Abandoning the Anarchist Movement
(Or, Finding New Grounds for Radical Organizing)

by Brian Dominick

The success of a revolutionary movement requires the realization of several elements, on a mass scale.
These are:

In this regard, a major problem with the contemporary anarchist movement is its ideology-based perspective. Anarchists promote anarchism as holding the answers to society's problems, and they quite often tout anarchism the way other ideologues put forth their own dogmas, from marxism-leninism to liberal christianity. Whatever advantages anarchism has over the many pro-authoritarian ideologies, there is an inherent problem with the view that people must embrace a certain ideology in order for radical social change to come about.

This is not a problem inherent to anarchism, but rather one of its manifestation as a modern social "movement." In other words, no anti-authoritarian ideology which has the "answers" to fulfill the above-mentioned requirements of a successful revolutionary movement is likely to be attractive, especially when it is as developed and diverse an ideology as is anarchism.

If people's values are what I expect they are-solidarity, peace, self-management, fairness, diversity, compassion-we may well conclude that:

The first step toward building a revolutionary movement is determining our shared values, on mass scales, as individuals. So why the rush to build the anarchist movement? Why not build a movement for radical social change which empowers more and more people to take control over their own lives and their society at large? Do we not trust that when people start to become socially conscious, empowered and active, they too will draw conclusions about social change which are essentially anarchistic? So we have to corall them into an anarchist movement immediately?

What we need is a larger pool of socially conscious people from which to draw in our organizing. We can't simply look around, find several thousand anarchists, and then declare ourselves a fledgeling movement. It's a movement made up of a largely homogenous milieu (social environment) of pre-convinced anarchists. From that point on, we would need to focus on "recruitment" of some kind in order to garner size for our "movement."

The problem with anarchism's attractiveness, especially today, is threefold. First of all, it is identified with a certain, relatively homogenous cultural milieu-most of those who rear their heads at anarchist "movement" events are roughly between 16-30 years old, with background influences of "punk" or other "alternative" persuasions. Second, anarchism is identified with premature, spontaneous insurrection, which is frightening and off-putting to most people. Finally, the current anarchist movement-at least what makes it unique-is not very relevant to the actual lives of most oppressed people.

All three failures are a result of how we typically have presented ourselves and who we tend to be. We can't blame mainstream media or pop culture for this, except where we've let them define us in our own eyes. Certainly not all anarchists are legitimate targets of this criticism, but I think overwhelmingly we each are, at least in some respects.

The Counterculture

Let's look at the first issue. There's really nothing wrong with any radical counterculture having its own, distinct character. Indeed, it's probably very good for those included. But we have to admit it is exclusive. If anarchism is identified with "punk" (in a very broad sense of the term), so be it: that's who many of us are, it's where we came from, what lead us to our current beliefs. But in some ways it has "spoiled" the attractiveness of "our movement" to people who are in some way wary of our style.

That understood, it just doesn't make much sense to try to build directly on a "movement" which is more accurately described as a "scene" or "counterculture." We are a subset of dedicated revolutionists, a small minority of the revolutionary population even in North America, for sure. At the same time, we organize and congregate, even in our activism, based on a subculture that is largely aesthetic in definition.

Our closest comrades aren't people chosen because of their politics alone-plenty more share our principles and political beliefs, but we never see them, because they don't share our style, our cultural preferences. This is a serious impediment to attracting large numbers of people to anarchistic ideas. It may not be right, and it isn't very convenient, but in the long run it speaks to the diversity of humanity and the resilience of that diversity, uncooptable by capitalists, politicians or revolutionary activists.

The issue here isn't that we should abandon our counterculture. Rather, we should recognize that those of us who identify among it are merely a small subset of anarchistic revolutionists. Moreover, if revolutionary ideals are to spread throughout the population, many of us from the white/punk background must embrace becoming a smaller and smaller proportion of the revolutionary population. What many are doing now is primarily trying to expand our countercultural milieu which they mistake for the beginnings of a mass-based revolutionary movement. There's a difference between agitating for revolution and advertising (a particular manafestation of) anarchism and counter culture.

The Insurrection Fetish

The more programatic issue of being seen as spontaneous insurrectionaries is a bit more complicated. The fact is, the anarchist movement is almost inherently focused on insurrection rather than revolution.

Insurrection is one phase of revolution between (1) the raising of consciousness of the people and (2) the establishment of the new society and all its features. Insurrection is the phase wherein the old order and its institutions are finally abolished and, one hopes, replaced by the seeds or saplings of new, radical alternatives.

If there is to be an anarchist movement which is distinct, it seems it almost has to prioritize insurrection over earlier phases of revolution, since it is in the insurrectionary phase that those unique characteristics of anarchism-the abolition of state and capital-are found.

This insurrectionary fetishism is essentially the same approach to promulgating revolutionary strategy employed by the leninists. While leninists call for the raising of popular consciousness to support a vanguard party which will manage the insurrection from on high, anarchists have long insisted on raising popular consciousness and then spontaneously, without hierarchy, collectively managing the revolution.

To be fair, the leninoid version actually makes more sense. A people not skilled in self-management of their own lives, communities and workplaces surely wouldn't be able to democratically self-manage an entire society, economy and polity! Of course they'd have to resort to hierarchal arrangements of authority.

We need to start developing a stronger, more sensible and thorough revolutionary program. The creation of grassroots dual power has to be prioritized. That means focusing on the sapling which takes root before the state and capitalism are overthrown. We should not be looking to radicalize people by way of promoting our philosophy. Instead, we have to attract new revolutionists, and thus "create" new anarchists, by practicing our ideals in a meaningful and inviting manner.

Smashing the state and capitalism should not be a prioroty. Attaining popular power should. It makes no sense to rant about abolishing the current system until we have taken sufficient control over our lives in the present. The insurrection, however necessary a step toward achieving our vision, is nevertheless well into the future. Stressing it now in our outreach endeavors does nothing but set us up for misunderstanding and ridicule.

Make no mistake about it, though, the formation of dual power on all levels, from interpersonal to international, though gradual, is not a reformist approach to social change. It is inherently revolutionary. Dual power strategy is about establishing the foundation of the post-insurrectionary society in the here and now. It is about creating revolutionary infrastructure, continually chipping away at the establishment while building our own order according to our own values, by way of direct action tactics.

It should also be noted that many self-proclaimed anarchists' insistence on the attainment of a stateless society with no semblance of government whatsoever in the immediate post-insurrectionary phase is a serious turn-off to people. Who wants to be part of a movement with such ridiculous demands? To be an anarchist means to hold a stateless society as our ideal, not an immediate goal. In the meantime we must destroy the present state and replace it with a directly democratic alternative, reducing authority to its absolute bare minimum.

The strongest anarchist critique of marxism isn't that all governments are inherently bad but that no government should manage the process of social change.

Relevance

And this is where we get into the relevance issue. The anarchist movement today has determined its issues of importance. Rarely do these include community organizing or working for social change around issues that most people prioritize, such as against the more subtle forms of racism, ageism and sexism, for a living wage, health care, and so forth. We are often more interested in promoting anarchism and so-called revolutionary organizations than working to provide real alternatives among everyday people. We seem to have a fictitious "constituency" much of the time.

For instance, anarchists often find it more important to be traditionally anarchistic than to make real change. We join Anti-Racist Action (ARA) even though that marginal organization's spectacularized focus on fascism is highly limited and shortsighted. Meanwhile, effective organizing is going on in black, indigenous, latino and other communities of color. That's where folks who have little to say about anarchism are taking on the bulk of racism, which is more subtle and not as "sexy" to fight as piddly fascist gangs.

And when anarchists do engage in serious campaigns around highly relevant issues, we usually do end up working with non-(self-proclaimed)-anarchists. Such alliances don't deem our projects non-movement, it just means they are non-"anarchist movement." But what's so wrong with that?

We can still insist they be consistent with our principles, strategies, tactics, and so forth. They can still be anarchistic. But when they are not identified as anarchist organizations and programs, or parts of the anarchist movement at large, they are more attractive to more people. For some reason they are less attractive to self-styled "anarchists." But what's really important after all?

Grassroots dual power is not only a revolutionary strategy, it is also a present day situation which offers real control over real life situations to real people. Not only does the practice of collective control of everyday life and relationships prepare us mentally and socially for revolutionary-indeed insurrectionary-change, but it also fulfills our needs for empowerment in the present. When we, as self-determining families, communities and societies, are providing for our own economic, political, cultural and kinship needs, we begin to see the relevance of this anarchistic strategy and worldview.

There is one "legitimate" reason people today continue to participate in the mainstream electoral system: they think it's the only way to actually make change. Dual power actively challenges that notion. Instead of arguing against legislative action on philosophical grounds, or even on grounds of practicality, grassroots dual power demonstrates an effective alternative to indirect action. This allows people to actually practice their principles, rather than just hope for some semblence of that opportunity. No one needs to fly a black flag to establish a dual power base in a community. All that's required is an authentic, popular desire for change and open communication across cultures and subcultures, across race, gender and age lines. Then we are on our way.

Eventually, the movement that shatters the chains of the dominant system and leads the way to a liberatory future will technically be an anarchist movement. I sort of doubt it will call itself that, and I'm not even sure most of its practitioners will have much to say about anarchism, the ideology.

The only thing that's clear is that if revolution is to come about, those of us who have been identifying with the anarchist movement need to acknowledge and heed the call for a broader-based revolution. We can keep our subcultural milieu in tact, but our organizing efforts have to step well beyond it.

At this point at least, it makes more sense to organize according to neighborhoods and values than according to aesthetic tastes and specific ideologies. Wherever we can find political commonalities among ourselves and others, such as the desire to organize collectively and implement direct action to achieve shared goals, we should seek to form strong relationships. Hopefully, those relationships will develop, and their results will become attractive to others. This is how revolutionary sentiments and commitments will spread.

back

home