Comments on: Reply to nate on mass and political organization http://anarchowhat.blogsome.com/2007/07/17/reply-to-nate-on-mass-and-political-organization/ yes, this is what I do for fun Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:42:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha by: todd http://anarchowhat.blogsome.com/2007/07/17/reply-to-nate-on-mass-and-political-organization/#comment-71 Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:53:12 +0100 http://anarchowhat.blogsome.com/2007/07/17/reply-to-nate-on-mass-and-political-organization/#comment-71 duke, i sorta agree with some of that (minus the smack talking). i've never gone for malatesta's arguments though because: 1. ideology is less a product of will than of history. there are no apolitical unions, just unions with different positions in the class. likewise composition of the unions will vary with the context. 2. malatesta misses the role of struggle radicalizing workers consciousness. this makes growth without watering down principles possible, since workers in participating can be radicalized (not saying it will, just that it is possible, which destroys the fork in his argument). 3. i think the argument is true of unions. i also agree that unions are usually counterrevolutionary. i just don't think anarchists should build unions. we should build workers organizations that (a) build consciousness through struggle itself, (b) can initiate and widen struggle, and (c) create a framework for workers/community councils. this is different from unions, and a revision of anarchosyndicalism, but one that comes out of a wing of a-s (friends of durruti, fora, councilist inspired a-s). 4. malatesta didn't believe it interestingly. he helped build the USI a few years after making those arguments. duke, i sorta agree with some of that (minus the smack talking). i’ve never gone for malatesta’s arguments though because:
1. ideology is less a product of will than of history. there are no apolitical unions, just unions with different positions in the class. likewise composition of the unions will vary with the context.
2. malatesta misses the role of struggle radicalizing workers consciousness. this makes growth without watering down principles possible, since workers in participating can be radicalized (not saying it will, just that it is possible, which destroys the fork in his argument).
3. i think the argument is true of unions. i also agree that unions are usually counterrevolutionary. i just don’t think anarchists should build unions. we should build workers organizations that (a) build consciousness through struggle itself, (b) can initiate and widen struggle, and (c) create a framework for workers/community councils. this is different from unions, and a revision of anarchosyndicalism, but one that comes out of a wing of a-s (friends of durruti, fora, councilist inspired a-s).
4. malatesta didn’t believe it interestingly. he helped build the USI a few years after making those arguments.

]]> by: Nate http://anarchowhat.blogsome.com/2007/07/17/reply-to-nate-on-mass-and-political-organization/#comment-70 Fri, 11 Apr 2008 01:39:33 +0100 http://anarchowhat.blogsome.com/2007/07/17/reply-to-nate-on-mass-and-political-organization/#comment-70 wakka wakka Duke. Todd, let's talk about this stuff again some time. wakka wakka Duke.

Todd, let’s talk about this stuff again some time.

]]> by: P-CRAC http://anarchowhat.blogsome.com/2007/07/17/reply-to-nate-on-mass-and-political-organization/#comment-61 Sat, 29 Sep 2007 02:54:06 +0100 http://anarchowhat.blogsome.com/2007/07/17/reply-to-nate-on-mass-and-political-organization/#comment-61 Old comedy routine on the IWW, using Malatesta's distinction. http://p-crac.blogspot.com/2006/01/worker-parasite-2-revolutionary-does.html Old comedy routine on the IWW, using Malatesta’s distinction.

http://p-crac.blogspot.com/2006/01/worker-parasite-2-revolutionary-does.html

]]> by: Nate http://anarchowhat.blogsome.com/2007/07/17/reply-to-nate-on-mass-and-political-organization/#comment-59 Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:51:45 +0100 http://anarchowhat.blogsome.com/2007/07/17/reply-to-nate-on-mass-and-political-organization/#comment-59 hey Todd, Thanks for this. I replied over at mine. "Malatesta’s (...) argument is simple. Basically, if a mass organization was anarchist it would either have to only allow anarchists in or allow anyone in. If the former, then it wouldn’t be mass since not very many people are anarchists. If the latter, it’s not anarchist since most do not hold anarchist politics." Where's this at, is it online? I'd like to read it. This strikes me as a very static picture. Either people are or are not anarchists. Where do these anarchists and non-anarchists come from? And why do people join the mass organization, under what circumstances? If we see people as joining out of experiences of and needs in struggle, and if we see struggle (plus discussion and study as you note) as transformative then this argument seems to dissolve: people join the mass organization as part of a transformative experience. Put differently, this seems to presume we can't or shouldn't try to deliberately make people into anarchists. If that's the general attitude then our political opponents who do try to make people into adherent will win. take it easy, Nate hey Todd,

Thanks for this. I replied over at mine. “Malatesta’s (…) argument is simple. Basically, if a mass organization was anarchist it would either have to only allow anarchists in or allow anyone in. If the former, then it wouldn’t be mass since not very many people are anarchists. If the latter, it’s not anarchist since most do not hold anarchist politics.”

Where’s this at, is it online? I’d like to read it. This strikes me as a very static picture. Either people are or are not anarchists. Where do these anarchists and non-anarchists come from? And why do people join the mass organization, under what circumstances? If we see people as joining out of experiences of and needs in struggle, and if we see struggle (plus discussion and study as you note) as transformative then this argument seems to dissolve: people join the mass organization as part of a transformative experience. Put differently, this seems to presume we can’t or shouldn’t try to deliberately make people into anarchists. If that’s the general attitude then our political opponents who do try to make people into adherent will win.

take it easy,
Nate

]]>