British Anarchism in Decline/Renewal (delete as appropriate)
From Organise! by Spindrift
Its very easy to feel as though anarchism is in decline. What we hardly ever discuss is what success looks like. Maybe it’s a bit too neo-liberal to form a focus group and discuss how we measure success. A decade ago, I left London and moved to a small town in the middle of England. I was very involved with the group Class War at the time and we were really active then. I regularly went back to the capital for a bit of action. We had a bizarre election campaign going on for the 2015 general election, there was a weekly “Poor Doors” protest on the edge of the City of London and it wouldn’t be long before a campaign started to get rid of the Jack the Ripper Museum in Tower Hamlets. We got lots of publicity for these things and we enjoyed it. Anarchism felt to me like it was thriving.
Then, within two years, everything seemed different. People I knew were suddenly enthused by a Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn, the protests seemed to get less interesting, people stopped using black block tactics and it felt like some fizz had gone. At least that was the perception I had looking at London from afar. The anarchists I knew were still organising but it was harder to see from where I was. The perception of decline was depressing, isolating even. I now think that perception was wrong but it got worse. The Covid-19 pandemic and the national and local restrictions that came with it made political organising difficult. Difficult bit not impossible. Class War made a brief come back by producing a daily newspaper in this period and I was involved in that, which made me feel that at least something was happening. But the feeling of decline persisted.
Really though, is anarchist success measured by the number of protests that end with running street battles with the cops? Is it measured by how many magazines and newspapers we have going? Those things certainly measure something. They tell us something about the movement and how many people are willing to get involved. Having people willing to write their ideas and others willing to publish those ideas is an essential part of our movement and our history. We need some anarchists with spare time to keep the flame going. Protest is important too. It’s on protests that people might meet for the first time, forge friendships and plan future actions. So it’s forgivable to think that a decline in such things equals a decline in anarchism. I forgive myself for lapsing into this thinking.
In August, my podcast comrade (Shane Little) and I presented a talk at the Green Gathering festival’s Speaker’s Forum on anarchist organising. We were amazed to find a full attendance to the talk given our slot was first thing on the Friday of the weekend. The attendance was overwhelmingly made up of people interested in how anarchist practices could help their groups, with a smattering of actual anarchists thrown in.
Considering the audience, we decided on discussing ways of organising horizontally and non-hierarchically without adding in all the dogma (and dare I say baggage) for good measure. This wasn’t a talk about the history of anarchism, it’s links to the early socialist movement and comparisons to Marxism (although that all came up in the Q and A). This was a talk about building healthy relationships without oppression within our groups and our daily lives. It was about how we can make a difference in every group we’re involved in by challenging bad practices. It was a message received positively and the interaction between us all then focused on how we ensure that our groups work in this way. My view is that this is what we mean by the word anarchism: not something in the distant future, but in the here and now, building positive groups where everyone has maximum autonomy over decisions that affect them.
Then, out of nowhere, we got two more difficult contributions. Both men who interjected explained that they’d been anarchists for decades. They both said that the thing missing from our talk was action on the streets. Why aren’t anarchist fighting the fascists? Why aren’t anarchist fighting the police? Why aren’t we all agitating for revolution, which is the obvious ultimate aim? Frankly, I could see myself at the back of the tent shouting this stuff out. I know exactly what they meant because I’ve been there. I’ve been thinking this stuff for years. Ultimately, we could paraphrase their concern about anarchism In the UK and the state we’re in with one word: decline.
The mood changed quickly though. A woman started speaking nearer the front. She talked about the number of groups she had come across organising non-hierarchically. Others did the same. One explained how she’d started a group with this exact aim but it had failed. People had been asked to organise without a leader but they’d felt unable to do that. We talked about learning from that experience and working with groups to help them see the benefits of non-hierarchy in the early stages of group activity.
If anarchism is to be achieved via a violent revolution that seems a long way off. Meanwhile, our communities are full of organisations run to anarchist principles, perhaps there are some without any anarchists involved. Our organising tactics are infectious. Once you’ve been in a non-hierarchical setting why would you choose a leader unless you had to? Our organising principles are intoxicating because they empower people without patronisation.
Perhaps we can say street anarchism has been in decline. It will likely re-emerge at some point in a large way but we have to also accept that it can put people off our ideas. In the past I would dismiss these concerns because ‘we decide our tactics’ and ‘we don’t need your acceptance mate’. I have respect for the idea that we should express ourselves on issues in whatever way we choose but I can also see how off putting that might be to others. There’s a tension in the way we get attention.
There’s no tension, though, in the principle of horizontal organising. It’s hard work for sure. It creates tension in groups. It is time consuming because real democracy requires detailed discussion of the facts. Facts can be interpreted in different ways. Sometimes facts are distorted, manipulated. Sometimes people rely on baseless information. Real democracy requires a group ethos of education and discussion that elevates the debate. It requires people to listen more than they speak. It requires people to think about what people are saying, rather than thinking purely about what they intend to say back as a retort. Official politics is all about the retort. Debate is about the retort. Anarchist organising is about really thinking about what others say, trying to see things from their point of view and responding positively whenever possible.
All over the country groups we’ve never heard of are working in this way. There will be groups we’re in that are working just like this too. Do we need more anarchists on the streets to feel as though anarchism is thriving? The last few years have caused me to wonder these matters. I enjoyed the times I was protesting and seeing other anarchists make their point forcefully. I think I still would. I recognise though, that anarchism isn’t about converting people to the cause. We have no party we want people to join.
Our vision of the future doesn’t require everyone to agree with us. Anarchist methods of organising allow for maximum discussion and democratic decision making. It is exactly because people have different viewpoints that we don’t want one group winning and forcing their decisions on everyone else. Becoming the dominant force isn’t our aim. I would argue that it is our methods of organising that we want people to sign up to and when people are truly exposed to such methods, they rarely give up on them.
That is anarchism for me and it appears to be thriving.
Jon Bigger
Jon Bigger is a politics teacher and anarchist activist and podcaster. He produces Little Bigger Anarchism (https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/little-bigger-anarchism) with Shane Little.
