Actually, anarchists are incapable of organising for the resaons Mikhail Bakhunin put forward in his fight against marxism in the International Workingmens' Association in the 1860's.
Anarchists are incapable of organising because they do not accept authority, well the consistent ones at least. By not accepting authority, even the authority voluntarily conceeded by the membership of a political party or union to its leadership, it denies itself the ability to do anyhting other than 'propaganda of the deed,' or, as it is known these days, terrorism: shooting ministers, bombing police stations, pointless violence at protests.
While those who engage in such are frequently heroic individuals, it is precisely because they only target the enemy, while refusing to organise their own side, that they cannot win.
Anarchism wants property to be socialised, and I have to say it again, refuses authority of one person over another, even if that authority is conceeded for a very specific period of time.
So I have to ask, what happens in a ship, where there has to be one commanding will. One could say that whenever a decision has to be made they will call a vote of all the people, crew and passengers, on the ship, but that imposes the will of the majority onto the minority. That is authority, even if by the will of the entire group, over the entire group without exception. The same goes for a trainline, or even more importantly, in the expected revolution.
How is the anarchist society meant to combat the survivals of capitalism when it refuses even temporary authority?
How are you meant to destroy the government of the oppressors when their hold on society crumbles enough that the oppressed are able, and willing to rise up?
The the revolutionary armies will not be able to do anything because they will be a mass of wills, not a mass of bodies guided by one over-riding will.
And violence itself, during the revolution, is authority packed into a small package. You will say to the capitalist 'give up your property or die' while pointing your gun at him. Is that not excersising authority? Moreover, is it not excersising authority over one who has not consented beforehand?
I ask you to look at this short work.
On Authority by Frederich Engels.
Rilriia: Bringing out a definition like that is misleading. Anarchists use the term Anarchy to refer to the end-goal of their ideology, that is, a situation in which there is no state and no over-arching authority, be it of a minority over a majority, or the other way around.
By bolding 1b, 2a and 2b you are ignoring what they are actually talking about. While such dishonesty may be of value in EDP where people will agree with you in attacking the anarchists, here, in a subforum for anarchism, all it does is antagonise.
Any anarchist would look at that and bold 1a and 3, providing the definition of Anarchism itself as well.
Reply
