02GSbrDJ

1
2Comments on Larry Gambones' Anarchist Strategy Discussion
3
4By IP Freely
5	
6
7"PART ONE.
8
9I tried unsuccessfully to get this discussion going in the A-Act anarchist discussion group. 
10Unfortunately, no one seemed interested. My conclusion is that many anarchists - simply have 
11no idea what they are doing or even want to know."
12
13I agree. Which is odd.
14
15"Past Strategies.
16Strategic 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.
17While 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.
18The 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."
19
20The Marxist redefinition of the "subject of history" to be what they want it to be, and to then justify their "prole-centric" ideology and action formula seems to require a good rejection. The subject of history(which is to say those who make things happen) may include many forces, including impersonal forces like earthquakes, famines, floods and disease, along with many forces within society including military elites and the monied classes (or individuals).
21Anarchists don't want to conceive of forces of action that don't dovetail with their a prior conception of forces they'd want to embrace (i.e. proto-state organizations, military coups) but that's obviously missing a chunk of the terrain.
22
23
24"Contemporary Strategies.
25
26"Marxist" syndicalism. Chomskyism. Permanent Protest. Opting Out. Intentional Communities. Gulching. TAZ. County Takeover. Panarchy. Green Anarchism, Social Ecology, Libertarian Municipalism.
27
28The first two have little to offer us as strategic thinking.
29
30"Syndicalism.
31
32Most contemporary syndicalism adopted the marxist class viewpoint. "
33
34If by 'class war' you mean the marxist class viewpoint I think that predates marxism by a few thousand years (Marx himself lifted the class war rhetoric from the Romans and others). 
35Moreover, Syndicalism doesn't posit historical inevitability but rather worker solidarity (whether driven by a leninist 'vanguard' or wildcat strikes). 
36
37I am no expert on either marxism or syndicalism but this summary seems to be too simplistic to account for the differences between the IWW and the SWP or the RCP for that matter.
38
39"As such there is little understanding of the population which does not fit within that rubric, 
40nor any explanation of how the tiny syndicalist groups are going to expand to influence the 
41working population in a revolutionary direction. Often ends up tailing bureaucratic unions,
42with little understanding of how they are some of the most centralizing, conservative and authoritarian groups in society."
43
44"Often ends up" is an interesting point: failure. If a strategy or tactic fails can be conclude then it is a bad one?
45I think that without a careful study the answer is "no". It is quite possible that, to paraphrase Machiavelli, one can do 
46all the right things and still fail due to "fortuna". By that measure it's possible that Lenin didn't want a monolithic Soviet
47dictatorship but once it was in place those who saw it's benefit made sure it persisted (just hypothetically speaking).
48
49Similarly, those who advocate union syndicalism might fail - either being insignificant ("tiny...groups") or else
50unable to lead ("tailing...unions"). This doesn't prove that the strategy is unsound only that is has eluded either
51the actors or the situations or both. 
52
53"Chomskyism.
54
55A variant of marxism pretending to be anarchist. Claims to see the working population as the force for change. 
56Supports the centralized state as a means of protecting the alleged gains made by the working class in the 1940s. i
57No explanation as how one achieves statelessness by encouraging the growth of statism." 
58
59Since "achieving statelessness" is itself almost entirely theoretical no method can be ruled out a prior. Can a states growth be used
60to end a state? I'd say there is precedence for the over-extension of states (in wars for example) that cause them to fail.
61Does this mean a hawkish imperialism is a way to cause a state to collapse? Actually, it might. Does that mean anarchists
62are going to advocate hawkish imperialism? Probably not. 
63
64As far as I can tell the trading of mortgage backed security (MBS) has done more to harm capitalism than all the petrol bombs, 
65general strikes, radical leafletting, squatting, "living anarchy", graffiti, and so on. Does that mean that anarchists
66are going to start trading in highly speculative instruments to help destablize capitalism (assuming we ACCEPT the capitalism = statism link)?
67Probably not.
68
69"Permanent Protest.
70
71This concept regards fundamental change, whether revolutionary or reformist, as unlikely. 
72Anarchists consist of small groups or individuals who engage in permanent protest against authoritarianism.
73The spirit of liberty is thus kept alive, but without a final goal of a libertarian society. 
74This is an understandable direction, given the increasingly totalitarian bent of the contemporary state, 
75and does provide a viable alternative to the two rejected strategies above. 
76However, the idea that we are unlikely to ever achieve any of our goals is not a particularly great inspiration 
77for action. It also overlooks the fact that an increasing number of people, while not anarchists, have become 
78disenchanted with statism and thus the partial roll-back of authority need not remain forever in the realm of 
79the impossible."
80
81The idea of small scale protest providing a direct or indirect means to change society is not really addressed here. 
82If the motif is small scale change then the question of societal impact is the ability to either scale (for a 
83monolithic entity) or more likely - since anarchist organizations of late don't scale well - the ability to replicate.
84With a method of rapid replication it would not be inconceivable that small scale protests could over-whelm the
85status quo. Not necessarily "likely" but not inconceivable.
86
87"Opting Out
88
89The concept here is for people in general to ignore the state, government and corporate capitalism and go their 
90own way creating economic and "political" alternatives. This is one of the most realistic strategies for it is 
91based upon extending existing mutual aid and communitarianism. (Eg barter systems, co-ops, land trusts) Its 
92drawback is the difficulty in ignoring ever increasing regulation and state interference. Some variations on 
93Opting Out include: Intentional Communities, Gulching, TAZ, and County Takeover. Intentional communities can 
94suffer from the attention of government (Remember Waco!) and be hamstrung by regulations and by-laws. 
95The search for cheaper, less-regulated property can lead to difficulties in generating income. Gulching and 
96TAZ (*) overcome many of these problems by hiding from the state and rejecting permanency. While both have 
97much to recommend them, I think the drawbacks here are similar to those of Permanent Protest."
98
99Remember Waco indeed. A cursory reading of the Waco situation suggests that it was an armed right wing millenial cult with a 
100charismatic leader. I'm not sure which part(s) of that description would fall into the realm of any real anarchist group:
101I'd hope that they'd not be right wing, they might be armed, and they might have charismatic leaders(?) but hopefully not
102be a cult (can we have anarchist cults?). 
103
104Intentional communities can suffer from their own conservatism and their own (indirect) reliance upon the state to manage
105their neighbors and possibly their own dependency on the products of a complex economy (e.g. nuclear and coal fuels, 
106computer systems, telephone systems, industrial farming machinery) which no anarchist theory I'm aware of has any
107particular method of producing. Additionally ICs and others are dependent upon the state for "law and order" - hostile
108racist neighbors and gun-toting visitors or members might require. 
109
110
111"Panarchy.
112
113This concept overcomes one of the major flaws in all forms of social anarchism. This is the fact that many people 
114do not want, and indeed fear, freedom and thus become the staunchest adversaries of libertarianism. The goal is 
115therefore not to destroy all illegitimate authority, but to create a society where those who wish to be free have 
116liberty and those who choose not to be free are dominated by government. Thus, we would have a multitude of freely 
117chosen social arrangements, some authoritarian, some libertarian. Drawbacks: The problem with authoritarians is they 
118are not content with just tormenting each other, but wish to impose themselves upon those who are free. Panarchy i
119envisages social governments,
120but territoriality is something deeply rooted and cannot be written-off as a kind of superstition.  i
121Green Anarchism, Social Ecology and Libertarian Municipalism 
122Insights derived from ecology, (or any other science, ) are of great value to anarchist thinking. 
123However anarchism cannot be reduced to a branch of ecology. Pinning their hopes on environmentalism has left the 
124Green Anarchists and Social Ecologists hanging out to dry as green concepts have been adopted by authoritarians, 
125corporate capitalists and state socialists. Libertarian municipalism has been valuable in focusing upon the 
126restoration of municipal autonomy and direct democracy. However, it remains a form of anarchist communism and the 
127people most favorable to municipal democracy and autonomy tend to be those who are least supportive of communism."
128
129Is "panarchy" a strategy or just another pipe dream? A system that regulates governments would - afaik - have to be another 
130kind of government (a UN?). So far anarchism has not regulated any governments ever, and has overthrown very few-to-none. 
131I'd rate panarchy right up there with a moon colony as far as improbability goes.
132
133(*)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
134
135
136"ANARCHIST STRATEGIES PART 2
137
138Most contemporary anarchist strategies have little conception of just who is going to carry out social change. 
139The ordinary "middle class" working person is often treated with contempt by anarchists and one sees continual 
140negative references to "suburbanites" , "middle class" etc. But if it is not the ordinary person, who is going 
141to carry out this task? There have been a number of alternatives suggested, none of which are satisfactory."
142
143Strictly speaking the failures of those who are currently self-described anarchists and their (class/race) foibles
144are not really strategy issues, however the reality of the situation is that those who gravitate to anarchism
145("spontanously?") drag along their biases about education, class, race, political correctness, conformity and so on.
146
147A rejection of the "petite-bourgeoisie" does not necessarily mean that they aren't to be the instruments of liberation. 
148In a "reverse psychology" kind of trick it might be that this is a means to galvanize the self-hating (downwardly mobile?)
149middle class. Just as, in my experience, most Yuppies don't identify with the term and most Hipsters don't either
150"middle class" has become a term of subtle or explicit abuse whether or not a former, current or future middle class 
151person is hurling it (they might be currently impoverished or even unemployed but often have elite educations which with
152some creative resume work to explain the "gap" should allow them free access to the skilled labor market without too much
153trouble.)
154
155LUMPEN-REV
156
157"One alternative is to opt for the lumpen proletariat. 
158The problem here is that this group is only about 5% of the population and is feared and despised by the rest of the people. 
159How can such a group ever give rise to social change? The other problem with the lumpen is they are the most dog-eat-dog i
160"individualists" one could find. And when they do engage in collective action it consists of rioting or gangsterism. 
161The gang, the most authoritarian form of organization possible, is in fact their only natural form of organization. 
162For these reasons, among others, lumpens are not attracted to anarchism, preferring fascism and neo-nazism. 
163There is also an unconscious form of lumpen cultism found among the more violent oriented anarchists. 
164This is to attribute lumpen attitudes to the working class. Thus rioting is considered "proletarian", theft is called 
165"proletarian shopping" etc. These anarchists are simply fooling themselves. Another alternative is to opt for 
166middle class drop out counter cultures and youth cultures. The problem again is the miniscule number of people involved. 
167Also drop-outs tend to drop back in and become liberals in old age, youth culturists grow up, and youth culture is 
168quickly absorbed by consumerism anyway."
169
170I think that I appreciate this part of your entire essay the most as this is the most insightful (but that's not to say
171I agree with it). 
172
173First, although we might agree that the criminal lumpen are say %5 (or whatever, some small number) - what is to say
174that n% is not sufficient for a "revolution/insurrection"? 
175
176Second, the assumption that the lumpen are fairly anti-anarchistic assumes that anarchism is the ideology you and I
177love (one that is social, positive and somewhat organized) - not simply a bitter renunciation of the state and a 
178wholesale justification for any and every means to eliminate it by "he who hates it most" and a rejection of anyone
179who says otherwise as "cops" or "statists". By this measure the lumpen could be adopted into anarchism with a mere circle
180A patch and the self-assertion of anarchist membership. If we are to assume that they are to be recruited into a more
181sophisticated less 'nihilistic'(with apologies to real nihilists) position this assumes that anarchists are forbidden
182to use behavior or personality change methods (see my very real question about whether or not anarchists can have cults).
183
184If anarchists can exert a cult like influence on one another then todays lumpen prole is tomorrows shining anarchist of
185almost any stripe. 
186
187I would suggest that anarcho-fascism (for lack of a better term) has existed and still exists in the "pro-riot" crowd.
188As various groups have shown that once you adopt a pro-violence rhetoric and posturing the earliest victims tend to
189be among the converted (and recently apostate). Leftists tend to shoot other leftists more easily than they kill statists.
190We get the anarcho-bully. And since anarcho-bullies (as leaders) are unelected there is no way to unelect them except by 
191force.
192
193As for the middle class counter-culture yes this does seem to be a volatile population that is easily recruited in but
194without any methods to stabilize (i.e. an IC) membership they tend to drift back into the status quo. Parents, friends, 
195relationships and the lifestyle they're used to competes heavily with permanently dropping out. You again note that its
196a small number, but no ideal number has been mentioned or justified. The 5% lumpen are too few, middle class drop outs
197would seem to include more than 5% if you aggregate them over time and particularly during some phases (the 60s/70s). 
198How many is enough? 30%? 50%? 70%? Do you need a simple majority 51%? And again what do you need them for? 
199
200
201"The Osmotic Gradualists. The concept here is that while the mass of the population may not be open to anarchist ideas 
202now, anarchists can introduce their ideas thru education or creating alternative structures. These ideas then gradually 
203perculate down into society. Thus, a few small groups in the end have a great deal of influence. This is a form of slow 
204evolutionary or gradualist anarchism. (A good example of this has been in the field of education) 
205If one wishes to remain a social anarchist who wants to move at a pace quicker than Osmotic Gradualism, there is little 
206choice but to see the ordinary working person as the agent of change and to search for whatever libertarian aspects 
207one can find among them. There are simply no alternatives. If one cannot see the average Joe or Jane having some 
208libertarian attitudes, one must forget the idea of quick mass social change and opt for either the Osmotic Strategy 
209or a form of hard core individualism. This is the only way to be consistent. While I am a social individualist who 
210believes radical social change is possible, I respect both positions for their honesty and consistency.  
211They are viable options for those anarchists, who for what ever reason, cannot have faith in the working people.
212Nor need there be any conflict between the social individualist who believes in short-term possibilities and the 
213Osmotic Gradualists and hard core individualists. The latter, contrary to the streotype, is not opposed to joining 
214organizations. All three kinds of anarchists can, and do, work together in small organizations or in intentional 
215communities and other alternative structures."
216
217I'm not sure I accept your conclusion that a rejection of gradualism necessitates a class-struggle position or individualism.
218To "assume" the working class is revolutionary because of the lack of other intellectually acceptable options is a false
219conclusion. It might be said quite the opposite: the working class is a force of enormous conservatism. They are the
220most afraid of hunger, unemployment, poverty and homelessness. Since most of society is now without farming
221skills and the almost total elimination of the small farm in the US, the city is now the only place that working people
222can survive. If it is true that the proletariat is the subject of history then it is a very pro-statist force.
223
224"As for the r-r-r-revolutionaries, the folks with the black masks and molotovs, (and especially those who egg them on) 
225please climb down from your cloud. A revolution implies mass involvement. How can you have mass involvement when you 
226alienate those very masses by your words and actions? If you really think yourself so "far ahead" of the working people, 
227youd better dump your revolutionary pretenses and become an Osmotic."
228
229The insurrectionaries appear to be falling back on to the anti-rationalist position which allows them to embrace the same 
230"feeling" oriented position as the fascists. Who needs a sophisticated ideology when you have violence to both offer
231excitement to its practitioners, a cudgel to swing at those who disagree with you (on any side of the political spectrum),
232and something you can grasp at to prove you're not a "do nothing arm chair revolutionary".  The historical failure of
233individualist insurrectionary methods somehow eludes the black-mask crowd who cannot be bothered to explain how their
234insurrection is NOT going to be hijacked by either right wing fascists selling safety and order or more militant left
235wing (i.e. marxist) fascists who can marshall the weapons, money and organization (often from neighboring or sympathetic
236states) to destroy them- as has been done before.
237
238
239"Respectfully leaving aside our Osmotic and hard-core individualist friends, what conclusions might the mass-oriented 
240social individualist come to as a result of the preceding discussion? For certain, none of the strategies discussed 
241here is perfect, all have their weak points, most all of them have certain strengths.
242To begin with, a mass (populist) orientation requires that one search for all the various beliefs and activities 
243that are of a general libertarian and social nature found among ordinary people. These would consist of any form of 
244decentralism, direct democracy, regionalism, opposition to government and regulation, all forms of voluntary 
245association, free exchange and mutual aid. This would imply ditching the left-right dicotomy favored by traditional 
246politics. The real difference is between those who opt for statist, centralist and undemocratic policies - 
247the authoritarians, and those who promote non-statist, decentralist and direct democratic policies, or the 
248libertarians. Of course, there will be a divergence of opinion on many matters such as religion, abortion, 
249economies and so forth, yet these secondary issues should not be allowed to get in the way of the promotion of 
250fundamental changes in the political structure. Once these libertarian aspects are discovered they should be 
251communicated in an attempt to generalize these beliefs and activities among the rest of the population. 
252They also need to be defended from the enemies of freedom, by which I mean the neo-conservatives and the 
253authoritarian left. (The two sides of the debased coin of corporate liberalism) We have seen the vicious 
254slanders with which the corporate liberals attack such groups as tax protesters, home schoolers and gun owners. 
255Hence, anarchists should become directly involved in popular struggles, rather than those that are deemed 
256Politically Correct or Flavor Of The Month. Imagine if only a dozen anarchists had appeared with a readable 
257leaflet and a book table full of decentralist literature during the recent march in Montreal of 75,000 
258people opposed to municipal amalgamation. An incredible opportunity to make contact with the real working population.
259A second point would be to turn this anti-government feeling in a positive direction. So far most of this 
260popular expression has only served to give support to the neo-conservatives, who, of course, are no more 
261interested in cutting back on the State then their leftist pseudo-opposition. The best way to do this 
262would be to propose client-owned and run mutual aid systems for social services like public education, 
263health care and unemployment insurance, with subsidies for those people too poor to afford the fees. 
264This would show up the neo-cons as phonies and back the left into a corner from which it could not escape."
265
266This assumes you have to be content with pre-existing or spontanoues manifestations to support and expand upon.
267What about introducing new ones? Can anarchists not "engineer" freedom? Many people have no experience with
268anarchist methods and from the ones I've seen anarchism needs more. This position suggests a popular front among
269those who are generally libertarian, provide them with some reading material (to change minds, but what about
270people who don't like to read? Or people whose minds are changed by spoken words with emotion? or who like 
271emotional appeals bereft of intellecutalism?) and then some positive direction. 
272
273"A third point is that while the leadership of the left are liars and hypocrites, the membership is not necessarily so. 
274Many of these people are sincere and support the Greens, the NDP, Labour Party or Democrats or whatever out of 
275what they see as a lack of alternatives. As well as finding the liberatory and social among the common people 
276(who are not ideological) we must find some common ground with the rank and file left. This would mean appealing 
277to their notions of the social and of diversity and pluralism. This also means confronting them with the 
278totalitarian nature of corporate liberalism. This would mean showing them how we can better achieve their goal 
279of equality through non-statist means. This would mean getting them to understand that democracy, community 
280and civil society are not catch phrases. This would mean educating them what the old-time left was about 
281and that the labor movement once practiced social solidarity. Ultimately, we need to maintain a dialogue and 
282build bridges with both the libertarian "right" and rank and file left-liberals in an attempt to build a 
283social consensus favorable to our goals. 
284The fourth point consists of all that can be gained from what I have earlier suggested as partial solutions 
285to the problems of governmental authority and corporate capitalism.
286
287We should adopt much of the panarchist perspective. Many people simply fear freedom and will fight it to the 
288bitter end. Rather than promoting the ideal of freedom for all, we should promote the ideal of freedom for 
289those who want it Rather than pushing universal freedom, suggest universal pluralism through sociological 
290governments (and non-governments) Opting out and the building of alternatives should be encouraged, however 
291such activities should be incorporated within the larger (populist) struggle to reduce illegitimate authority. 
292If we can convince significant sections of the left-liberals to take their chatter about diversity seriously, i
293libertarian municipalism, free counties and Permanent Autonomous Zones become possible." 
294
295Reducing illegitimate authority. What is legitimate? People will accept authority when it is bound to their economic 
296(and therefore social) needs: we accept the authority of the employer on those grounds. When a state provides us
297with protection against attackers domestic or foreign we accept it. Is it legitimate? 
298
299The anarchist position can be interpreted to equate authority with the state and since all states are a prior
300illegitimate all authority then is a prior illegitimate. Which means anarchists are in the position of advocating
301against economic systems that people depend on for survival (capitalism) with no real alternative ("primitivism"?). 
302It means that anarchists argue against governments with no explanation as to how, for example, the population of
303Israel is to survive without the government of Israel? 
304
305Coalition politics might indeed be a way to rejuvenate the ol Black Flag movement, but it is no guarantee that it
306will get you Anarchy. Coalition politics requires adroit maneuvering and exposes us to being out-maneuvered, betrayed,
307cajoled into compromises we might not only not like but find downright statist (or pro-capitalist or whatever). 
308Coalition politics means that we're going to have to compromise and possibly do so with people who have a
309history of manipulating and destroying anarchists (i.e. The Left) or who will attempt to corrupt our leaders or
310sway our process. 
311
312### SOME NEW THOUGHTS ###
313
314I would summarize the anarchist position as being "anti-state". It has no specific method. An anti-statist could simply 
315wait for states to fall over or actively wage war on them.
316
317Warfare is political or military. Most military warfare has a strong political element, while some political actions
318have no real military component. So it's basically political struggle or political-military struggle. 
319
320In the methods of political struggle "anything goes" as long as the state is over thrown. By this method an
321Anarchy Party could run for office on the "No goverment" campaign. They might opt to vote No on everything or
322to otherwise attempt to paralyze government through inaction, opposing all bills, veto everything, abuse every
323process to shut it down. The Anarchy party might have a referendum on whether or not to dissolve the government. 
324If enough people voted the government would cease to exist...? 
325
326This means that military-political methods are also viable. The insurrectionary position would fall somewhere in
327here with the aim of undermining the legitimacy of the government. Attacking particular people, for example by
328revealing their methods like wikileaks, helps to do just that. Regimes can be undermined in other ways, and 
329for the anarchist all methods are good. 
330
331Purely military methods - an anarchist "coup d'etat" in which a military force is used to overthrow the state and
332then abdicates control (Like Cincinattus or Washington) or is itself destroyed in a 2nd coup could be used.
333
334(more to come)
335
336(first draft)