- whereas there is no reason to believe that this order can be overthrown and replaced by something radically different and better.-

no reason? or no desire? or no ability? it seems usually the liberal reformist left sells itself short and this is entirely appropriate vocabulary considering the wholesale acceptance of dominant capitalist ideology. certainly it could be proposed that to encourage truly radical and catastrophic change one would have to adopt strategies and tactics that were truly radical themselves. for one, rebuking the longterm viability of tactics that are ultimately allowed and even condoned by the state such as thoroughly planned rallies (with their proper permits and activist prefiguration training usually led by others of credentials showing the proper way to get arrested; having support from local lawyers to make sure all the arrest are propoerly conducted if necessary etc..), collecting signatures, vigils usually involving the consumption and sale of food or auctions or voting or numerous other examples of legitamizing the state and the systems of exploitation that surround it. you’ll never vote the state out of existence. and never once do reformist libs seems to acknowledge the great privelge they continue to enjoy by keepingthe state in existence and being fortunate enough to only want to improve it, margianlly I might add. the mystification of gradualism

not only in condoning the above tactics as methods of strategically viable options in pursuing social change, there is no real critical praxis undertaken in the rejection of revamping revolutionary tools such as dual power and autonomy and reimagining them in ways to propose successful alternatives to the state. alternative and free health clinics, schools, housing and resource ghathering that in actuality provides the needs (and oppurtunities to learn how to provide themselves) those who don’t benefit from the regular ‘benefactors’ and those that do – by choosign to participate which often means just showing up. historically (spain 36, korea 24, ukraine 19, alternative abortive clinics in the us, ) and in present reality (zapatistas, argentinian worker run factories, current proliferation of free schools, identified squats, midwives) these things have existed and exist successfully (not that they don’t have their own problems but I leave the unreality of perfection and the soliphism inherent to the producers of razors and other innumerable and exponentially ‘improved’ products – quattro, mach3, xtreme etc..)

I’ve found that most people on the radical left (whether “authoritarian” or “libertarian”) subscribe to various forms of fantasy ideologies. For them, politics is about validating their own personal political beliefs (like being “anti-state”) rather than accomplishing anything political. That’s not to say that the libertarian left holds uninteresting political beliefs. But let’s be honest, how many of these black-hooded youths actually thinks “the state” is going to collapse anytime soon?

That’s the clincher. As I’ve written elsewhere, utopian political programs lead to dystopian outcomes. Reform is necessary in any society or system of government, economics, jurisprudence, and so forth. But revolution, at least as dreamed by the radical left in the U.S., is a fantasy.

Marx 101: “liberal activists”, even if they wanted to, CANNOT create the downfall of capitalism. Workers CAN, by using their economic power. Simple as that.

@ ‘Anti-capitalist consumers’

Cmon. That sort of shit is reserved for apolitical hippies and the green movement more broadly. Our goal is not to affect supply and demand, our goal is to create a fucking revolution. I’m happy to use vegetarianism/veganism/brand boycotting/whatever as awareness raising tools, but lets not waste our time advocating these things: there are more fundamental arguments to be making.

Great article, and I agree with almost all of it, the only exception probably being the community-based stuff… I’m not sure how that fits in with your class analysis of the role of workers, given that a community can be made up (and often is made up) of people with differing class interests. A middle-class family might not care that library internet services are inadequate, but a working-class refugee family sure as hell will.

Community stuff is ok, as long as we’re cautious about how we use the term. We don’t want it to be used as a tool for the ruling class ala nationalism. In any case, I think it’s worthy work but not really a priority.

Some good points, and I agree with you about the ‘us-them’ dynamic (having drifted into anarchism out of a ‘them’ category of liberal activism).

The challenge is to be more inclusive of new people, to maybe offer discussion sessions that allow exploration of thinking, not just exposition of the current purpose-of-protest.. and that comes down to a time management thing, ‘cos so many activists are working on more than one kaupapa at once.

This is all very pertinent for me, after sitting on the Freedom Shop table at the gig at the Adelaide Bar in Newtown yesterday, for the afternoon, and seeing how many people had come into the pub, as regulars, but were not comfortable approaching ‘the anarchists’ running the info table or the books stall. Yeah, I was people watching as much as I was listening to the great line-up of performers we had there…

I’d also earlier been down to the wharf to visit some mates from Auckland who were in harbour on the Rainbow Warrior II, so my cross-organisational antennae were fully functional.
I couldn’t help contrasting the way total strangers, many without an activist connection, were welcomed into the space of the ship, and given a personal run-down on the actions that individuals on the ship had participated in. I managed to thank the Communications guy for the work that had been done in Lyttleton to draw attention to the Westport coal exports, which makes a mockery of the Carbon Emmissions caps that the government has agreed to, if they are profiting from selling low-grade coal to other nations.

If activism is going to survive in Aotearoa/NZ, we need to accept that sometimes, we have to reach out to other groups who have resources of personnel and equipment that we can collaborate with, if the end purpose is a mutually agreed goal. The Anti-War marches of 2003 were a good example of this. There are still a lot of areas where anarchist activists have common thinking with more established groups, but the will to reach out is sometimes just not there.

Human Rights abuses, land confiscation and post-colonisation policies are all ‘up top’ in our concerns right now – how we get others to engage in these struggles is the challenge.

Me, I’m just opening my big mouth and asking them to join us, any time I can. Anywhere, in any forum, that I have access to. It’s a start, and just maybe, it’ll work. But if I don’t ask, I’ll never know!

Keep loving, keep fighting!
xxXXxx K

I don’t think I will post to blogs or indy again!!!
dan

dan

well this is the first time I have ever replied to a blog! Guess that is what happens if you are home alone very tired but can’t quite bring yourself to go to bed.

There has been a number of this types of articles over the past few years and I guess I would agree with the general tone of them. The “scatter-gun” approach to organising is something we definitely need to think beyond and develop methods of on-going movement building (if I can use that term). Not sure if I like the whole lumping together of “anarchist activists” however. Some of us always have to deal with life outside of the “activist community”. I have often felt alienated form anarchist organising over the years because it is largely been dominated by middle-class “professional” protestors who have chosen to go on the dole (nothing wrong with that in itself of course!) but there has been numerous times were comments/attitudes of the people involved have made me think how detached it all seems from what you term the “everyday struggles” of “non-activists” or the “working class”. Its is of course also largely dominated by pakeha males as well, but since that isn’t the focus of the this article I will leave that to later.

Also sometime I often feel dismayed with is that we often don’t seem to try very hard to involve other people. It often seems that personal friendships or organising with or “mates” is more important that building political movements. Not staying that personal relationships aren’t important but private oraganising and knowledge based on personal connects can be good but also quite damaging. Surely we need to build groups/movements/struggles were we can oraginse with people we don’t maybe get along with. Also I think that this ties in with what you are saying about what issues we focus on. I totally agree with you in that a lot of things aren’t considered sexy, and in much the same way we don’t seem much interested in real discussions about internal democracy (sp?) or meeting culture because things like spies or security culture is way more “cool”. Also agree with Scott about our lack of thinking about the current state of things in NZ or future trends.

blah blah should really go to bed

dan rae

You do make the distinction between community activists and NGOs, but I think you are still confused about the difference between rank-and-file activists and professional activists.

The other main problem with your arguments here is that you repeat the workerist canard that people can be separated into “activists” and “labor organizers” or “revolutionaries.” The obvious refutation of this is that many people are engaged in both community and workplace struggles. People are involved in workplace struggles and activism. Most intelligent people don’t see a need to compartmentalize their struggles. You may think that bike activism is “lifestylist” or whatever, but most bike activists use their bikes to GET TO WORK.

I also know plenty of activists who are interested in revolutionary struggle. I’ll associate with those who have a commitment to practical activities that net results and who are revolutionary, not those who wear revolution on their sleeves and whose activity consists of whining about the radicals who are getting shit done.