustrate this point:

"José dismisses the potentially useful criticism coming from insurrectionists, saying instead that insurrectionism is useful because it mirrors all the weaknesses in the anarchist movement, so it's like a clear illness to be cured. Little if any insurrectionist criticism is dealt with fairly (instead of quoting insurrectionist criticisms, the author tends to rely on generalized notions of such criticisms)."

Not surprisingly it is so, because I'm more interested than in discussing the latest fashion in insurrectionalism to discuss some generalised misconceptions in anarchism, that are hegemonic in insurrectionalist circles. So yes, that's why the treatment is the one of a mirror.

He keeps going on to illustrate himself my point quite clearly:

"Here's a related example: “Another huge problem in discussion among anarchists is the use of blanket concepts, as demonstrated by comrade Black, that in fact help more to obscure than to clarify debate. For instance, it is too often that “unions” are criticised as if all of them were exactly the same thing... ignoring the world of difference between, let’s say, the IWW, the maquilas unions or the AFL-CIO in the US. To group them all under the same category not only doesn’t help the debate, but it is also a gross mistake that reveals an appalling political and conceptual weakness.”

Well, it's interesting to note that in the “Aims and Principles” of the Anarchist-Communist Federation (1995 edition), point number seven begins “Unions by their very nature cannot be the vehicles for the revolutionary transformation of society” and later clarifies that “even syndicalist unions” are also subject to this “fundamental” nature."

That's exactly THE WHOLE POINT OF MY ARTICLE. That political misconceptions in insurrectionalism are present (sometimes to a cartoonesque extent) in other anarchist tendencies, including what you call "organisationalists". So you are confirming my point really.

But I'll come back on some of the issues raised about the article, in order to be able to move forward to the discussion of your own contribution (the first part).

Thanks for presenting a contribution to the debate.

author by José Antonio Gutiérrez D.publication date Mon Apr 09, 2007 20:22author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Now I can come back with a little bit more of time. First of all, I want to apologize for lengthy quotations from the original comment from Peter, but I do not have the time to engage in a longer debate on this particular subject (there are more pressing needs at home) and this method will save me some time. That said, I appreciate the time to put together some response and took my time to go through it and reply.

Secondly, I want to reassure that Peter is right in that this article is an expansion on the article of Joe Black (therefore the agreement to put them together in a pdf file recently). But it differs with it in an important point: it tries to make a bigger case. Personally, I’ve not much time for insurrectionalism and I really don’t care too much about it (probably I would if I was in Italy or the US). What worried me the most are some misconceptions in politics that are common currency in the anarchist movement in general beyond insurrectionalism, but that are clearer in there. That’s why the criticisms of my article are not directed in particular to insurrectionalism, but actually as well to some of those whom you would call organisationalist (even platformists). My point is that nothing in insurrectionalism is alien to other anarchist currents (despite the loud claims on theoretical innovation). I even go a bit further to criticize the broader left for the same shortcomings.

Actually, there are intended only to be some “Notes” on Joe’s article, put together on the basis of some reflections on a number of years around in the revolutionary movement and anarchism –both at home, in Chile, as well as in my experience as an immigrant. Thus, the intention is not to discuss in full detail insurrectionalism and anyone who takes the article for that, is missing the point. The idea is to prove that many of the common criticisms against insurrectionalism have a ground in widespread shortcomings of anarchism in general. So it is, as well, a self-criticism in many ways, and I’m looking at the way ALL of the anarchists are sometimes trapped in the same false premises.

So this said, I’ll clarify a further point. I’m not really interested in discussion in terms of I’m right you are wrong. I prefer to clarify the issues at discussion rather than try to prove my points or try to prove someone else wrong. The whole idea of discussion is to help clarify issues over which there’s controversy. Now, I’ll write some notes on Peter’s comments to see if I can clarify a bit more my positions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Quite unfairly, the author doesn't deal with actual insurrectionists today, but talks mostly about times in the past when an insurrectionary tendency has reared its ugly head, and he doesn't even do much to convince the reader the insurrectionists of today and yesterday have anything in common besides the name, which in many cases they hardly do.”

In fairness, it is only in the first part of the argument that I’m mentioning some “historic” cases of precedents of insurrectionalism –not dealing with them. In the rest of the article (defense and attack, generalizing exceptions, tactical dogmatism, etc.) it is quite obvious that I’m referring to common places and ideas held by insurrectionalists and other anarchists indeed, that are widespread both in the present and in the past. Should I convince by the way the reader of something that is not my point? Precisely, I think that, far away from all the hollow claims of “theoretical flexibility” and “innovation”, most insurrectionalism and many in the wider anarchist movement indeed, share something more than the “name”: that is, the theoretical flaws I’m talking about in the article –theoretical flaws that can be traced as far back as the 1880s. So much for innovation!

“The historical rule the author is intent on constructing is that insurrectionism is a peculiar product of historical periods with high levels of repression and low levels of popular struggle. This assertion does not stand up to the facts. The first example given, “propaganda by the deed,” may or may not have arisen out of the repression of the Paris Commune as he says, but it was carried out across Europe and in North and South America throughout the next decades, at times of low or high repression, low or high popular struggle.”

Moments in history are defined by the predominant “mood” (can’t find a better word) of society. While there is certainly a period of revolutionary upheaval at the end of the XVIII century, it is quite obvious that the first three decades of the XIX century are decades of reaction and low level of struggle –this does not mean that there is no struggle at all! But as we say in Chile, a dove in the sky does not mean it is spring time. The decades following the fall of the Paris Commune are indeed times of low struggle if compared in the long term to the periods of 1917-1925 or the period of 1955-1970. There was struggle to be sure, but that was the exception rather than the rule.

Historical materialism can have its shortcomings to be sure, but to have a method (even the most flawed of them) is better to not having a method at all, as it allows us to avoid the reliance on anecdotes as evidence as the next paragraph shows.

“Terrorism in Russia did not follow the 1905 revolution (the author's second example), it was a major part of that revolution, and it was well developed before the repression began, when there was a high level of popular struggle. This insurrectionary activity was part of the struggle, largely carried out by workers. Industrial workers, peasants, poor people, and many Jewish people formed Byeznachalie and Chernoznamets groups that stole from the rich, bombed police stations and bourgeois meeting points, and so on (and nearly all of these were anarchist-communists, opposed primarily by the Kropotkinist anarchist-communists in exile or by the anarcho-syndicalists).”

You seem to rely on Russia heavily on the information provided by Paul Avrich in his book “the Russian Anarchist” (even the quotation at the start of the article is taken from that book). A more careful reading of this author will show you that before 1905 the occurrence of the actions you are mentioning is remarkably exceptional, almost equal to nil –the bombings and all that go solidly from the period between 1905-1908. The period between 1903-1905 saw a couple of those actions as anecdotic if anything. A further reading of Alexander Skirda on Russian Anarchism will prove useful on this issue.

“José leaves out insurrectionism in Spain in the 1930s, at the very height of the popular struggle and occurring in periods of high and low repression—in Spain most clearly, the insurrectionists proved themselves to be more insightful than the CNT bureaucrats who always advised waiting and negotiation.”

All anarchist-communists favour insurrections as proved in the article of Joe Black. Is it necessary to state once again that favouring insurrections is no distinguishing mark of “insurrectionalism”? You can’t seriously say that behind every insurrection there are “insurrectionists” –that is simplistic and wrong. So is it necessary to state it once again? Maybe. We have no problem with insurrections. Our problem is with turning them into an ideology and becoming “tactically” rigid. Revolutionary tactics should be far richer than that.

Why I’m leaving aside the Spanish context, is because of the same reasons that I’m leaving aside Ukraine and Mexico, among others. Namely, for the fact that behind all of these experiences there was a solid anarchist-communist background that we have no problem in reclaiming as part of our heritage and by the fact that in all of them there was a huge role played by what insurrectionalist would call “formal organisations” (in this case the CNT). Before the insurrection of Asturias to happen, for instance, there was a long experience of organizing and mobilizing. And actually, your distinction between “insurrectionists” and CNT bureaucrats is all but artificial in the Spanish context that is far more complex than that –people like García Oliver were your perfect example of “action man” turned into a minister!

“And he mentions insurrectionism in Greece in the '60s, but ignores its much more important incarnations today, where it is quite at home in the high popular struggle of the student movement, and set against a state repression that cannot be characterized as particularly high.”

What I say is that both in Greece and Italy the “insurrectionalist” movement has a longer tradition coming from those days –I’m not exclusively referring to the movement of the 60s, but mentioning where its origins lay. And for today incarnations it is impossible to ignore them as everywhere they are to be found on the internet –the article at all times keeps numerous reports, discussions and articles on mind that are not necessarily quoted for that’s not explicitly the idea of the article (to deal with the latest fashion) but actually to make the general point about anarchism as a broader movement. Still, on Greece, though repression cannot be particularly characterized as high, popular struggles are for sure low as in all of Europe.

“Another humorous example of reductionism: “the social-democracy consolidated in the moment of low level of struggles after the Paris Commune, renouncing to revolution and putting forward a reform by stages approach as their strategy. For them, the moment of low confrontation was the historical rule –this is the main reason to their opportunism.” Oh, so that's why!”

Though social-democracy today is a conscious pro-bourgeois alternative, it was not always the case, and back in the days of its origin (actually, before World War I) the renounce of revolution did not mean they renounced to socialism. Social-democracy in all of its forms and shapes respond, humorous as it may sound, to the ideology that revolution won’t happen and gradual change in the frame of the current order is the way. This leads necessarily to opportunism.

Certainly, this is the main reason in my opinion (not the only one, so no reductionism there, just bad reading). This is an important point to make for various reasons: first, because it proves social-democracy to be, on that respect, the other side of insurrectionalism when it comes to rigid tactics and to be equally as harmless to the capitalist order in the long term. Second, because it places differences again at the level of politics and not at the level of “goodies” (anarchists) and “baddies” (reformists). Most reformists and social-democrats in the rank and file, even today, are honest and should be acknowledged as that –the problem is not one of religious fervor but one of the tactics and strategy chose, namely, the sole reliance in reforms.

“Elsewhere in the article the author strikes another low blow: “Also, the moments of a low level of popular struggle generally happen after high levels of class confrontation, so the militants still have lingering memories of the “barricade days”. These moments are frozen in the minds of the militants and it is often that they try to capture them again by trying hard, by an exercise of will alone, by carrying on actions in order to “awaken the masses”... most of the times, these actions have the opposite result to the one expected and end up, against the will of its perpetrators, serving in the hands of repression.” Saying clandestine actions serve the repression sounds like pacifism and it completely misunderstands the nature of the state, which will manufacture excuses for repression as needed”

Please go back and read carefully again the article, specifically that point made. I’m not talking about “clandestine actions” in general and at all times. I’m talking about “actions” done in moments of low levels of class struggle, in isolation and with weak links to the broader political situation or people’s movement. I’m not talking merely of abstract theory here: every time we write we have a personal backpack with us and this is actually quite the case. I’m talking of something I know from first-hand experience –that is the moment of low struggles in Chile in the early 90s when the MJL that I mentioned somewhere else in the article, decided, completely isolated and against the grain of the general mood of the people, that it was time to double attacks on the new sham democracy. The context was quite another, there was the need for a different approach than the armed struggle of the 80s to conquest the heart of the people that until quite recently had been on the barricades. But tactics were ideology and became rigid. The result was the isolation of some heroic militants and a general crackdown and massacre of some valuable comrades. Friends have been in jail for over a decade and the impact of that campaign was to further alienate the left. A new generation of militants in the mid 90s, with a complete different approach, organising form the grassroots in terms of concrete demands have been able to start the long process of breaking down the circle of alienation around the revolutionary left in post-dictatorship Chile. And trust me, this revolutionary and libertarian left do not have fear to face repression when it has to.

This has been the case in numerous other occasions and moments in history and I don’t think there’s much need to go in detail –this example will be sufficient hopefully of what I mean.

Do I sound like a pacifist? I really don’t care. I’m making a fair point in not turning insurrectionist tactics as a dogma and not forgetting the impact of our action on the broader masses that are the ones to do the revolution at the end of the day.

So I misunderstand the nature of the State? Maybe, maybe not. Though it is true that the State can manufacture excuses for repression if needed (something I would not deny at all, and definitely would agree 100%) there is NO NEED TO PROVIDE THOSE EXCUSES out of our own free will. Thus, you are just making it easier for them to isolate you and you are making your own positions less defensible.

“The only thing that justifies repression is other radicals who backstab those using different tactics rather than helping to explain those tactics to the masses with whom they're supposedly in touch.”

This is really not getting politics whatsoever –why should we explain to the masses a tactic that we just don’t agree with? (I would not expect insurrectionalists to go around explaining people why they should join their local union either, and I wouldn’t call this a backstab)A couple of years ago, in Chile a phantasmagoric group called Leon Czsholgozs made a silly bombing in a State building whose sole effect was to hurt a passing by worker. Why in the world should I explain “to the masses” and action that to everyone’s eyes was idiotic!? It is not just a matter of choosing different tactics and that’s where you are missing the point: it is about tactics that alienate, that are silly and that are counter-productive for a broader circle of people than those resorting to them.

(A historic flashback: Malatesta criticized those anarchists throwing bombs to religious processions in Spain in the 1890s and that was not a backstab, but it was actually to defend the anarchist-communist approach to politics and reject those heinous acts. What he got in return though was a shot back in 1900)

“Gutiérrez also makes a point about insurrectionists doing the work of provocateurs, but this point is overplayed and ultimately pacifying.”

That’s actually not my point. I would not think for a second of saying that insurrectionists DO the work of provocateurs. To put words in my mouth is not a sound method to engage in discussion. What I actually say is:

“the danger for our actions to be used into the system’s favour (just like our differences can be) has to be considered seriously, but seems to be something absolutely underestimated, or worse, ignored by insurrectionalists. This is a serious omission, for we know thanks to historical experience how important it has been for the system the role of the agent provocateur and of stupid actions to look for ways to justify an excessive repression and to isolate the revolutionary movement from the masses.”

Namely that this risk has to be seriously acknowledged and considered in a way insurrectionist do not do. Anyone with some involvement in the revolutionary movement (especially in countries where there has been a significant revolutionary movement) will know about this.

Am I saying that revolutionaries should wait in passivity? Please point out where do I say that. That’s solely in your own imagination. What I said really is that at all times we have to keep an eye on the dangers above mentioned, not to wait in passivity –this is hardly a pacifying argument.

“But insurrectionists in small affinity groups are better prepared to discuss, evaluate and plan clandestine and aggressive direct actions in an intelligent manner (i.e. one that does not at all serve state interests) than are organizationalists, because the former tend to take better security precautions and their structures are far more intelligently designed when it comes to surviving repression.”

I seriously disagree with this point. You start by the dogma that affinity groups are more secure, and this is not proven, and in fact they are as likely to be infiltrated as any other sort of organisations. If anything, here you prove me right on the point that insurrectionalists as other anarchists do not take seriously security issues by believing that informal groups are “more intelligently designed”.

The sole difference between the two types of organisations (“formal” whatever it is and in “informal” whatever it is) is that the influence of a provocateur on a small affinity group is far bigger than on a more structured organisation (including at times when this organisation has to exist in clandestine conditions). Again, I know this for a fact from the Chilean experience that it was sometimes easier to infiltrate small groups springing out of nowhere than the long time established political parties –not to mention which type of organisation was more effective when the time came to action.

But to put the record straight, I think that even on organisation we have to evaluate circumstances and sometimes we need to carry on certain tasks quite loose networks, other times more formal organisation, other time small affinity collectives. But this is only at the level of contingency. Overall, the benefits of stable and structured organisations has been well proved in practice and to discuss that would be like re inventing the wheel –no matter there may be some inherent dangers to them as well that has to be acknowledged and that’s why Joe’s comment is quite a fair one.

“José Antonio Gutiérrez not only misses the mark, he presents his point in an exceedingly disgusting fashion, that “irresponsible or untimely action of sincere comrades” is more dangerous than the conniving of government provocateurs. This divisive, heavy-handed denunciation is tantamount to the backstabbing obstructionism vanguardist groups always bring to bear on those who act without their permission”

Taking aside the hilarious shower of adjectives, we find the same old tune of the backstabbing that equal only as the inability of anyone to criticize “action man” (like comrade Paddy Rua would say). What I’m saying is clear and simple: that if the mistakes are done by comrades from our ranks, they certainly have worse implications to us for we cannot simply say this is a governments’ plot. This is not refered only to insurrectionalism (or to the “irresponsible insurrectionist boggey man” you mention, that does more of the talk than the actual walk), but to anarchism in general and even to the whole of the left –that’s really the intention of the article at the end of the day. Again, anyone with a little involvement in the revolutionary movement will realize of this. To put an already quoted example: if the bomb put by the “Cszholgozs” group in Chile was put there by real comrades, it would be ten times worse than if it was put there by the government, for if it was the government it would not be an issue for us. If it was put there by sincere comrades, it has true repercussions inside of the movement.

"José dismisses the potentially useful criticism coming from insurrectionists, saying instead that insurrectionism is useful because it mirrors all the weaknesses in the anarchist movement, so it's like a clear illness to be cured. Little if any insurrectionist criticism is dealt with fairly (instead of quoting insurrectionist criticisms, the author tends to rely on generalized notions of such criticisms)."

Not surprisingly it is so, because I'm more interested than in discussing the latest fashion in insurrectionalism to discuss some generalised misconceptions in anarchism, that are hegemonic in insurrectionalist circles. So yes, that's why the treatment is the one of a mirror.

He keeps going on to illustrate himself my point quite clearly:

"Here's a related example: “Another huge problem in discussion among anarchists is the use of blanket concepts, as demonstrated by comrade Black, that in fact help more to obscure than to clarify debate. For instance, it is too often that “unions” are criticised as if all of them were exactly the same thing... ignoring the world of difference between, let’s say, the IWW, the maquilas unions or the AFL-CIO in the US. To group them all under the same category not only doesn’t help the debate, but it is also a gross mistake that reveals an appalling political and conceptual weakness.”

Well, it's interesting to note that in the “Aims and Principles” of the Anarchist-Communist Federation (1995 edition), point number seven begins “Unions by their very nature cannot be the vehicles for the revolutionary transformation of society” and later clarifies that “even syndicalist unions” are also subject to this “fundamental” nature."


That's exactly THE WHOLE POINT OF MY ARTICLE. That political misconceptions in insurrectionalism are present (sometimes to a cartoonesque extent) in other anarchist tendencies, including what you call "organisationalists". So you are confirming my point really.

“Elsewhere, Gutiérrez says “the very criticism made by insurrectionalists can work as a godsend for State to justify repression.” The example the author uses is of a Mexican anarchist group that apparently criticized APPO and CIPO-RFM in Oaxaca, during the state repression. The suggestion that insurrectionist criticism helps the state is heavy-handed and, no matter what the author may say or intend, fosters an air of silence and, ultimately, exactly the kind of authoritarianism insurrectionists have validly warned against. I have not read the criticism put out by the Informal Anarchist Coordination of Mexico that is referred to, and I don't know if it is respectful and accurate or not (though I have read a few other criticisms of APPO developing a reformist, conciliatory character towards the end), but the argument that it was untimely creates an attitude against criticism when criticism is needed most.”

This is actually a crucial point in the article. First, this shows how much of a double standard is used in anarchist discussion in general, but particularly when it comes to insurrectionalism: at many points of this lengthy comment you have treated my own criticisms as backstabbing, or more generally, any criticism on insurrectionalist actions as backstabbing. Yet, when it comes to the criticisms of insurrectionalists on others, there’s never “backstabbing”. That is, to tell you the truth an approach at least cynical to politics.

This resembles Bonnano claims that those who criticize “action man”, are “putting the straight-jacket” on the revolutionaries. It is insurrectionalists who have claimed systematically that anyone who criticize any particular action is siding effectively with the State and justifying their repression –“putting the straight jacket”. All I’m doing here is turning the argument over the head and showing that, though at times this can be true, the criticisms of the insurrectionalists themselves are not immune to manipulation.

I’m defending in the article the right to criticize everything (yes, including insurrectionalism). But at the same time, my point is that discussion and criticism can be manipulated and therefore revolutionaries should know how to discuss.

I’m not saying there should be no discussion or criticism: all I’m saying is what kind of discussion and criticism? Where and When to do it? How to do it? Is it the right channel to discuss a number of internal issues of the Mexican organisations the internet? Is it honest to send a huge amount of lies, gossip and distortions about the same individual mandated representatives of these organisations that are under a huge attack by all of the bourgeois media to comrades in different countries that do not necessarily have all the elements to evaluate the truth behind the claims? Is it necessary to try to discredit organisations including thousands of people actually on the struggle, facing the police and State forces (so much for conciliatory practices) by attacking its “leadership” already under enough attack from the right wing press? Certainly those organisations are far from perfect, but are much better and more participatory than most of the organisations around. Then how do you do a criticism when people are on struggle if you are not there to be seen? What alternative course of action do you propose?

To repeat from the article for there the point is really clear and your inability of seeing clearly the point is quite telling about your own ideological blinkers:

“The problem here is not criticism, but how this criticism is posed. We do not want to see our criticism to be turned into an argument into repression’s and our enemy’s favour. Let us remember that this system is always looking for the seeds of division and for the slightest chance to attack dissent.”

To put another example to make it even clearer: People may have had disagreements with both the political line and the actions of the MIL. But when Puig Antich was condemened to die in the “garrote” was that the time to start discussing about the MIL and its actions, or the time for unity and solidarity to avoid this dreadful crime to happen? This applies as well to Oaxaca, and this is precisely what I mean by untimely –this comparison is obviously easier to understand for people with some first hand experience of how repression works in Latin America.

“I suppose in the autumn of 1936 in Catalonia, to beat a dead horse, criticism was also untimely, but that was when the CNT-FAI really needed to be set straight, the point of high pressure when mass organizations and representative organizations are most likely to sell out.”

At this point the criticism was actually quite a different matter for two reasons: first, it came from the active rank and file and was based on accurate facts and not in media gossip. And secondly, there was an alternative course of action offered, mainly, by the Friends of Durruti Group. So this criticism had revolutionary value indeed, no matter it came far too late.

”But the author says insurrectionists are ineffective because they are functionally incapable of evaluating tactics due to their informal organization.”

This is not quite what I say. I’ll repeat the whole point again for it to make sense and then come back to what follows in this paragraph:

“What is worth noting is that often revolutionary struggle demands a variety of tactics that are imposed by the very necessities of practice: pacific and armed forms of struggle, legal mechanisms and transgression of law, public and clandestine organisation, all of these has been used, not infrequently, simultaneously by the anarchist movement, and there’s no other parameter to measure the effectiveness of these tactics than the objectives of the movement, or the progress made in the construction of popular power and the weakening of the bourgeois power. There are no intrinsic qualities for tactics: what can be valid today mightn’t be so tomorrow. And at the end of the day, tactics can only be chosen and discarded in relation to a global strategic programme; so, any judgement around them should not be based on the tactics as such, but on the way they served to the long term objectives.

The parameter to measure the effectiveness of the actions of the anarchists should be nothing short of their programme –what becomes a major problem when most of the anarchist groups lack even the most basic of the programmes. How is it possible then to hold a coherent vision between the immediate action –that can be even elevated to a fetish- and the long term objectives that are not envisaged as nothing but vague slogans? Does this mean to suggest for the comrades to sit and wait eternally so as to have a brand new programme with the one we can go out and fight? Certainly not. Simply it means to develop our tasks as organisations and gain our space in the popular struggles while we develop on parallel and give specific shape to the general view on things provided by anarchist theory. It means to take the general principles of anarchism to a concrete alternative for a place and space given.”

So now if you read this part carefully you may better understand that the claim that follows is completely lacking in substance:

“The suggestion that you need a “programme” “to measure the effectiveness of the actions” comes out of left field without any justification”

It is quite justified if you read well the paragraph above, but seemingly someone else needs a multiplication table in hand (or a bit more of involvement in the popular movement)! So now back to first grade in politics Peter: a programme is a name for an articulate set of objectives and tactics leading to those goals. Am I going to fast? Well, I’ll slow down a bit. A programme defines the bigger objectives in the long term. Therefore, if I want to define right tactics (that includes actions for you to know) I have to see which ones will help me get to those objectives. Are you getting it? Cool. So if you want actions to get you anywhere, you need to use them to help you get to the desired goals. That’s how a programme works. But is it a programme to say “Smash the State”? If you answer “yes” to this, go back to basics again. Anarchist slogans are completely insufficient when you are dealing with real problems, with real issues. What does anarchist slogans mean in a concrete time and space? That’s the role of a programme, to turn a nice idea into a project worthwhile to fight for. And if you start defining the project (that can never be too finished and is always changing), the first thing you’ll realize is that magic formulas when it comes to tactics –the sole valid tactic at all times and places- just don’t exist.

So basically I think I’ve dealt with some of the distortions and misinterpretations on the article as presented by Peter. Hopefully this time is clear enough (you never can be too clear though it seems) and discussion can move to some of the points of Peter’s very article that has a number of interesting and arguable points. But that’s what discussion is for.

author by Chuck - Infoshop Newspublication date Tue Apr 10, 2007 00:17author email chuck at mutualaid dot orgauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

This article was originally posted at Infoshop News. People are invited to join the discussion there.

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20070408112944402

author by one insurrectionary anarchistpublication date Tue Apr 10, 2007 06:29author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Joe: "Getting rid of the constitution does not add to this protection it subtracts from it. This is the problem with the informal 'solutions' they are not so much solutions as an attempt to define away a problem - the result is informal groups are often (informally) led by the same person until they get fed up, die or there is a split. If one was to ask who was the idological 'leader' of insurrectionalism today the answer would be fairly obvious and has been the same man for many years. There really isn't an equivalent figure amongst platformists."

Really? Who would that be? Exactly how is this man the ideological leader of insurrectionary anarchism?

Mahkno and Arshinov aren't equivalent, even though they wrote the Platform?

author by Peterpublication date Tue Apr 10, 2007 07:53author address author phone Report this post to the editors

1. I think you're still missing my original point, so I'll try to be more clear (I'm also adding some things I didn't say originally).
A. You are very right that informal groups can still develop hierarchies.
B. The form a group takes, including whether it develops a hierarchy, depends on both structure and culture.
C. If a group has no formal positions of responsibility, then all other things being equal their structure neither encourages nor discourages hierarchy, therefore it depends on group culture as to whether a hierarchy will develop.
D. A group with formal positions of responsibility surrenders some flexibility, for better or worse, and endows those positions with a certain legitimacy or authority (not in the worst sense of the word, but in the way of someone being authorized to do something).

I think informal affinity groups, revolutionary friendships, these things advocated by insurrectionists, have a higher potential for flexibility and equality because of a lack of constitutions and positions, but I think that they usually do not meet this ideal, especially in a capitalist society. So I disagree that getting rid of constitutional protections makes people more vulnerable to hierarchy, and in a very very small way this resembles statist thinking (please do not think I am accusing you of being a statist). I have seen some anarchist autonomous spaces where responsibilities were shared fluidly and equally, without informal hierarchy, and in a way that was immediately welcoming and accessible to newcomers, moreso than if there had been formal structures and positions. But I also agree that aspects of formal organization can be useful tools for preventing hierarchy, and the informal methods are not practical in every situation.

2. As for the platform and what you meant by clarified. I really think if you put yourself in the shoes of some stranger reading your essay, you would see how probable it is that they would interpret your sentence about anarchist-communism being clarified in 1926 to mean that the debate around the Platform was something most anarchist-communists took part in, and that afterwards most anarchist-communists came to agree with the Platform, or some aspects of it. But at best, the debate was shelved without resolution until recently, and in recent debates one thing I've read several anarchist-communists saying is that the 1926 debates lacked "clarity." So is this me misunderstanding or you misspeaking?

Could you please direct me to some writings of Malatesta in which he endorses the Platform? I have a different understanding of his opinions.

author by Peterpublication date Tue Apr 10, 2007 09:55author address author phone Report this post to the editors

This discussion is well on its way to becoming a dick-waving contest, and isn't that an ironic outcome to an article written against infighting?

I was disappointed to read the tone of José's response-- it's insulting and arrogant, and I was tempted to respond in kind. On reflection I saw that in the original article I was being an asshole, and none of my attempts at humor seem to have worked (I was hoping to get at least a few laughs with that quip about the five-ton tractor... no, not one?). For that I'm sorry and I'll try to be more obviously respectful to avoid any more degeneration in this debate (oh Internet, what an impoverished medium you are).

I will point out that in the original, I also criticized and ridiculed myself, and in his response José did not reciprocate, not with self-criticism, or self-ridicule, or any other indication I could see that he is interested in a healthy conversation, interested in anything besides proving to everyone that I am stupid and he is oh-so-smart, which is a waste of both of our times. I hope that in any further responses, José makes up for this.

And I want to refer people to the discussion around this article on infoshop. Crudo, whom I criticized as harshly as I did José, responded in a much more productive, respectful way, and I think it sets a good example.

So, throughout your response I think you have misinterpreted me, much the same way you think I misinterpreted you. We could probably go on talking past each other for months, but in the interests of time I'm going to focus on what are to me the two most important points-- your historical analysis and the way you criticize.

1. The historical analysis of insurrectionism.
In your original article that I criticize, you construct a historical rule that insurrectionism is the result of low moments of popular struggle and high moments of repression. You go on to say that insurrectionism is a reflection of weaknesses in the anarchist movement (and that this relates to its historical nature).
The function of this argument, whatever your purpose in making it, is to dismiss the criticisms of insurrectionists, and largely dismiss the insurrectionists as anarchists.

I pointed out that the historical examples you use are flawed. Your response to my points was evasive. In one instance you defend your historical rule in a way to make it so broad it's clearly useless as anything but a smear. In another case you tacitly admit that a case does not meet your two criteria, without acknowledging that your historical rule contradicts the facts.

In the case of Propaganda by the Deed, you attribute this fairly complex phenomenon solely to the fall of the Paris Commune, and try to stuff all its occurrences into the subsequent decline of popular movements (even though this decline was not at all universal, and in the United States ). In contrast, you offer the years of 1917-1925 as years of high popular struggle. These are the years when one of my insurrectionary examples, the Galleanists (Italian anarchists in the US) were most effective, for example carrying out a bombing campaign. So your hypothesis does not meet the facts.

In the case of the Russian Revolutin of 1905, you say that most of the bombings took place between 1905 and 1908. However, this is something of a distraction, because a great many bombings occurred in 1905 during the revolution, and during the period of high popular struggle. They were a part of that revolution. And more importantly, many of the chernoznamets and byeznachalie groups that advocated and carried these acts out formed before and during the 1905 revolution. These are historical facts that further contradict your hypothesis.

I agree with most of your response regarding why you didn't mention Spain in the 1930s ("Why I’m leaving aside the Spanish context, is because..."). I definitely agree that there was a great deal of preparation and organizing that made the 1936 revolution possible, and I point this out in my article. However, I still think it is an applicable example because many of the syndicalists in the CNT between, say, 1932 and 1935, criticized and opposed those (whom they named either "insurrectionists" or "insurrectionalists") who called for general strikes in support of spontaneous uprisings and even called for planning uprisings or insurrections (which they did on at least one occasion). Many of the syndicalists and those in the central and regional committees of the CNT argued that the time was not right, that the level of popular struggle was too low, that this was an irresponsible action that would give an excuse for government repression, and they sabotaged these uprisings by blocking or calling off the solidarity strikes, on the basis that they did not have to show solidarity for these actions because they were stupid actions. Do you see the parallel? If you don't, I assure you most other anarchists will.

In the case of Greece: You arbitrarily claim a period of high repression in the 1960s to be the starting point of the movement so it can fit your hypothesis. In the case of the present movement in Greece, which has strong insurrectionist currents, you directly contradict your hypothesis without acknowledging you have done so. You write: "Still, on Greece, though repression cannot be particularly characterized as high, popular struggles are for sure low as in all of Europe."

Furthermore, popular struggles in Greece right now are not "low" (this "low", "not particularly high" nonsense should demonstrate how imprecise this hypothesis is). Nearly all university students and many high school students have been on strike for over a year, sacrificing a great deal, and meeting every week in assemblies to make decisions about the movement. Many professors are on strike too, and the head of the polytechnic university in Athena said that even though the government passed the education reform, the universities would refuse to put them into effect. Commentators on television are saying the state is at war with the anarchists, and many people in the streets smile when demonstrators smash surveillance cameras. If by some standards, popular struggle in Greece is not high, it is certainly among the highest in Europe. So, relative to Europe, if popular struggle in Greece is about the highest and police repression is about the lowest (really, the police there are incompetent), what exactly does it mean for your hypothesis that compared with the rest of Europe, insurrectionism is perhaps strongest in Greece? It means that your hypothesis was not made to stand up to the historical details, it was made to smear and discredit insurrectionists.

This brings me to my second major problem: How you make your criticisms.
You say insurrectionism is not important to you and you were criticizing certain faults common among all anarchists.
I was unclear in my criticism about this, and this led you to protest a number of times that I didn't read carefully what you wrote.
I did in fact read what you wrote-- my problem, which I failed to make clear, is that I don't think you lived up to your ideal of balanced, "fraternal and constructive" criticism, and in my haste I quoted the contradictions in your article without quoting the many places where you defined your ideal. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Let me explain again. You start by being very nice to "Comrade Black" and thanking him for his respectful piece. This led me to expect you would be equally respectful across the board and you really weren't-- you sure as hell weren't in your response to me, and in referencing insurrectionists you were condescending and dismissive.

It seems to me that you are only respectful to other anarchist-communists, and only make specific criticisms of insurrectionists. This is why quotes such as the following really seemed insincere to me ("We, therefore, cannot silence our criticism in the same way as those who are disagreement with us have the same duty to criticise").

When I pointed out that the Anarchist-Communist Federation also made a blanket denunciation of unions, you said it was exactly your point that these weaknesses can be found among all types of anarchists. However, if this is really your point you would have demonstrated your sincerity by making specific criticisms of all types of anarchists rather than just insurrectionists. However, it would be hard for you to do this when your major point, as spelled out in the conclusion of your essay, is that insurrectionism (you use the word "It" but the precedent is clear) "is the mirror image of our historical flaws and of our insufficiencies. Many of our comrades who would take a prudent distance from insurrectionalism would be surprised that, no matter they might disagree in the end results with it, they might be nonetheless sharing a number of its political foundations as well as some its weaknesses... To sum it up, I hold that insurrectionalism has been incubated, nurtured, bred and developed under the shade of the very mistakes of the anarchist movement.")

And I should reiterate that you yourself make blanket criticisms, which I pointed out is something you fault other anarchists for doing (in a paragraph that talks about the weaknesses of the insurrectionists, which is why I brought up the ACF example in the first place). You say insurrectionists use a "blackmail" response to criticism ("It is insurrectionalists who have claimed systematically that anyone who criticize any particular action is siding effectively with the State") (wait, you said insurrectionists were opposed to systematic work? Ha ha, joke. Laugh.) Well, this doesn't match my experience. I've encountered insurrectionists who take criticism well, and who criticize actions themselves. Gasp! Could it be they're not all like Alfredo Bonano? Yet throughout your writing you refer to insurrectionists like they all think and act the same way (e.g."Namely that this risk has to be seriously acknowledged and considered in a way insurrectionist do not do.") and this is another part of your approach that comes off as dismissive and disrespectful.

The biggest problem is that you barely use specific examples. You say anarchists often carry out stupid actions, create excuses for repression, harm the movement, silence criticism, etc., but the reader is rarely given specific examples, instead the reader has only a name for this bogeyman-- insurrectionist. Do you understand what result this has, and how counterproductive this is?

This makes it very easy for you to use a strawman argument. In one of your few examples, you talk about a communique sent out by insurrectionists in Mexico criticizing APPO. You assure the reader that the communique is full of lies, but you don´t quote it or provide a link to it. I point out that the result of this is to create an atmosphere that it's wrong to criticize in moments of high struggle, because of the broadness of your criticism and your lack of details. And you respond with a totally contrived argument: ("I’m not saying there should be no discussion or criticism: all I’m saying is what kind of discussion and criticism? Where and When to do it? How to do it? Is it the right channel to discuss a number of internal issues of the Mexican organisations the internet? Is it honest to send a huge amount of lies, gossip and distortions") Of course it's not honest to send out lies and gossip, but your assertion that doing this is connected to insurrectionism is baseless. If this one particular group is guilty of sending out lies, you should give readers the evidence. The result of not doing so is to create a divide: either your readers believe you, and they believe that this vague mass of insurrectionists out there are inclined towards dishonesty and stupid actions, incapable of receiving criticism, or the readers disbelieve you, and they become angry at you for misrepresenting those you disagree with. This is not a helpful way of making a criticism.

author by one insurrectionary anarchistpublication date Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:19author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Jose: "It is insurrectionalists who have claimed systematically that anyone who criticize any particular action is siding effectively with the State"

Here Jose is referring to a line written by Alfredo Bonanno:

"When we say the time is not ripe for an armed attack on the State we are pushing open the doors of the mental asylum for the comrades who are carrying out such attacks; when we say it is not the time for revolution we are tightening the cords of the straight jacket; when we say these actions are objectively a provocation we don the white coats of the torturers."

This is clearly not a claim that anyone who criticizes any action is siding with the State. It's a statement that those who denounce armed attacks against State/Capital for the reasons listed above are assisting the State in its attempt to isolate and destroy those who do and would carry out such attacks.

All actions are open to critique. In fact, critique strengthens rather than weakens. But the kinds of denouncements listed by Bonanno above can have no other purpose than to attempt to limit the range of possible and present autonomous direct action. The implication is that the denouncer is the one who knows the "right time" and when that time is, and that others have to wait to be told the right time, or come to the same conclusions.

author by Anarkismo Editorial Group - Anarkismopublication date Tue Apr 10, 2007 18:27author address author phone Report this post to the editors

As we considered this article and the debate around it useful we have moved this article from 'other libertarian press' to the debate category of the main newswire. The URL remains unchanged.

author by Jose Antonio Gutierrezpublication date Tue Apr 10, 2007 22:43author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Comrade, thanks for your constructive comment. Yes, you are right that I was referring to that line in particular. I want to start by saying that criticism can at all times be manipulated by the State or the class enemy -not only those you mention, but actually any criticism as such.

And that's my point about being careful on how to pose criticisms and where to make them (is it fair to criticise comrades, no matter what level of disagreement we might have, naming them on the internet, especially when repression is at a high level? that's only one example). And that's true and valid for any sort of criticism done by anyone (whether insurrectionist or platformist or syndicalist or socialdemocrat). No one is immune to State manipulation and should be aware of that.

But the other side of my argument is, that being cautious about the impact of our criticism and being aware of the risk for it to play into the enemy's hand, you cannot put limits to criticism. We all have a right to think that an action may be untimely or a provocation, and this does not mean necessarily that we would be siding with the State. As well, this does not mean that someone better knows than others when to do actions and want other people to wait for them -it only means that people disagree on how to evaluate reality or the contingency and there's really no harm on that if you are doing the critiscism with an eye on the security and integrity of those you criticise, and if the ultimate goal of the criticism is to help the advance of our cause.

I absolutely agree with you on the point that critique stranghtens and does not weaken, but then we should be open to all sort of criticism and not to impose boundaries.

I'll come back to Peter's comment later, right now I'm on break at work and don't have much time. Thanks again for the constructive comment (a rare occurence in nowadays anarchist forums) and I'm looking forward for any further comments from you.

author by Joepublication date Wed Apr 11, 2007 00:00author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Reply to 'one insurrectionary anarchist '

Hey don't play dumb - you know who I mean. Interesting though that the best defence of his informal position you can come up with is "Mahkno and Arshinov aren't equivalent, even though they wrote the Platform?"

Apart from the fact that both are dead so its not relevant now you might be right that they played such an informal role at the time of the platform. The problem being the organisation they proposed never really got off the ground so there was no formal mechanism of term limits etc. I wouldn't claim that platformist groups today are free from such informal leadership - just that to a greater or lesser extent they take steps to curb its repurcussions.

Their weakness here is going to be under organisation and a lack of formality brought on by the fact that most are pretty small and not much more than a network. The weakness of the anarchist movement means a lot of the debate about organisational form lacks clear examples to illustrate it. This however is less true than it used to be as a number of such groups have grown and become more formal as a consequence, including my own.

Reply to Peter
On both A + B I can agree however I think your point C is simply naive
"If a group has no formal positions of responsibility, then all other things being equal their structure neither encourages nor discourages hierarchy, therefore it depends on group culture as to whether a hierarchy will develop."

If you don't have a structure then informal hierarchy fills the vacum that is created. Given the comments your making about 'race' at the end of your first article I thought you'd be very aware of this problem from real life experiences because such informal hierarchies tend to reproduce the values of the society they operate in unless formal mechanisms are used to challenge them.

On D I partly agree there may be a trade off but I disagree in relation to "A group with formal positions of responsibility surrenders some flexibility,". In my experience the reverse is the case. In a formal organisation the way in which change can be promoted and decided on will be clear - the process can thus be quite fast and open to all. In an informal organisation the mechanisms are unclear and will only be fast if the informal leadership want change. If any section outside of that leadership desire change they will first need to be heard and then need to get a decision making structure agreed. A change from outside the leadership will normally be impossible without a split. Informal organisation will always tend to be conservative, to do things the way it has always worked. For that reason it is only useful if informal organisation is only used to fill a short term need.

On 2 I was explaining what I meant - I can't really comment on how a stranger might read it nor do I have any interest in defending the original phraseology from that point of view.

I also didn't claim Malatesta endorsed the platform - rather he remained critical of the language used (he disliked the phrase "collective responsibility" - its what ' authoritarian spirit ' refers to below ) but agreed that the organisational ideas were probably compatible with his own.

This is in his last communication on the subject, a letter published in Le Libertaire" No.252 on 19th April 1930
http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/mal_rep3.htm . He said of the dispute "I find myself more or less in agreement with their way of conceiving the anarchist organisation (being very far from the authoritarian spirit which the "Platform" seemed to reveal) and I confirm my belief that behind the linguistic differences really lie identical positions."

author by Peterpublication date Thu Apr 12, 2007 18:11author address author phone Report this post to the editors

About my point C, it's not at all naive and in fact it's quite literal. An absence of structure does not encourage informal hierarchy, and you're not actually arguing it does, although you claim to be. The informal hierarchy that fills the vacuum is not a part of human nature and it is not inevitable-- maybe if both those were true you could say the absence of structure encourages hierarchy. What's happening in those cases where informal hierarchy fills the vacuum is the broader culture created by capitalism encourages the informal hierarchy, and it will succeed if the group's anti-hierarchical culture is not strong enough. This is not inevitable, only highly possible.

Societies living outside of capitalism did not all formal structures to prevent informal hierarchy-- many accomplished this with anti-authoritarian cultures and conscious "levelling mechanisms" which were culturally sanctioned, implicitly (rather than explicitly) understood behaviors. In contrast, groups with formal anti-authoritarian structures can still have informal hierarchies, and I have seen a number that do (even when people are not in the official positions of responsibility, they can be informal leaders). And people with certain personalities are more confident and mobile in formally structured groups. What all this should go to show is that structure works mostly on the formal hierarchies, and culture works mostly on the informal hierarchies.

You also said racism is more likely to develop in groups without former structures. I have an experience in contrast to this. Structures are inherently cultural artifacts-- they are never neutral. In one group I participated in that was a collaboration of white and black activists, we had to forego formal structure because each group was used to highly different types of structure, and preserve a balance within the group through a vigilant culture of respect and anti-racism.

It's clear you're being dogmatic, saying this type of group will always be like this, that type of group will always be like that, when a great many people and I myself have contradicting experiences.

I find it amazing that you think formal groups offer more flexibility, and I think a great many people would disagree, but I'm willing to believe that this is your personal experience. I just wish you'd understand how much of this is subjective, and recognize that many people will organize better in informal groups, that in such groups they can better find equality and effectiveness; and that some people will want to work in multiple kinds of groups.

But honestly I don't have high hopes. In my limited personal experience most organizationalists tend to be dogmatic and even self-righteous about structure, and this is one of the semi-authoritarian parts of their common mindset or culture that I criticize. Most Platformists seem to have gotten over the idea that all anarchists need to be in the same organization, but most of them also seem to think that everyone should be in the same type of organization, that approaches and views the struggle in the same way. (You shouldn't even have to put yourself in someone else's shoes to understand that this can come off as heavy-handed). Please prove me wrong.

Also, about the leader of the insurrectionists-- I'm not playing dumb either, I'd really like to know who you mean, and why you're holding back. I can think of three possible candidates. One of them I find ridiculous, and while his critiques may have been widely read his strategic influence is obscure, one is fairly academic and far short of a model or guide, and the influence of the third within the English-speaking scene I think is actually very limited. So please tell us.

(p.s. sincerely good luck to Jose with the ongoing struggles in Chile)

author by Joepublication date Thu Apr 12, 2007 18:51author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Who I consider the obvious informal leader of insurrectionalism actually doesn't matter. What does is that as soon as I put the idea out the people who were just before hand saying insurrectionalism avoided such problems are suddenly going - well it can't be one person because I can think of three. This is an illustration of how refusing to formally tackle an issue does not mean that issue goes away or is somehow weaker.

Peter I find it more than curious that when I say 'method X' has these problems I am apparently " being dogmatic, saying this type of group will always be like this, that type of group will always be like that," but when your essay and replies use the same method (but of the opposite opinion) you presumably are not. It also appears that while my experiences may be real but yours - for some reason I don't understand - reflect most people.

I get your frustration but I think you are wrong to direct it outwards at me rather than inwards at a re-examination of some of your assertions. I have no idea which of us might have more 'experience' and how universal our experiences are so I'm not going to mirror your assertion to speak for most people. I will however make the point that my experience includes a lot of work in formal groups as well as a lot of work in informal ones so I am making my judgement on the basis of a lot of involvement over 20 years in both (to over simplify) ways of doing things. I'm not saying this to get you to accept that I am right but for you to open yourself up to the possibility that I might be and that some of your assumptions may be flawed.

I will conceed one point, I was careless about in my talk of 'filling the vacum' to not specifiy that I was talking of what happens in class society (BTW Class society is much wider than the west and is not in fact an 'invention' of the west). But in the context of any discussion about Greece, the USA or indeed most of the planet this is an academic point, we live in class and indeed capitalist societies. We cannot but reproduce their values unless we structure ourselves not to, which was my point in relation to racism.

You rushed into the traditional defence of accusing me of 'dogmatism' far too fast in my opinion. This I think illustrates an overall flaw in the general essay I have been trying to find a way to express. It has a naive 'why can't we all get along' tone which as we see here sounds good but often collapses as soon as someones basic beliefs are challenged - then 'why can't be get along' is substituted by insults.

The reason that there are divisions is not simply down to people not being able to get along but that these divisions actually reflect different real understandings and analysis. This includes areas where the different tactics put forward may actually be seen as counter productive or reactionary, not simply as not the best available. If you want to have good relations in these circumstances you actually have to build them not on pretending we are all saying the same thing or that out struggles always support each other but on an ability to argue out where we see each others tactics as counter productive without resorting to insults, physical attacks etc. And we have to realise if we feel entitled to challenge someones elses ideas then they are entitled to challenge ours.

A final point - your approach would make the most sense in terms of their already existing a mass movement that was fractured into tendencies who could not get on. In the absence of that movement though we have to consider that debate may be more important then getting on as there is the distinct possibility that the weak state of every aspect of the movement reflects an ideological weakness. Discussion to overcome that problem and build an actual movement are far more important that the tiny number of anarchists trying to work out how to share a rather tiny 'big tent'.

author by Peterpublication date Fri Apr 13, 2007 21:59author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Joe, it seems to me you are trying to back out of your assertion that there is a leader to the insurrectionists because you would be embarrassed by whomever you suggested.

You also got a couple things wrong. I may have been vague about this but I said I could think of 3 people who you might say, not 3 people who actually were the leader (and I intimated that for each one the suggestion of their leadership would be rather silly). The second thing, which was not so vague, is that you are conflating different people. "the people who were just before hand saying insurrectionalism avoided such problems..." I'm the only one who said I could think of three, I'm not one of the insurrectionists who joined the discussion, and I'm not an insurrectionist.

About the dogmatism. You missed my point and made what seems to me to be an unfair one in its place (but maybe I'm remembering incorrectly how I wrote it, please tell me if this is so).

When I wrote my essay, I tried not to write by saying that "insurrectionists are always like this," "organizationalists do that" "this kind of organization always fails at X problem." I tried to be very careful saying "many" or "a frequent problem" or to talk about tendencies. This is, or should be, distinctly different from dogmatism, because in my approach, you're warning allies about possible weaknesses in their positions, whereas in your approach, you say that if you continue in your chosen way of doing things, you will inevitably fail. This is a major difference. So I am not using the same method.

Also, I don't think I said my opinion reflects that of most people, though if I did, I erred and I'm sorry. What I said or meant to say was that many people, i.e. a significant amount, will experience formal organizations differently than you, therefore you should accept that many people will be more effective organizing in ways that you currently disapprove of. And I am simultaneously arguing the same thing with those same people who say that your formal organizations are inherently authoritarian. This is a far cry from the dogmatism you accuse me of, and I think your accusation is unfair, dishonest, and used to prevent yourself from seeing my criticism. I am arguing for a pluralistic approach, you seem to be arguing for a singular, orthodox approach.

I'm not interesting in getting into an experience contest. I respect your experiences and I respect your decisions about which groups and projects to work with-- I ask that you respect the experiences and decisions of others, which so far you haven't done.

"We cannot but reproduce their values unless we structure ourselves not to, which was my point in relation to racism." You're still missing that this can be done without structures. I agree that it won't happen spontaneously, it needs conscious effort, but conscious effort does not necessitate formal organization. If you have not personally had experiences that prove this, I assure you that others have, myself included. It's a little bit frustrating when someone says that something is impossible just because they have never experienced it.

"as soon as someones basic beliefs are challenged - then 'why can't be get along' is substituted by insults."
I'm sorry but I don't think I insulted anyone. José did in his response to me. After I saw that my jokes in the original essay didn't go down so well with this crowd, I apologized and clarified, whereas José was insulting and condescending well beyond that. You have also been pretty condescending, can't recall if you used any insults (we'll let "naive" pass as a criticism even if it lacked basis), and your tone in this latest post was considerably nicer.

"these divisions actually reflect different real understandings and analysis. This includes areas where the different tactics put forward may actually be seen as counter productive or reactionary, not simply as not the best available."
That was a main part of my initial criticism. Both sides of the debate are monotheistic in their thinking. Yes, it's not just that people can't get along, it's that there are differences in analysis and understanding. Gasp!!!! My sarcasm is meant to express my frustration that different analysis means conflict. So what if people have different analysis. We should talk about it, without trying to convert, and with recognizing the sincerity of the other person. Multiple analyses are good. Sometimes there are actions or approaches that are harmful-- José mentioned a bombing that harmed a passerby, but we jump to accusations that something is reactionary, that we know what are the only strategies that will work, far too quickly. And we certainly underestimate how much our shared desire to destroy all oppression and coercive authority counts for. I'm not calling for an abandonment of criticism, but a broadened acceptance of what's possible and a total reworking of how we conceive and use criticism. Yes, many analyses!

author by Joepublication date Fri Apr 13, 2007 23:10author address author phone Report this post to the editors

H'mm I nearly always find when you dig into these topics you start to run into problems with the way people use language.

For instance "I agree that it won't happen spontaneously, it needs conscious effort, but conscious effort does not necessitate formal organization." doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me - unless you are simply falling back into the empty method of labeling every you don't like formal and everything you do like informal.

Something that is not spontaneous is by definition organised and what I'd guess you are talking about (but you can perhaps explain if I'm wrong) is methods connected with the way a meeting is faciliatated, speaking order is decided etc? To me this is a pretty formal way of running a meeting - very much more formal in fact than a lot of union meetings.

You assert that I am "arguing for a singular, orthodox approach" wheras you "tried to be very careful saying "many" or "a frequent problem" or to talk about tendencies". First off I don't think this is true, I think in your original essay you made some very definite assertions about the superority of one method over the other. Some examples include "these weaknesses have appeared and reappeared in no uncertain terms for over a century," or "Organizations should be temporary" or "their structures are far more intelligently designed when it comes to surviving repression."

These are all pretty definitive statements you made and to be honest I prefer this in a debate - a lot of wishy washy 'well whatever you think, it might suit you but not me' liberal crap clarifies nothing and frequently doesn't feel very honest. Definitive statements can at least be challenged, you can ask for evidence for assertions etc and not simply get a 'many people prefer' type response.

The only room I see for vagueness is in the recognition that different organisational tasks may be better carried out in one way of the other. Thus informal organisation is often the only way to quickly bring together a large group of previously unconnected people or to hold together a large group of people who don't have a lot in common. But - and this is the key to the real debate - formal organisation remains essential to another set of tasks.

The debate about who is more pluralistic is a pretty empty one but in this context it does strike me that while most platformists are willing to use informal organisational methods in what they see as suitable circumstances a logical application of insurrectionalist ideology would not allow the reverse. That is platformist ideology states where formal organisation is necessary in some (but not all conditions). Insurrectionalist ideology sees formal organisation as bad in all circumstances. An insurrectionalist who is pluralistic on the question of formal organisation is no longer an insurrectionalist as I understand the ideology.

author by Kim Keyser - Anarkismopublication date Sat Apr 14, 2007 23:55author address Oslo, Norwayauthor phone Report this post to the editors

To be honest I don't find much of this debate relevant to my own everyday life. This is partly because I don't know of any real insurrectionalists where I live, but also because it's rather predictable.

One aspect I find interesting though, is the relation between informal cultures VS formal structures.

The first thing to get absolutely clear is that it's not a question of informal cultures OR formal structures. Informal cultures exists nevertheless in all organizations and basically every institution in which humans deal with other humans (such as nations, families, tribes, schools, etc..). Nobody here wrote it's a matter of either or, but nevertheless I think it's helpful to clarify it by explicitly specifing that it is not.

The cultural aspect is the definitely most important aspect, as it is the very real way in which people ACTUALLY deal with eachother, while the formal structural aspect (as it's specified in a constitution, platform, etc.) states how people SHOULD deal with each other. This implies that people might or might not put the constitution and other formal documents into practice.

However, such formal structures almost always shape the informal culture to some extent, and is thus a tool to prevent hierarchies - informal (as it is manifested in the culture) as well as formal. To use the example of limiting constitutional terms, Joe is thus very right in stating that "Getting rid of the constitution does not add to this protection it subtracts from it.".

Some quotes from a pamphlet I wrote called "Direct Democracy: Our Means & Our Goal" fits nicely in here:

[START QUOTE]
Power relations and informal networks exist nevertheless. Certain persons will have more time and money to use in organizing, have more contacts, be more used to and more skilled in adressing large assemblies, nevermind writing articles and pamphlets, last but not least: SOME PEOPLE WILL TAKE THE DECISIONS.

What needs to be decided is whether these power relations and networks should be FORMAL or INFORMAL. As the feminist Jo Freeman wrote in her classic Tyranny of Structureless: "We cannot decide whether to have a structured or structureless group, only whether or not to have a FORMALLY structured one."

This is something many proponents of consensus is not conscious of. They sincerely believe that by consciously omitting the establishment of positions of power, and thus nobody to hold these positions, they abolish power relations. This has certain naive similarities to a child which is scared by a clown, and which closes its eyes and thinks the clown has disappeared. But in the same manner as power, it won't perish - the clown is still in front of the child and there will still be someone who'll possess more influence than others in organizations. WHAT ON THE OTHER HAND IS PERISHED IS THE POSSIBILITY TO DEMOCRATICALLY DELEGATE AND ROTATE THE POSITIONS OF POWER:

"If the movement continues deliberately to not select who shall exercise power, it does not thereby abolish power. All it does is abdicate the right to demand that those who do exercise power and influence be responsible for it." (...) "(...) informal structures have no obligation to be responsible to the group at large. Their power was not given to them; it cannot be taken away."

It can be in formal direct democratic organizations.
[END QUOTE]

So Peter is right when he says:
"The form a group takes, including whether it develops a hierarchy, depends on both structure and culture."

However, I think he is wrong in "disagreeing
that getting rid of constitutional protections makes people more vulnerable to hierarchy""

Personally I have a lot of organizational experience in quite a few organizations and networks which contradicts just that. The most recent experience occured just a couple of months ago in a libertarian leaning Marxist group I was involved in. What happened was that the articles I wrote ended up in a section called something equivalent to "Others opinions". But personally I thought I was a part of this group and thus my articles should've been official parts of the publication (not an important issue in it self of course, but the reason behind why it ended up there is indeed important).

The reason was that this is an informal group with neither formal membership (on the surface it's stated status is a "community" which anyone can become active in), constitution nor platform. Thus the editor (informal - ie. non-mandated) put the articles as "Others opinions". His reason for doing so was that it was not in line with the groups politics - but the politics is not specified in a platform or something similar, so he could interpret and adjust what is in line with the groups politics to his own discretion. It was no formal ways for me to complain, quitting the group or requesting that this person be thrown out.

If the group had a platform, potential members such as myself could've used it as a foundation for whether or not to join, if it had a constitution it could've given the editor a formal mandate, the editor could've used the platform to decide whether articles should be an official part of the publication or be put on the page for "Others opinion" (quite much like we do here on Anarkismo when we decide whether articles should be features, regular stories, "Other Libertarian Press" or "Non-Anarchist Press"), if the editor would've failed his mandate, we could've taken it from him and possibly expelled him, and finally: if this would've been turned down by the membership I could've left the group.

Peter might say that it's because the group didn't have the right culture, and he would be partly right. The point is that formal structures normally influences the culture to a huge degree (ie: if the editor would've had a formal mandate, he'd probably be wary of abusing it, because then he'd lose his position - but only if the organization took its own formal structures seriously (ie. a cultural challenge)).

This is especially true for large organizations (which are what platformist anarcho-communists try to build). One can't have a "natural selection" of national positions based on an informal culture - there has to be a formal election based on a formal structure.

This assertion of Peter is therefore plain wrong in my opinion: "If a group has no formal positions of responsibility, then all other things being equal their structure neither encourages nor discourages hierarchy, therefore it depends on group culture as to whether a hierarchy will develop."

PS: I raised this point in the group and it resulted in a debate about making a platform and constitution - something which has not been realized yet, due to the low activity of the group, but is at least realized as necessary by the most central persons (including the editor - a person I have no fights with).

author by javierpublication date Mon Apr 16, 2007 01:49author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Kim, your article sound interesting, is it published? could you publish it if it is not already?

Thanks in advance

author by Kim Keyser - Anarkismopublication date Mon Apr 16, 2007 13:54author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Yes, in fact it is published. Do you read Norwegian? If by some strange coincidence you do, you'll find it here:http://anarki.humla.info/wiki/index.php/Main/DirekteDemokratiV%e5rtM%e5lAmpV%e5rtMiddel

It will be translated to English, but I'll not even start on that before I've finished the other part of my forthcoming book. It's called something like "The Tools of Liberty: Direct Democracy & Direct Action". The part on direct democracy only needs polishing (it's basically the same as the pamphlet called "Direct Democracy: Our Means & Our Goal"), but the part on direct action is barely started. Sorry if that was a disappointing answer.

I'll promise you though: when it's published in English you'll be able to find it, or at least a review of it, here at Anarkismo.net

Number of comments per page
  
 
This page can be viewed in
English Italiano Deutsch
© 2005-2024 Anarkismo.net. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Anarkismo.net. [ Disclaimer | Privacy ]