Add new comment

One of the most common (and therefore the most annoying) cliché leftist political rhetoric is not questioning the imperative need of some "universal organization." What else could so well describe leftists, if not constant and consistent calls for the creation and development of formal organizations that supposedly represent and lead the masses of workers (or, more important these days, corresponding to the minority). Of course, as soon as the leftists leave the world of rhetoric and practice are in the world, it becomes obvious why they never focus on the detailed device of his "organization." It's easy to say that the fugitive (disorganized) people are not likely to reach success in implementing large and complex projects.But once offered this form of organization that explicitly exists a system of "transmission belt" with a clear division into masters and slaves, as well as a means of disciplining rank and file members of the organization, while leaving the leaders of any responsibility to these most ordinary members for their decisions, - As soon as the outlines, forms of "organization", many recognize naebku and refuse to play by those rules.And even a pinch of democracy is no longer helps to hide the stench emanating from these political games.

None of the above is not surprising to most anarchists and anarhistok because mainstream leftists have always been openly hierarchical, authoritarian and etatichny, since the Jacobins and the French Revolution. And yet, even anarchists - or, more correctly, leftist-minded anarchists - were not foreign institutional fetishism.From a sincere desire to work together to create the conditions under which the oppressed can win back his world, anarchists often try to see a leftist organizational imperative of a healthy underlying strategy, which - alas! - Has been discredited and skompromitirovana unethical and greedy authoritarian leftists.

Indeed, the increasingly pervasive among radical disillusionment in the formal organization - a direct consequence of two hundred years counterproductive leftist political practice.But leftist organizatsionalistskaya practice - not just a good strategy, discredited poor performers. The same strategy of institution-building based on the more radical theories, and values will continue to provide the same practice (carrying the seed of its own destruction) on the grounds that the relevant organizatsionalizmom problems - a structural phenomenon, rather than accidental. Organizatsionalizma cult, in which construction and increase the number of supporters of the formal mass political (or economic) organization takes precedence over the promotion and generalization of the anarchic self-organization - is directly contrary to anarchist ideas and principles.Organizatsionalizm promotes and produces authoritarian, hierarchical and alienating practices just because it is based on the assumption that if people are to be organized by some politically-conscious radicals, not the anarchist assumption that people must organize themselves to win their own freedom.

Historically, the idea of an anarchist, anarchist theory, the international anarchist movement - all this has evolved largely as a critical response to the challenges posed by the radical organization.And at the same time, the hitherto extremely large number of left-wing anarchists are taking it upon himself to rehabilitate the highly controversial organizatsionalistskuyu rhetoric and practice. These comrades are hoping that the far-fetched criticisms openly authoritarian and etatichnyh leftists will help them save their own projects from repeating the fate of many leftist flops initiatives, which are strewn with fragments of the revolutionary way in which we go.

All anarchists differ from leftists in one very important respect: Anarchists offer individual and community activities, self-selected activities and self-organization as the only possible method of the present master our own lives.On the contrary, politicking leftists propose to organize the people, like objects in order to seize political power that is needed to change social conditions and political institutions.The most radical leftists even added that these changes will help bring the possibility that someday the masses will be able to develop enough self-awareness, to take power into their own hands. But this, of course, the question is infinitely distant future.

On the background of ongoing dizintegratsii international leftist organizations, for the anarchist movement is all the more urgent task of reopening and rethinking the foundations of our community, anarchist theory and criticism of the organization.As soon as more leftist (former and current) are moving into our camp, it becomes increasingly important to remember that anarchism - it is not just leftist ideology with fad against the seizure of state power. The entire left political culture representation, hierarchical organization, heteronomous discipline and worship leadership against the anarchic culture of autonomy, free association, self-organization, direct action and personal responsibility.Leftist practice of creating formal mass organizatsiys order to gain political power is based on entirely different assumptions and objectives, rather than anarchic practices to promote a generalized self-oriented individual to each human activity.

All these different kinds of leftist anarchism include attempts to synthesize aspects of the left organizatsionalizma and anarchist organizations. And all these attempts to synthesize require us as anarchists to sacrifice some part of anarchist theory or practice, or values, promising to return us to supposedly more attractive to the layman or the image of great power.But bringing his principles as a sacrifice, anarchists have always run a great risk. In the past, there were powerful examples of leftist anarchist syntheses that have significant practical contribution to the riots, rebellion and revolution: the rise of anarcho-syndicalism in the late XIX - early XX centuries, for example. But the price for such success has always been the erosion and loss of anarchic original component synthesis, which ultimately leadsabout the defeat of such projects.

In an attempt to avoid future defeats, we can consciously base their practice on the consistent principles of self-organization, the required minimum of compromises, and a clear understanding of our goals.

Source: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Jason_McQuinn__Against_Organizationa...