Thoughts while listening to Utah Phillips

[desh]

conana (or anyone): How is organizing compatible with anarchy? If the point of organizing is to change the status quo, and if the status quo in this country is represented by laws and elected leaders, then what exactly do anarchists gain from action? (I know you can't answer for Utah Phillips (who voted!), but if you have a good answer, I'd love to hear it.)

jre (or anyone): How do I prioritize organizing? I think it's important that we fix this country. But I also think it's important that I move out of my mom's house. I want to get a job in Corporate America. I know I can do good while I have a job like that, but how much do I need to do? "All you can do" doesn't work for me. I'm busy and I'm lazy, and I don't know my true limits with this sort of thing. What is my obligation?

Everyone: I think I'm too susceptible to the rhetoric of the left. I agree with most of it, sure. But if someone disputes something I believe in while using the language of Utah, or of the queer community, or whatever, then I feel powerless. "How can I be right and you be wrong when you sound more like a folk song than I do?" Well, what should I do about that? Because it's not the case that anyone who talks like that is right.

rahaeli: Thanks for the idea.

Comments

[conana.livejournal.com]

Sorry that this took so long. I set out to write an answer, and then had a lot of trouble organizing my amorphous thoughts into something that actually addresses the second part of your question to me. I still feel as though I am guessing a little what the subtext of the questions are; let me know if I miss the point.

I assume that the first question is basically "does not organizing contradict the premise of anarchism?" My point in pushing anarchism is almost always to be suspicious of big or centralized organizations. This might cause a problem if the goal were to win a federal election, but there is lots of good to be done by small organizations without the hierarchies that separate people from decisions and the effects of their actions. I read a book this week that describes some of the social movements of the 1960's losing their force precisely because they became large enough to lobby Washington, and monetary donations replaced more personal participation. So, yes, they are compatible. Organize volunteers. Ask them what they want to do, what sorts of actions would feel good. Learn about the problems together; dig up hidden information. Celebrate diversity.

I do not have any satisfactory answer to how we address the systemic problems of big government. It is one of these cases of the status-quo being so bad that improvements are easy, but that kind of improvement may not be enough. Basically, I am not even sure what roles I think federal and international government should have. I'd be happy to talk more about this, in a medium with a shorter feedback time.

As for action, though, I believe that anarchism has a role in deciding how we build the organizations that we want to have. I would be suspicious of an organization whose raison d'etre was achieving anarchism; that does come close to contradiction. But there are good reasons to pursue our other social values in non-hierarchic, decentralized fashions. Every example of constructive citizen action, rather than politicking, helps.