I guess my question, more directly, is how you think a more loosely and decentrally organized force could stand up to such outside pressure. Historically, such organizations tend to either die off against more vertically organized groups, or adapt some degree of verticality, which happened in Spain, Makhnovschina, even the Zapatistas (which claim neither Marxism nor anarchism, to be clear). Even if your end goal was full horizontalism, do you believe that to be achievable now, against imperialism?
I guess my question, more directly, is how you think a more loosely and decentrally organized force could stand up to such outside pressure.
I do not necessarily agree that a decentrally organized force needs to be a loosely organized force.
Historically, such organizations tend to either die off against more vertically organized groups, or adapt some degree of verticality, which happened in Spain, Makhnovschina, even the Zapatistas (which claim neither Marxism nor anarchism, to be clear).
Yeah I would actually argue that those organizations’ turns towards verticality, while absolutely understandable in the moment, were part of their downfalls (except the Zapatistas so far, thank goodness). At the same time…I do not necessarily want an anarchist organization to last any longer than it needs to. Anarchy ought to be permanent, but specific organizations ought only exist as long as they’re needed. In particular, military organizations really should put bounds on their existence (e.g. to win and demobilize after specific goals).
Even if your end goal was full horizontalism, do you believe that to be achievable now, against imperialism?
Absolutely. If anything, IMO, adopting non-horizontal modes of revolutionary organization is like doing revolution on Nightmare difficulty. Because if the resulting revolution successfully repels the imperialists, we’ll have to undo all the various hierarchies that inevitably crop up from within the non-horizontal revolutionary organization. (And btw, allowing hierarchies to develop is something that anarchist groups accidentally do all the time, e.g…the Makhnovschina and CNT-FAI in Spain.)
That’s fair pushback on categorizing decentralized organization as loose. I do think my point that some level of verticality helps with coordinating that which is under them still stands, but I didn’t explicitly make that point clear.
That’s an interesting point, bringing up the adoption of verticality into anarchist organization as a factor in their downfall. I do think the Zapatistas provide an example of the positive effects, however. Anarchist organizations never seem to want to do so, but instead adopt verticality as a response to their conditions. Those conditions do not go away immediately upon adopting these new techniques, so I do not see the connection.
For example, the CNT-FAI adopted more centralized structures as they began to be pushed back and beaten. This, in my opinion, points to the effectiveness of some level of verticality, and means they ought to have pivoted to some degree of verticality earlier. I don’t see the verticality as accelerating their downfall, but too little too late, so to speak.
Mind you, verticality is not a goal, in my opinion, it’s just something neutral that can either help or hinder depending on implementation. I see class as the primary problem, not hierarchy, and therefore intra-class hierarchy as not inherently an issue. That doesn’t mean polytechnical education, advanced political education, and more to bring people up to higher levels of participation and flexibility within a future communist system won’t be critically important, and that these measures won’t reduce unnecessary hierarchies. It does, however, mean that I don’t view hierarchy itself as bad.
The point I’m getting at is that anarchist groups don’t necessarily form hierarchies by accident, but as a concession out of necessity. I give them a bit more credit, that these were conscious, pragmatic decisions to boost effectiveness. I think this is further cemented by the fact that, whether you believe them to be genuinely liberating or only partially so, it has generally been the groups more open to vertical elements to organizing that have lasted at scale, in the face of coordinated imperialists.
I suppose, in the end, that’s always going to be the uncrossable bridge between Marxism and anarchism, the question of class vs. hierarchy.
I guess my question, more directly, is how you think a more loosely and decentrally organized force could stand up to such outside pressure. Historically, such organizations tend to either die off against more vertically organized groups, or adapt some degree of verticality, which happened in Spain, Makhnovschina, even the Zapatistas (which claim neither Marxism nor anarchism, to be clear). Even if your end goal was full horizontalism, do you believe that to be achievable now, against imperialism?
I do not necessarily agree that a decentrally organized force needs to be a loosely organized force.
Yeah I would actually argue that those organizations’ turns towards verticality, while absolutely understandable in the moment, were part of their downfalls (except the Zapatistas so far, thank goodness). At the same time…I do not necessarily want an anarchist organization to last any longer than it needs to. Anarchy ought to be permanent, but specific organizations ought only exist as long as they’re needed. In particular, military organizations really should put bounds on their existence (e.g. to win and demobilize after specific goals).
Absolutely. If anything, IMO, adopting non-horizontal modes of revolutionary organization is like doing revolution on Nightmare difficulty. Because if the resulting revolution successfully repels the imperialists, we’ll have to undo all the various hierarchies that inevitably crop up from within the non-horizontal revolutionary organization. (And btw, allowing hierarchies to develop is something that anarchist groups accidentally do all the time, e.g…the Makhnovschina and CNT-FAI in Spain.)
That’s fair pushback on categorizing decentralized organization as loose. I do think my point that some level of verticality helps with coordinating that which is under them still stands, but I didn’t explicitly make that point clear.
That’s an interesting point, bringing up the adoption of verticality into anarchist organization as a factor in their downfall. I do think the Zapatistas provide an example of the positive effects, however. Anarchist organizations never seem to want to do so, but instead adopt verticality as a response to their conditions. Those conditions do not go away immediately upon adopting these new techniques, so I do not see the connection.
For example, the CNT-FAI adopted more centralized structures as they began to be pushed back and beaten. This, in my opinion, points to the effectiveness of some level of verticality, and means they ought to have pivoted to some degree of verticality earlier. I don’t see the verticality as accelerating their downfall, but too little too late, so to speak.
Mind you, verticality is not a goal, in my opinion, it’s just something neutral that can either help or hinder depending on implementation. I see class as the primary problem, not hierarchy, and therefore intra-class hierarchy as not inherently an issue. That doesn’t mean polytechnical education, advanced political education, and more to bring people up to higher levels of participation and flexibility within a future communist system won’t be critically important, and that these measures won’t reduce unnecessary hierarchies. It does, however, mean that I don’t view hierarchy itself as bad.
The point I’m getting at is that anarchist groups don’t necessarily form hierarchies by accident, but as a concession out of necessity. I give them a bit more credit, that these were conscious, pragmatic decisions to boost effectiveness. I think this is further cemented by the fact that, whether you believe them to be genuinely liberating or only partially so, it has generally been the groups more open to vertical elements to organizing that have lasted at scale, in the face of coordinated imperialists.
I suppose, in the end, that’s always going to be the uncrossable bridge between Marxism and anarchism, the question of class vs. hierarchy.
Either way, thanks for the insight!