💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › larry-gambone-an-anarchist-strategy-discussion.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 12:03:37. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: An Anarchist Strategy Discussion Author: Larry Gambone Language: en Topics: panarchy, strategy, mutualism, TAZ, green anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, libertarian municipalism Source: Retrieved 11/30/2021 from http://www.mutualist.org/id13.html Notes: Originally posted in three parts to the Voluntary Cooperation Movement Yahoo! Group (vcmdiscussion)
I tried unsuccessfully to get this discussion going in the A-Act
anarchist discussion group. Unfortunately, no one seemed interested. My
conclusion is that many anarchists — simply have no idea what they are
doing or even want to know.
Strategic thinking involves a search for what Marxists have called the
“subject of history” ie the group that is seen as the agent of change.
Once the agent is identified, the means by which this agent makes change
is discussed. Anarchists as varied in viewpoint as Proudhon, Bakunin,
Kropotkin, Tolstoy and Landauer all favored a populist approach, one
that identified the agent as the common people — made up of farmers,
artisans, peasants, industrial workers and small traders.
Anarcho-syndicalists such as the Spanish CNT favored a populist approach
as well, favoring a union of peasant and worker. Syndicalism that was
more marxist in orientation, tended to adopt the view that the
proletariat alone was the agent.
While social individualists like Proudhon, the younger Tucker and Jo
Labadie were populists, the more hard-core individualists influenced by
Max Stirner (like Emile Armand) rejected any collective notion of an
agent. While the working population (in the broad sense as above) might
be more open to anarchism than the elite, conscious individuals through
their actions made change. Another group of anarchists — comprising
social individualists and anarcho-communists — favored the building of
intentional communities.
The means varied as well. After the death of Proudhon most anarchists
favored revolution, at first through insurrection and later the notion
of the general strike. Social individualists favored the creation of
mutual aid societies, support for decentralism and education.
Stirnerists favored education and the individual action.
“Marxist” syndicalism. Chomskyism. Permanent Protest. Opting Out.
Intentional Communities. Gulching. TAZ. County Takeover. Panarchy. Green
Anarchism, Social Ecology, Libertarian Municipalism.
The first two have little to offer us as strategic thinking.
Most contemporary syndicalism adopted the marxist class viewpoint. As
such there is little understanding of the population which does not fit
within that rubric, nor any explanation of how the tiny syndicalist
groups are going to expand to influence the working population in a
revolutionary direction. Often ends up tailing bureaucratic unions, with
little understanding of how they are some of the most centralizing,
conservative and authoritarian groups in society.
A variant of marxism pretending to be anarchist. Claims to see the
working population as the force for change. Supports the centralized
state as a means of protecting the alleged gains made by the working
class in the 1940s. No explanation as how one achieves statelessness by
encouraging the growth of statism.
This concept regards fundamental change, whether revolutionary or
reformist, as unlikely. Anarchists consist of small groups or
individuals who engage in permanent protest against authoritarianism.
The spirit of liberty is thus kept alive, but without a final goal of a
libertarian society. This is an understandable direction, given the
increasingly totalitarian bent of the contemporary state, and does
provide a viable alternative to the two rejected strategies above.
However, the idea that we are unlikely to ever achieve any of our goals
is not a particularly great inspiration for action. It also overlooks
the fact that an increasing number of people, while not anarchists, have
become disenchanted with statism and thus the partial roll-back of
authority need not remain forever in the realm of the impossible.
The concept here is for people in general to ignore the state,
government and corporate capitalism and go their own way creating
economic and “political” alternatives. This is one of the most realistic
strategies for it is based upon extending existing mutual aid and
communitarianism. (Eg barter systems, co-ops, land trusts) Its drawback
is the difficulty in ignoring ever increasing regulation and state
interference. Some variations on Opting Out include: Intentional
Communities, Gulching, TAZ, and County Takeover. Intentional communities
can suffer from the attention of government (Remember Waco!) and be
hamstrung by regulations and by-laws. The search for cheaper,
less-regulated property can lead to difficulties in generating income.
Gulching and TAZ [1] overcome many of these problems by hiding from the
state and rejecting permanency. While both have much to recommend them,
I think the drawbacks here are similar to those of Permanent Protest.
This concept overcomes one of the major flaws in all forms of social
anarchism. This is the fact that many people do not want, and indeed
fear, freedom and thus become the staunchest adversaries of
libertarianism. The goal is therefore not to destroy all illegitimate
authority, but to create a society where those who wish to be free have
liberty and those who choose not to be free are dominated by government.
Thus, we would have a multitude of freely chosen social arrangements,
some authoritarian, some libertarian. Drawbacks: The problem with
authoritarians is they are not content with just tormenting each other,
but wish to impose themselves upon those who are free. Panarchy
envisages social governments, but territoriality is something deeply
rooted and cannot be written-off as a kind of superstition.
Insights derived from ecology, (or any other science, ) are of great
value to anarchist thinking. However anarchism cannot be reduced to a
branch of ecology. Pinning their hopes on environmentalism has left the
Green Anarchists and Social Ecologists hanging out to dry as green
concepts have been adopted by authoritarians, corporate capitalists and
state socialists. Libertarian municipalism has been valuable in focusing
upon the restoration of municipal autonomy and direct democracy.
However, it remains a form of anarchist communism and the people most
favorable to municipal democracy and autonomy tend to be those who are
least supportive of communism.
Most contemporary anarchist strategies have little conception of just
who is going to carry out social change. The ordinary “middle class”
working person is often treated with contempt by anarchists and one sees
continual negative references to “suburbanites”, “middle class” etc. But
if it is not the ordinary person, who is going to carry out this task?
There have been a number of alternatives suggested, none of which are
satisfactory.
One alternative is to opt for the lumpen proletariat. The problem here
is that this group is only about 5% of the population and is feared and
despised by the rest of the people. How can such a group ever give rise
to social change? The other problem with the lumpen is they are the most
dog-eat-dog “individualists” one could find. And when they do engage in
collective action it consists of rioting or gangsterism. The gang, the
most authoritarian form of organization possible, is in fact their only
natural form of organization. For these reasons, among others, lumpens
are not attracted to anarchism, preferring fascism and neo-nazism. There
is also an unconscious form of lumpen cultism found among the more
violent oriented anarchists. This is to attribute lumpen attitudes to
the working class. Thus rioting is considered “proletarian”, theft is
called “proletarian shopping” etc. These anarchists are simply fooling
themselves.
Another alternative is to opt for middle class drop out counter cultures
and youth cultures. The problem again is the miniscule number of people
involved. Also drop-outs tend to drop back in and become liberals in old
age, youth culturists grow up, and youth culture is quickly absorbed by
consumerism anyway.
The Osmotic Gradualists. The concept here is that while the mass of the
population may not be open to anarchist ideas now, anarchists can
introduce their ideas thru education or creating alternative structures.
These ideas then gradually perculate down into society. Thus, a few
small groups in the end have a great deal of influence. This is a form
of slow evolutionary or gradualist anarchism. (A good example of this
has been in the field of education)
If one wishes to remain a social anarchist who wants to move at a pace
quicker than Osmotic Gradualism, there is little choice but to see the
ordinary working person as the agent of change and to search for
whatever libertarian aspects one can find among them. There are simply
no alternatives. If one cannot see the average Joe or Jane having some
libertarian attitudes, one must forget the idea of quick mass social
change and opt for either the Osmotic Strategy or a form of hard core
individualism. This is the only way to be consistent. While I am a
social individualist who believes radical social change is possible, I
respect both positions for their honesty and consistency. They are
viable options for those anarchists, who for what ever reason, cannot
have faith in the working people.
Nor need there be any conflict between the social individualist who
believes in short-term possibilities and the Osmotic Gradualists and
hard core individualists. The latter, contrary to the streotype, is not
opposed to joining organizations. All three kinds of anarchists can, and
do, work together in small organizations or in intentional communities
and other alternative structures.
As for the r-r-r-revolutionaries, the folks with the black masks and
molotovs, (and especially those who egg them on) please climb down from
your cloud. A revolution implies mass involvement. How can you have mass
involvement when you alienate those very masses by your words and
actions? If you really think yourself so “far ahead” of the working
people, youd better dump your revolutionary pretenses and become an
Osmotic.
Respectfully leaving aside our Osmotic and hard-core individualist
friends, what conclusions might the mass-oriented social individualist
come to as a result of the preceding discussion? For certain, none of
the strategies discussed here is perfect, all have their weak points,
most all of them have certain strengths.
To begin with, a mass (populist) orientation requires that one search
for all the various beliefs and activities that are of a general
libertarian and social nature found among ordinary people. These would
consist of any form of decentralism, direct democracy, regionalism,
opposition to government and regulation, all forms of voluntary
association, free exchange and mutual aid. This would imply ditching the
left-right dicotomy favored by traditional politics. The real difference
is between those who opt for statist, centralist and undemocratic
policies — the authoritarians, and those who promote non-statist,
decentralist and direct democratic policies, or the libertarians. Of
course, there will be a divergence of opinion on many matters such as
religion, abortion, economies and so forth, yet these secondary issues
should not be allowed to get in the way of the promotion of fundamental
changes in the political structure. Once these libertarian aspects are
discovered they should be communicated in an attempt to generalize these
beliefs and activities among the rest of the population. They also need
to be defended from the enemies of freedom, by which I mean the
neo-conservatives and the authoritarian left. (The two sides of the
debased coin of corporate liberalism) We have seen the vicious slanders
with which the corporate liberals attack such groups as tax protesters,
home schoolers and gun owners. Hence, anarchists should become directly
involved in popular struggles, rather than those that are deemed
Politically Correct or Flavor Of The Month. Imagine if only a dozen
anarchists had appeared with a readable leaflet and a book table full of
decentralist literature during the recent march in Montreal of 75,000
people opposed to municipal amalgamation. An incredible opportunity to
make contact with the real working population.
A second point would be to turn this anti-government feeling in a
positive direction. So far most of this popular expression has only
served to give support to the neo-conservatives, who, of course, are no
more interested in cutting back on the State then their leftist
pseudo-opposition. The best way to do this would be to propose
client-owned and run mutual aid systems for social services like public
education, health care and unemployment insurance, with subsidies for
those people too poor to afford the fees. This would show up the
neo-cons as phonies and back the left into a corner from which it could
not escape.
A third point is that while the leadership of the left are liars and
hypocrites, the membership is not necessarily so. Many of these people
are sincere and support the Greens, the NDP, Labour Party or Democrats
or whatever out of what they see as a lack of alternatives. As well as
finding the liberatory and social among the common people (who are not
ideological) we must find some common ground with the rank and file
left. This would mean appealing to their notions of the social and of
diversity and pluralism. This also means confronting them with the
totalitarian nature of corporate liberalism. This would mean showing
them how we can better achieve their goal of equality through
non-statist means. This would mean getting them to understand that
democracy, community and civil society are not catch phrases. This would
mean educating them what the old-time left was about and that the labor
movement once practiced social solidarity. Ultimately, we need to
maintain a dialogue and build bridges with both the libertarian “right”
and rank and file left-liberals in an attempt to build a social
consensus favorable to our goals.
The fourth point consists of all that can be gained from what I have
earlier suggested as partial solutions to the problems of governmental
authority and corporate capitalism.
We should adopt much of the panarchist perspective. Many people simply
fear freedom and will fight it to the bitter end. Rather than promoting
the ideal of freedom for all, we should promote the ideal of freedom for
those who want it Rather than pushing universal freedom, suggest
universal pluralism through sociological governments (and
non-governments) Opting out and the building of alternatives should be
encouraged, however such activities should be incorporated within the
larger (populist) struggle to reduce illegitimate authority. If we can
convince significant sections of the left-liberals to take their chatter
about diversity seriously, libertarian municipalism, free counties and
Permanent Autonomous Zones become possible.
[1] The TAZ is like an uprising which does not engage directly with the
State, a guerrilla operation which liberates an area (of land, of time,
of imagination) and then dissolves itself to re-form elsewhere/elsewhen,
before the State can crush it. Because the State is concerned primarily
with Simulation rather than substance, the TAZ can “occupy” these areas
clandestinely and carry on its festal purposes for quite a while in
relative peace. Perhaps certain small TAZs have lasted whole lifetimes
because they went unnoticed, like hillbilly enclaves — because they
never intersected with the Spectacle, never appeared outside that real
life which is invisible to the agents of Simulation. , but its greatest
strength lies in its invisibility — the State cannot recognize it
because History has no definition of it. As soon as the TAZ is named
(represented, mediated), it must vanish, it will vanish, leaving behind
it an empty husk, only to spring up again somewhere else. Hakim Bey,
Temporary Autonomous Zones