Moving Targets: Rethinking Anarchist Strategies

6 James Bowen Moving targets: rethinking anarchist strategies Introduction In the anarchist movement in Britain and across the world today, there are a number of reasonably prolific publishing projects and a few moderately success- ful groups and organisations. It is even true that the word anarchism has lost much of its popular perception as a source of terror and chaos, particularly in ‘anti-globalisation’ and environmental circles; but anarchism per se simply does not have an impact on the vast majority of the population. This is not to say that change is not happening all around us at all times, and that there aren’t elements of that change relating to the central themes of anarchism, namely promoting liberty, equality, solidarity and community and opposing exploitation, oppres- sion, dehumanisation and environmental degradation. However, the relatively marginal position that anarchism occupies in terms of both the popular and crit- ical imagination suggests that the subject of anarchist strategy is one worthy of reassessment. This chapter suggests that some of the impediments to the acceptability of anarchist ideas lie in often dogmatic, exclusive and fundamentalist approaches to effecting change. This is as true for the use of narrow conceptual categories that juxtapose ‘revolutionary’ strategies against ‘reformist’ ones as it is for unre- alistic expectations about what people are capable of doing politically on a daily basis and whether some social groups are more likely to effect change than others. This is relevant both at the level of small-scale projects such as co-oper- ative housing through to strategies for opposing globalisation or militarisation. For anarchist ideals to be either explicitly or implicitly practised, it is necessary to consider the potential for influence in areas other than those which anarchists are naturally prepared to consider. This necessitates a greater flexibility about notions of inclusion and community as well as a preparedness to take part in net- works or broad-based coalitions. James Bowen - 9781526137289 Downloaded from manchesterhive.com at 09/27/2021 07:56:15PM via free access 118 Part II Doing What is ‘the anarchist project’? Any discussion of anarchist strategies must begin with the worldview of its prin- cipal protagonists. Given the historical diversity of anarchist theory and practice, whether in terms of its different analytical categories or its preoccupation with either individualist or collective forms of action, definitions matter. As will become clear, it is increasingly the case that definitions of anarchism which focus on single loci of power are no longer viable in the twenty-first century. Whilst it is important to acknowledge the respective impact that economic, political and technological forms of power have on people and the planet, none of these are monolithic and all-determining. As writers such as Newman (2001) show, power encompasses all forms of authority in human relationships and this, I will suggest, has major implications for thinking about strategy, both in terms of everyday issues of community and identity, as well as on more international stages. Suggesting that power is present in all relationships and requires appropriate theory and practice is slightly heretical, departing as it does from what for many is still the heart of the anarchist project, the class struggle (see Guérin, 1970: 34–9 and passim). To move away from the class struggle is not to suggest that differen- tials of economics, culture, education, opportunity, perception and aspiration do not still exist, since clearly they do, maintaining inequality in many global con- texts. However, focusing on any one economic group as the agent of change is misleading in the extreme, just as hanging on to notions of class more reminis- cent of the era of George Orwell (1949, 1984) or Richard Hoggart (1957) is also unhelpful. It is important to remember that in times of social change, the working classes have been found to work both for the forces of liberation and reaction, as have members of the other socio-economic classes. As George Walford notes: ‘If we keep on believing anarchism to be a class movement we shall be clinging to a myth that never did work very well and is now losing whatever effectiveness it once possessed’ (Walford, 1990: 229). A key ingredient in the myth of anarchism as a class movement has been the belief in ‘the revolution’ as an ‘event’ carried out by a clearly identified class. This idea of revolution as a ‘short and specific social and political upheaval event that will happen in an unspecified future situation’ is both sociologically simple and practically unhelpful. Only in a very limited number of historical circumstances have such ‘events’ actually taken place. This is not to say that the nineteenth- century insurrectionary model of change should be necessarily dispensed with, since there may be circumstances – particularly in the Developing World – where it might be entirely appropriate. Rather, it should not become the organising basis of anarchist strategy. One of the consequences of believing in ‘the revolution as an event’ is that it has posited the anarchist project as a choice between revolutionary action and ‘reformist’ action, with all of the attendant accusations being levelled against ‘liberal anarchists’ whenever any apparently ‘non-revolutionary’ courses of James Bowen - 9781526137289 Downloaded from manchesterhive.com at 09/27/2021 07:56:15PM via free access Moving targets: rethinking anarchist strategies 119 action have been advocated.1 This also is a position based upon a limited view of how change happens and who carries it out, again belying the fact that power occurs in increasingly complex and diffuse ways, not according to predetermined historical laws. It is therefore more useful if we think about anarchism as not simply being about the redistribution of wealth (by certain historical forces at particular times) but also involving a change in our relationships with each other, institutions, technology and our environment. This is therefore where I believe the anarchist project begins, with the boring, small-scale, mundane business of making positive, non-alienated relationships with our friends and neighbours and remaining open to new people and ideas. This is the unglamorous but ulti- mately vital area of working against our own alienation and that of our communities, and one in keeping with the practical anarchist writings of people such as Paul Goodman (1971) and Colin Ward (1988). The emphasis on the everyday as an organisational basis for anarchism therefore draws upon the notions of ‘mutual aid’ developed by Kropotkin (1993), combined with the legacy of femi- nism whereby it is impossible to separate the personal from the political. One of the implications of viewing the anarchist project as one that is rooted in the everyday is that the possibilities for political organisation and influence change, in particular concerning who takes part and what are the most appropriate and effective courses of action. The politics of inclusion Revolutionary politics has often drawn its support, at least initially, from the more marginalised strata of society, but this is not necessarily either the best way of thinking about change or one that is appropriate to the complexities of con- temporary societies. If we perceive anarchism as a process rather than as a goal or an end product, any decisions about political alliances and the various strate- gic avenues that are open to us become more difficult. As soon as we start to exclude or reject people according to other criteria than simply their willingness to participate, we will have failed at the first hurdle. As Donald Rooum has noted (1990: 237), one does not need to be a victim of social injustice to advocate revolution against it, as many key revolutionary figures of both Marxism and anarchism have demonstrated. It may well also be the case that people with the least to lose and the most to gain from major social change are actually the least open to radical ideas. Socialisation, we have to remember, is a powerful force and one which influ- ences our decisions about taking political action at different points in the life- cycle, depending on whether we are young, have families to support, have ties to people or places or feel motivated to act out of anger. Fear is an often under- acknowledged concept in thinking about political change, something to which increasing privatisation of space, time and social life in the West is certainly con- tributing. Our potential for change is therefore perhaps better conceptualised in James Bowen - 9781526137289 Downloaded from manchesterhive.com at 09/27/2021 07:56:15PM via free access 120 Part II Doing terms of a ‘continuum’ where we sometimes have vested interests in the status quo but equally might desire particular changes and be prepared to fight for them. We may well all stand to benefit from certain circumstances, but communities and identities are not easily homogenised and anarchist history is already so littered with sectarianism and exclusivity that more is not needed. The rethinking of anarchist strategies needs to be done with an acknowledgment that this cannot be achieved solely using rational criteria: human beings are most often open to change when they feel good and confident about themselves, but people’s identity and self-image fluctuate regularly and sometimes enormously. Interestingly, whilst social scientists are more receptive to the idea that radical change occurs during periods of rising expectations rather than increased immis- eration, there is still largely a failure to acknowledge the possibility of fluctuat- ing states of mental health and psychological preparedness to instigate social change on a micro-sociological level. All of these factors need to be considered in the light of the vast differences that exist within communities.

Load more