The Eclipse

  • THINKING ABOUT STRATEGY

    Developing strategy can be very intimidating: it requires thinking about a lot of different things and how they interlink, taking a stand on certain issues and committing to courses of action based on imperfect information. Anarchists face an additional barrier to developing strategy in that we cannot simply hand off thinking about it to leaders – we must all be strategists on top of whatever else we are doing, and often we are doing many other things already. A framework to think about strategy, which both breaks it down into a set of smaller questions and also ensures that nothing key is missed, is often useful. So, lets go through developing a strategy in four steps.

    Step One: The World You Want

    The first part of developing a strategy is to define your end goals. This means first thinking about what an anarchist society might look like. Modern anarchists have often rejected this kind of theorising, but if we want to think about strategy in depth, there is no way around developing a vision of a future society that is detailed enough that we can use it as something to work towards.

    When thinking about this future world, you should conceptualise at least two different things: institutions and culture. You must ask yourself both how the economy might work, how infrastructure might be run, the general organisational structure of an anarchist society, and what cultural norms are necessary to maintain those institutions. You should then tease out the ways in which anarchist institutions can encourage anarchist culture, and vice versa. This does not necessarily need to be very detailed, and you could list a range of different potential solutions. However, there are limits to how a society can be structured and still be “anarchist”, and you need to have some idea of the structures you are aiming for in order to start working towards them.

    This can be done as a form of brainstorming on paper or on a digital device, on your own or with others. Put ideas down and draw links between them where they rely on each other or affect each other. Circle things together when they are alternative organisational or cultural solutions to the same problem. When you have what you know down, ask yourself what is missing and what social problems you do not have solutions for.

    Step Two: The World You Have

    Now you need to develop an idea of how the current system is structured and how it maintains itself. What are the formal institutions of state and capital? What are the cultural norms that maintain them? What other forms of oppression and exploitation, like patriarchy or racial supremacy, exist within society? How do these all interlink and support each other? Are there tensions between any of them? What are their vulnerabilities and failures? Again, this can be done as a brainstorm, and working out what you don’t know is just as important as developing what you do know.

    If done as a brainstorm, this should be on the same piece of paper or document as step one, either below it or next to it. Then you can mark out where existing institutions and cultural norms directly contradict or prevent the creation of the anarchist institutions and cultural norms you have listed in step one. Your aim is not just to understand the structure of our current society, but how that structure prevents the development of an anarchist society and where institutions or cultural norms need to be abolished or changed, and what specifically they need to be changed into.

    Step Three: From Here to There

    Now you can start to think about the tactics you will use to overcome barriers and build the world you want. These tactics could be, for example, building radical unions, or community organisations, or mutual aid groups, or various kinds of cultural or propaganda work. Again, if brainstorming, this should be the next part down or along from step two. You should link tactics to the institutions and norms identified in step two that they are supposed to undermine or change. Circle alternative tactics that solve the same problems. 

    However, you should not just think about how tactics undermine existing institutions and norms, but how they build the world you want. In this case, you may draw a link through step two and all the way back to institutions and norms from step one. Some tactics will undermine the existing world, some will build a new world, and some will do both. Again, work out what tactical problems you do not have answers for, along with those you can solve.

    Step Four: Inevitable Reaction

    The final step is working out how existing society will react to your tactics. The system of state and capital, the wider culture of authority and privilege, and competing political movements are not static and unchanging. They react to threats, and one of the ways that radical movements have failed is in not anticipating these reactions, and continuing to do the same thing long after state and capital have adapted to our tactics.

    As a brainstorming session, put this step below or next to step three, and put down tactics that might be used to undermine your own tactics for change. Link them to the radical tactics they undermine. Circle them when there are multiple possible reactionary tactics that could be used in a given context. You can also draw lines through step three into step two when reactionary tactics reinforce or adapt a specific existing institution or norm.

    When you have completed these four steps, regardless of if you have written them down, typed them up, or simply run through them in your head, you should know what your objectives are, what stands in your way, the tactics you will use to overcome those barriers and achieve your objectives, and the ways that your tactics might be countered, and you should know where the holes in your understanding are. You will have a provisional strategy and an idea of how to improve it.

    The Limitations of Strategy

    With all this said, it is also important to understand the limitations of this kind of framework. It is a starting point, not an end point. It parcels up the act of thinking about strategy into four simple stages in order to make that thinking easier, but any framework is going help illuminate some things at the cost of obscuring others. If, having used this framework, you find that certain issues do not fit easily into it, then it is time to modify it to suit your needs.

    Any strategic thinking that you do is also not something you can impose on others, but the basis for conversations with them. An organisation or movement-wide strategy must be built from people comparing and contrasting their own understanding and coming to a compromise or synthesis. Hopefully this framework makes it easier to think about and articulate not only how you think about strategy, but where specifically your differences are with others. Are they at the level of the end objectives? Your understanding of the current system? The tactics you prefer? The ways you believe that the current system will react to those tactics?

    Lastly, strategy must remain flexible. Any strategy is going to have flaws in it that will only be discovered by trying to put it into practice, and the point of developing a strategy is not to build a perfect idea of how to create anarchism, but to work out a direction of travel to start following, with the expectation that you will encounter problems you did not expect and will need to adapt to. Strategy is a tool that you modify and refine as you use it, not an absolute to be worshipped. But you need to start using that tool in order to discover how it needs to be adapted.

  • ORGANISATION – GENERAL OR SPECIFIC?

    The following are the opinions of an individual member of Eclipse and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the entire committee.

    I have been involved in several anarchist and libertarian socialist organisations with very specific politics and I have always felt that such organisations are genuinely useful. There are certain kinds of concerted action which you can only take if you’re willing to take specific positions within the broader theoretical framework of anarchism, and certain kinds of long-term practical work require specific theoretical outlooks. However, I have also felt that the lack of more open and general organising across the anarchist movement in Britain has not only hurt the movement as a whole but has also hindered the ability of organisations with a more specific politics to act effectively.

    The first way that the lack of a more general anarchist organisation hurts more specific anarchist groups, is that anarchists with very specific political commitments do not pop into existence fully formed. New anarchists come to anarchism either influenced by other political traditions such as liberalism or social democracy, or they come into anarchism without any previous political experience. Often such new anarchists are still in the process of working out their own politics and are not willing to commit to an organisation with a very specific set of stances.

    In order to develop their politics to the point that they start to hold specific positions, they need to work with other anarchists on practical projects, develop experience, and deepen their own understanding of theory and practice out of those experiences. This requires a broad anarchist organisation they can get involved in without committing to specific political or strategic ideas. In order for someone to become the kind of committed syndicalist, or communist, or insurrectionary, or whatever, which many groups desire as members, they need time to develop and find out for themselves what they are about.

    This is also a problem in developing new anarchist groups. In many places there are simply not enough anarchists of a specific political leaning to form more specific groups. A more general anarchist group in such areas would allow for spreading of anarchist ideas, the recruitment of more anarchists, and the development of the politics of existing anarchists, to the point that more specific groups could be formed. More general groups are also the reactor that can best generate new kinds of specific anarchist groups in reaction to new circumstances.

    A more general anarchist organisation is also the connective tissue that allows more specific anarchist groups to share opportunities with each other and send new people to the projects and groups that are most appropriate for them. Often someone will get in contact with a specific anarchist group that is a poor match for their needs, or a specific anarchist group stumbles into a situation which would be better handled by a different group, and without more general networks of communication these individuals and opportunities end up lost in the gaps between specific groups.

    Lastly, many of the specific anarchist groups in Britain today are too small and weak to take meaningful action on their own. Such action requires groups either work together or draw from a wider pool of anarchists who have not yet committed to a specific approach to anarchism. Both of these are best served by a broader and more general form of anarchist organising that specific groups can embed themselves in and use as platforms to advocate for their projects and strategies to other groups and individuals.

    I have seen first-hand that more specific groups go down two different paths when we lack this kind of general organisation. They can attempt to remain pure to their specific ideas, but without a more general anarchist organisation which they can propagandise to and recruit from they end up small, isolated, and useless. Secondly, they attempt to fix the lack of a more general organisation by taking on some of the roles of a more general group. This leads to more specific groups having to sacrifice some of their political and strategic clarity in order to fulfil that role, while also not being able to fully commit to the role because of their attempts to avoid entirely losing their specific stances. I have not seen either of these approaches work in the long-term.

    Instead, I believe that we need more general forms of anarchist organisation that allow anarchism to build groups where it is too weak to support more specific groups and allow anarchists who are not committed to a specific kind of anarchism to take meaningful action and develop their own ideas and practices. However, attempting to build a general organisation without anyone involved developing more specific approaches to theory and practice will hinder our ability to take decisive action and develop more complex ideas, so we also need more specific groups.

    But anarchist groups built around a specific political theory or practical orientation, on their own, tend towards a kind of isolation that leaves them to wither and die or attempt to become more general in nature and abandon the clear commitments that make such groups useful in the first place. So we still need a more general anarchist organisation which more specific groups can push for their ideas and projects within, recruit from, and coordinate across. More general and specific forms of organising are not necessarily at odds with each other, but support each other.

    The exact nature of such a general organisation is not for me to say. It is the kind of thing that can only be decided by individuals and groups coming together across Britain to discuss what we would all find most useful. This is why I think that the Eclipse project is so important. It could be the basis of the kind of general anarchist network that could, both in local areas but also across the country, do the kind of things that I have seen so many specific anarchist groups end up doing to their detriment, and do them far better because it would be more general and open by design. And far from absorbing and infringing on the specific positions of other anarchist groups, it could provide them with a forum to spread their ideas and free them up to really pursue their own projects on their own terms.

  • ANARCHISM AGAINST FASCISM PART IV – AN ANARCHIST ANTI-FASCIST MOVEMENT

    In the three previous posts we have argued that the structure of the state causes an inherent drift towards fascism if not opposed, that anarchism is the ideology that offers the best strategies and organisational structures to build such opposition, and that other progressive ideologies are too confused and compromised to do the job. However, the current anarchist movement in the UK does not live up to this anti-fascist potential, and there are three interrelated problems that we have to overcome in order to effectively fight fascism. The first is that, while individuals and groups are often doing good work in their specific areas of interest, we often do not do the work needed to maintain anarchism as a movement.

    The current anarchist movement is incredibly diverse but also incredibly fractured, with any given person or group active within it only knowing a fraction of what is going on in the wider movement based on their own personal ties. There is no universal infrastructure to allow groups and projects to spread information and gather as much support as possible. In most cases, there is little in the way of intentional support to help new people into the movement. Those interested in anarchism often struggle to find a place for themselves in the movement and end up drifting away.

    We also lack the infrastructure to push anarchism into areas were it does not already exist as an organised force. Even among groups with a national reach there is rarely an attempt to directly organise new local groups in areas without an existing anarchist presence. The burden of forming new groups often falls on relatively new anarchists, and these new groups often fail or succeed based entirely on their own capabilities, without receiving much support from the wider movement. Many groups end up making their own materials, building their own organisational form, and learning from the same old mistakes without any outside support, re-inventing the wheel over and over again.

    This creates a vicious circle of fragmentation; new anarchists who can not find a place for themselves in the movement or build a new group from scratch end up going into apolitical community organising, mainstream political projects, or trade unions, and end up isolated in structures that offer little potential for real change. New anarchist groups are often isolated from the wider movement because the wider movement played little role in their foundation, and so remain stuck in a position where they must put all their energy into maintaining themselves and their local projects, because they have no safety net to support them in attempting more ambitious projects.

    The second of these problems is that anarchists are often very timid about announcing or advocating our anarchism. Many anarchists are involved in bottom-up, egalitarian, and liberatory projects that build solidarity in our workplaces and our communities and provide living counter-examples to the kind of isolated and paranoid existence that fascism feeds off of, but far fewer of us actively evangelise for anarchism in a way that spreads an understanding of the broader theory and strategy behind our actions. If we want to position anarchism as an answer to the failures of liberalism and socialism and a real alternative to fascism, we need to be loud and proud about what anarchism is and why people should be anarchists.

    The third problem is that the anarchist movement does very little in the way of strategic planning. I do not think the current situation is much of a surprise to long-term anarchists. It has been clear for a while now that liberal capitalism was failing, that fascists would use issues like migration and transphobia as pivot points around which to turn society to the right, and that mainstream liberals and socialists would bungle the response, because of their inability to live up to their ideals or critique the features of the state that breed fascistic ideas.

    Yet we have failed to really do anything about this in a coordinated manner. Some may blame divisions within the movement for this, but we have failed to organise even around topics we all agree on. Take migration as an example; from the most traditional of anarcho-communist class warriors, to the most contemporary of punk insurrectionaries, to the fluffiest of horizontal community organisers, we are united in opposition to state borders and supportive of migrants. This is a topic that the right has developed a successful narrative around which established political parties have failed to counter, and that anarchists should have been able to organise against across our differences.

    These three problems have all fed into each other. The fragmentation and division within the movement has meant that we have been unable to to articulate our ideas in a coherent manner to wider society, and that we have failed to develop any kind of shared strategy to confront the far right. Our timidity in committing to an explicit anarchism has also hindered our ability to build our own movement infrastructure for better onboarding, communication, and cooperation, and our ability to think and act in a more strategic manner. Lastly, our lack of strategy has hindered our movement-building and our ability to spread anarchist ideas.

    We need to start fixing these weaknesses as soon as we can, because if things continue as they are now Britain will have a fascist government sooner rather than later. We need to do everything we can to prevent this and build the capacity to resist a future British state that may be more authoritarian and violent than it has been within living memory. We need to make sure that before the election in 2029 we have the strongest movement possible, one which can resist not just locally but coordinate to resist nationally and eclipse both mainstream political parties and the far right.

  • ANARCHISM AGAINST FASCISM PART III – THE FAILURE TO FIGHT FASCISM

    In the last two posts we have discussed how the structure of the state promotes fascism and how we need a movement based on opposition to the state, and bottom-up structures that encourage anti-fascist ideas. In this post we will take a look at what this analysis means for how we understand the development of fascism, and how the failures of liberalism and mainstream socialism have helped fascist or fascistic ideologies position themselves as the only viable alternative to mainstream politics.

    The modern state is, historically-speaking, an unusually hegemonic hierarchy. Across much of history any tendencies a hierarchy might have towards a certain ideology were at least partly countered by other structures in society that could threaten the power of that hierarchy. Partly this was simply a matter of capacity; society did not produce enough wealth or have the technological means of communication and surveillance to allow any central hierarchy to become truly hegemonic, and regardless of whatever a king or emperor might claim about their own absolute power, in reality they relied on the cooperation of other social structures that had significant independence and could turn against them if angered.

    As society developed the wealth and technological capacity to enable the modern hegemonic state, the ideologies and social movements that developed along with it were often ambivalent to the implications of this hegemony, and built counter-power that could keep the state in line. Sometimes these were holdovers from the old social order like village collectives and free cities defending customary freedoms, or factions of the old elite defending privileges that the state now threatened.

    But new progressive movements that developed in opposition to traditional social structures also had reason to organise in opposition to the state. While progressive ideologies like liberalism and socialism often backed the state against the old order, they also based themselves in ideals like freedom, equality, solidarity, and reason, which just as often put them in opposition to the social norms and structures which the state created to secure the obedience of its citizens and the security of its borders. Liberals and socialists formed political parties, but they also build independent protest movements, revolutionary cells, community mutual aid groups, and workplace unions that would defend the interests and ideals of their members against the state.

    Today’s conditions are very different to those of the early modern nation state. The state has either absorbed or destroyed the vast majority of independent social structures, or it has regulated the economy to replace them with allied capitalist firms. While historically there might have been large parts of the population that mostly served their own needs through their own traditions of organisation and only interacted with the state to pay tax or face conscription, today such self-organisation is greatly suppressed. Within the modern state most people either buy what they need from a capitalist business or rely on state services to provide for them. Society lacks any strong independent structures of cooperation that might provide the basis to push back against the state, or provide people with a lived experience outside of state power and capitalist profit.

    Both liberalism and socialism have also resolved the historic contradictions between their ideals and the state by compromising their ideals. Most progressive political ideologies not only take the state for granted, but believe that any kind of functional social order outside of the state is impossible and the state must now be maintained above all else. The leaders of progressive parties have systematically demobilised and dismantled the bottom-up social movements that they grew out of, because such bottom-up power is a threat to the top-down state hierarchy they believe is needed to keep social order.

    This has left the modern state in a position of ideological and organisational domination that might be unprecedented in all of human history. In terms of its integration into the everyday lives of its citizens and its ability to surveil and regulate their relationships, even the most progressive modern states eclipse any previous form of centralised hierarchy. In terms of our ability to think of solutions to social problems, the vast majority of society believes that the state is the only tool worth seriously considering, even when dealing problems that the state has created in order to maintain itself and has no reason to fix.

    But this has put liberalism and mainstream socialism in a disastrous position when it comes to both offering solutions to structural social problems and opposing fascism. Progressive political parties have accepted that certain kinds of social change in pursuit of their ideals or even the basic needs of the majority of society are impossible because they would endanger the state, and that any social movement attempting to create this social change outside of or against the state is a threat to social order. Most progressive thinkers now oppose the development of any independent power-base that might prevent the structure of the state from pushing society in fascistic directions, or provide the basis for real resistance when fascists eventually take power.

    This has also allowed fascists to make valid critiques of mainstream progressive politics. When fascists claim that progressive politics are either a hypocritical cover for the will to power or impractical utopianism that will weaken the structure of the state, they are for the most part correct. If the state is necessary, then the fascists are the ones most honest and practical about what it requires and progressive ideals are misguided nonsense at best, or dishonest manipulations at worse.

    However, this fascist critique is only valid if the state is an unavoidable necessity. The way out of the bind that modern liberalism and socialism have put society in is to reject the necessity of the state, and propose it be replaced with social structures that are actually compatible with ideals like freedom, equality, solidarity, and reason. Only by arguing for ways to organise society that both grow out of progressive ideals and reinforce them, can we undermine the fascist argument that such ideals are a threat to social order.

    This means that we can not afford to be mistaken for mainstream liberals or socialists who have discredited themselves by their own hypocrisy and impracticality. If we share our ideals without offering anti-authoritarian strategies and organisational structures, we risk coming off as another set of useless dreamers in a world full of failed dreams. If we share our strategy and our structures without being explicit about our ideals, then our motivations will be unclear and we risk coming off as untrustworthy in a world of grifters. Defeating fascism does not just require us to be anarchists, it requires us to be open and honest about it and have concrete proposals for the world we want and how to get there.

  • STRATEGY AND NETWORKS

    This is a response to a critique of the Eclipse project posted on LibCom here

    Firstly, we thank the comrade for their concerns and for giving us an opportunity to clarify what it is we are trying to do and why we have positioned the Eclipse project the way we have.

    Many members of the Eclipse committee are also part of other anarchist organisations that do have a more specific strategic outlook and a tighter organisational structure. Eclipse started out of discussions within the Anarchist Federation, but has grown to include organisers from Bristol Anarchist Bookfair, Manchester & Salford Anarchist Bookfair, and Swansea Radical Community Festival, as well as members of IWW, Solidarity Federation, Suffolk Anarchists, Wessex Solidarity, and independent anarchists otherwise cut off from much of the wider movement. Most of those involved do have strong opinions on anarchist strategy and organisation, are already members of groups that align with those opinions, believe that the anarchist movement in Britain needs to develop a solid strategy to be effective, and that a pluralistic network will not be sufficient to defeat fascism or the general system of state and capital.

    However, since many of us have been part of organisations that have a more specific strategic and organisational outlook, we have also seen first hand how that model of organising on its own has not worked either. Such groups have often struggled with maintaining their political purity at the expense of becoming isolated and irrelevant, or have diluted their strategic and organisational principals in order to achieve short-term practical goals, acting more like NGOs stemming the bleeds within Capitalism rather than revolutionaries actively working towards its destruction, and either way have struggled to maintain an active membership and have any serious impact in British society. New groups with specific strategic and organisational principles are unlikely to act as a focal point around which to rally the anarchist movement as a whole, and are more likely to end up just another faction within the existing movement, which is too small and isolated to meaningfully implement an effective strategy.

    From this experience, and not from abstract theory, we have come to believe two things that have fundamentally motivated our broad approach to Eclipse. Firstly, that a pluralistic network is the best starting point from which to develop greater strategic and organisational unity beyond our existing involvement. Secondly, that a pluralistic network is an important piece of supporting infrastructure that anarchism in Britain needs, regardless of if we ever reach any kind of broad agreement on what we should be doing. Even without changing society ourselves, every step that brings us closer to this is in the right direction.

    To develop the first point; any strategy that is going be widely adopted enough to be put into meaningful practice is not going to be the brainchild of any single anarchist organisation but is going to have to be come out of conversation and diplomacy between groups, communities and individuals within the existing anarchist movement, and within society at large. Likewise, tighter organisation and cooperation between anarchists is not going to come out of anarchists flocking to one group or single approach, but is going to have to be built out of practical solidarity and cooperation between existing groups. We currently lack the existing framework to do this, and so may struggle to even imagine the potential that such a convergence of our movement could create.

    One of the hopes that we have for the Eclipse project is that it will act as the core infrastructure on which to build tighter strategic and organisational agreement within the anarchist movement in Britain. Individual members of the Eclipse Committee certainly want to use the first gathering as an opportunity for discussion around how we build a more unified strategy and deeper cooperation and mutual learning within anarchism. We hope the gathering to be the kind of place that the comrade who wrote this critique could put forward criticism and proposals for strategy and organisation to a broader anarchist milieu, and find like-minded collaborators that they might otherwise have been isolated from.

    But for the Eclipse project to act as a focal point around which the broader anarchist movement can start to develop deeper strategic agreement and tighter organisation, we feel that as much of the anarchist movement as possible should feel welcome to attend Eclipse gatherings. Because of this we have avoided putting out our own strategic ideas in too much detail – for one thing we do not agree entirely among ourselves – but also those discussions are something we want to save until the gathering, where a wider section of the anarchist movement in Britain can put forward their own ideas.

    To develop the second point; there is a lot of shared infrastructure that anarchists could benefit from regardless of their level of strategic agreement, which is best handled by a pluralistic, decentralised network, and in fact probably should not be maintained by a more specific organisation to avoid conflicts of interest. One of the recurring problems that many of us have faced is that groups with specific strategic and organisational principals end up getting sidetracked by trying to maintain this necessary infrastructure, when it would make far more sense for this stuff to be maintained by the anarchist movement as a whole, but we currently lack many of the structures needed to enable that. Again, we have not really talked in detail about this as it is another thing that we want to raise at the gathering, and ask those who attend what kind of infrastructure they would find useful.

    Likewise, regardless of our level of strategic and organisational unity, there are still ways that anarchists who disagree can mutually support each other to the benefit of all involved. Building bonds of trust and solidarity through such mutual cooperation is one of the methods through which we believe the anarchist movement as a whole can actually come to widespread shared strategic understanding. But again, right now the anarchist movement as a whole does not have the structures in place to systematically enable this, meaning that the anarchist movement is less effective as a whole regardless of any strategic divisions it might have within it, as well as less likely to find ways to resolve those divisions by developing shared ideas out of joint action.

    Even if we do achieve strategic and organisational unity across large parts of the anarchist movement, there are always going to be minority trends that take a different approach, or address a specific intersection or fight for a specific oppressed group through anarchism, and having those differing strands of anarchism isolated from each other will only weaken anarchism as a whole. There will likely still be opportunities for mutual support and opportunities for anarchists who disagree or have different enhanced experiences of oppressive forces to develop better versions of their ideas and practices through mutual critique, and that will require the kind of shared infrastructure of communication and coordination best provided for by a pluralistic network.

    So, do we believe that pluralistic networks on their own are enough? No, many of us have also seen them fail. But do we believe the specific organisations on their own are enough? Also no, as many of us have been involved in such organisations for long enough to see the pattern of them going nowhere in isolation. We believe that a strong and effective anarchist movement is going to need both, and that they should be mutually supporting wherever possible instead of hidden away from each other, kept at arms length rather than embraced as fellow anarchists in a common struggle against the state and oppression.

  • ANARCHISM AGAINST FASCISM PART II – THE STATE AND FASCIST PEOPLE

    In our previous post we argued that the state as a structure will always encourage fascist ideas. The state requires obedience and strong borders to function, and this is far more compatible with fascism than it is with liberalism, socialism, or even conservatism. However, while fascism may be the ideology that best aligns with the needs of the state, this does not fully explain its ability to embed itself in our society. If everyone within our society held anti-fascist attitudes then any fascist tendencies inherent in the state would result in rebellion instead of a slow drift towards fascism. We need to look at how the structure of the state not only encourages fascist ideas, but creates people who are open to those ideas.

    The ways in which the state does this are similar to the ways in which capitalism does. Among the capitalist class profit must come before everything else, including commitment to any kind of ideals. People and ideas are evaluated only by their potential to make profit, and any capitalist who does not tend towards this approach will end up outcompeted by other capitalists with less scruples. The political class and the technocrats that actually manage most of the hierarchies within both business and government face a similar pressure to cast aside ideals. At the top of the state hierarchy political parties or factions are in competition with each other over positions of power, and those parties or factions that hold any ideals above taking power are at a disadvantage against those willing to do whatever is necessary to win.

    This creates a class of rulers who are conditioned to see the people below them as disposable to their needs, and the needs of the hierarchy that empowers them. Ideas that are not useful for securing power or profit are seen as impractical distractions to be ignored. Those climbing either state or corporate hierarchies in order to secure better pay and conditions for themselves face increasing pressures to put power or profit ahead of everything else as they progress, weeding out anyone who is not willing to engage with the system on those terms. This creates a ruling class that is ripe for adopting a fascist ideology; they have no scruples beyond the pursuits of power and profit.

    The structure of state and capital also incentivise fascist attitudes among those at the bottom of society. Workers exist in a position that encourages them to see themselves as in competition with each other for jobs and promotions, and to see fulfilling their boss’s desires as the key to securing their own safety and comfort within the economy. Again, people are in a similar structural position as citizens look to the government to provide them with the infrastructure and services they need, and other potential claimants on government resources are competitors. Just as fascism exploits fear of migrants and “undesirables” taking jobs, it also exploits fear around those same people taking welfare.

    This encourages the lower classes to adopt ideas that give them special claim to economic or political support from capitalists and politicians. This can manifest as demands for better treatment when raised by oppressed groups, but when raised by sections of the lower class that already have some kind of privilege it results in ideas that are easily compatible with fascism; appeals for preferential treatment on the basis of nativeness, whiteness, gender, straightness, legality, and the rejection of others on the basis that they are foreign, black, queer, criminals, or just weird.

    In order to oppose this we must not only oppose fascism as an ideology, but build structures in our workplaces and our communities that discourage fascist attitudes. We need to focus on working from the bottom-up, along lines of free association and consensus, based on the idea that people should look to their peers for support instead of looking up their rulers. In organisations built along these lines, people are encouraged to see each other as potential collaborators instead of competitors, to discuss and understand each other’s desires as people instead of dismissing each other as stereotypes, and to bridge divisions in order to cooperate – instead of attempting to leverage them for preferential treatment, because there is no one at the top who can grant that preferential treatment, only a web of equals supporting each other.

    As a practical example of this, take workplace organising when compared to climbing a workplace hierarchy; be that workplace a government department or a capitalist corporation. If someone is looking to secure their wellbeing through promotion, then they must look to the desires and preferences of their superior above those of their co-workers, and find reasons as to why they are more deserving than their co-workers. On the other hand, if someone is looking to secure their wellbeing by organising with their fellow workers against management through strikes and other workplace direct action, their wellbeing is based on the ability of everyone within the workplace to come together as a collective regardless of what divisions may exist among them.

    Combined with the conclusions of our last post, this means that we need to not only build organisations independent from the state that can put pressure on it, but build them in a way so that they provide a different lived experience compared to the hierarchies of the state. We need a movement that is bottom-up and anti-authoritarian in order to promote a more accepting and egalitarian ethic within society. Just the best strategy to oppose fascism is inherently anarchist, so are the best organisational structures.

  • ANARCHISM AGAINST FASCISM PART I – THE STATE AND FASCIST IDEAS

    Today, much of the global core seems to be sliding towards fascism. In the USA, the liberal establishment is paralysed by the rise of Trump. In the UK, both Labour and the Tories have reacted to the rise of Reform not by opposing its ideas, but pandering to them; and this seems to be the common tactic of the established political parties across Europe. Now more than ever, there needs to be a radical response to the far right.

    This radical response requires understanding the basis of fascism and why supposedly liberal and social democratic societies keep failing to offer meaningful opposition. The traditional socialist account of this problem is that fascism develops out of capitalism as it decays and fails to resolve its internal contradictions. While this explanation is not necessarily wrong, it is also not necessarily complete, and we think that it is also important to examine how the state structure also plays an important key role in encouraging fascism.

    The modern state has two requirements that it needs above all else in order to function:

    1. Obedience from its agents and citizens: The power of any dictator, oligarchy, or democratic parliament is dependent on this obedience; without which, the state will collapse. No political elite has the ability to enforce its will over an entire country without the obedient cooperation of the state hierarchy, and even then a state will struggle to impose its will in the face of widespread disobedience from its own citizens. This fact is what makes revolution possible and forces states to compromise when they face widespread internal resistance.

    2. Borders: Borders are the boundaries that define where one state’s authority ends and another starts; without an ability to define and maintain those borders, state authority is fatally undermined.

    These requirements mean that any state must encourage ideals that support obedience and borders – any ideology that holds ideals which conflict with these two things is a threat to the strength and stability of the state. Many modern ideologies sit awkwardly with these needs: liberal support for freedom and universalism, socialist support for equality and internationalism, and even principled conservatism’s support for local traditions and religious solidarity all represent ideological commitments that can conflict with obedience to the state and strong national borders.

    Fascism, on the other hand, is perfectly compatible with the requirements of the state. Absolute obedience to a strong leader and the social norms they dictate are part of the package of fascism. Fascism also brings with it a violent nationalism that super-empowers the state border regime. On top of this, fascists revels in the idea of using force to suppress their enemies, freeing the state apparatus to take whatever measures it deems necessary – up to and including the genocide of entire populations – to beat society into a form that best maintains its power.

    This does not mean that all those who are involved in maintaining the state are fascists, but instead that the needs of the state constantly pressure its rulers, agents, and supporters in a fascist direction. The principled liberal, socialist, or conservative will always face a tension between their ideals and the requirements of the state, and therefore be forced into uncomfortable compromises. Non-ideological state technocrats and amoral grifters will always see a practical appeal to fascistic ideas and policies to empower them. From both the practical perspective and the perspective of having ideals that match your actions, drifting towards fascism is the path of least resistance for those who maintain the state, unless there is an even stronger pressure pushing people onto other paths.

    This has important implications for anti-fascist strategy. Firstly, the state can never be relied on as a tool to fight fascism. Analyses of fascism that only understand it as a reaction to the collapse of capitalism often make the mistake of seeing social democratic reforms or Leninist revolution as a potential counter-strategy against fascism, but as such strategies empower the state they only re-enforce one of the wellsprings of fascist ideas. The modern global resurgence of fascism has as much to do with the collapse of social democratic and Leninist parties into increasingly fascistic authoritarianism, as it does the contradictions of capitalism.

    In the short term, we need to build institutions outside of the state that can create anti-fascist pressure to push back against the fascistic tendencies of the state. The politicians, technocrats, and agents of the state need to be put in a position where they are forced to accept compromises between the needs of the state and the needs of their subjects because they fear the level of resistance and disruption they will face if they do not. In the long term, we need to abolish the state if we want to defeat fascism. As long as the state exists, it will always require obedience and control of its borders – and that requirement will always be a structural basis from which fascist ideas will develop. Such a strategy is inherently anarchist, in that it organises outside and against the state, with the ultimate aim of replacing it.

  • A DIVERSITY OF ANARCHISMS PART III – MAKING DIVERSITY WORK

    In our last two posts, we argued that diversity was a necessary and unavoidable part of the anarchist movement, and that accepting and working with this diversity can ultimately create a stronger and more effective anarchist movement, rather than ignoring it or trying to work against it. But this leads to the question of how well the current anarchist movement in Britain actually takes advantage of its diversity, and how can we do better?

    Anarchism in Britain is extremely fractured. It is defined by a vast array of different niche groups that organise around specific issues or in specific areas, and isolated individuals embedded in communities and more general radical political movements and organisations. The connections between all these groups tend to be individual, with flows of knowledge and opportunities for cooperation based around informal social connections. While most individual groups have their own ideas of what the anarchist movement should be doing, there are no consistent traditions or institutions of cross-movement communication, decision-making and cooperation.

    This fractured nature prevents anarchism in Britain from taking advantage of the potential advantages of its own diversity. Information does not spread quickly or evenly and, unless you know the right people, finding out what is happening outside of your immediate area or community is very difficult. This means that major issues in certain areas only ever make it to people as half-distorted rumours, important lessons from success or failure end up isolated in specific parts of the anarchist movement, and interesting projects flounder for a lack of reliable ways to reach the people who might be interested in supporting them.

    This prevents good ideas and practices from spreading across the anarchist movement. Instead of having the collective experience and experimentation of an entire movement to draw from, many anarchists can only draw on what is known locally or within their organisation, and many anarchists must painfully reinvent the wheel over and over. This does not create a dynamic movement that can out-organise state and capital through superior flexibility and adaptability, but instead creates islands of isolation and stagnation.

    This is especially harmful for new anarchists or the anarcho-curious who are not already linked into our informal and patchy network of cooperation and communication, which is a growing number of people in the age of the internet. If someone becomes an anarchist, their ability to learn more and get involved is heavily based on whatever their immediate point of contact with anarchism is, if they have one at all. This prevents anarchism as a movement from growing based on the diversity of ideas and practices it can offer people, because people can not understand or navigate that diversity in a way that allows them to find their place in the movement.

    In many cases would-be anarchists end up joining in with more general radical organising because of the lack of any easy entry points into anarchism. This leads to the bizarre situation where many non-anarchist political groups, unions, community organisations, and protest movements are sustained by the contributions of anarchists or fellow travellers and often benefit greatly from the anarchist approach to organising, while anarchism remains weak as a movement and mostly ignored or mocked as an idea, even within radical circles that would be greatly diminished without those ideas being put into practice by the anarchists working within them.

    The nature of these informal and incomplete networks of communication also mean that any discussion of wider strategy within our movement is often opaque to those not already in the know, and it is very difficult to turn that discussion into action, because there is no easy way to bring the ideas that result from it to the wider movement. Even at a local level, there are often no groups providing a general forum for anarchist thought, discussion, and action that can proactively organise to fill holes in capability or exploit new opportunities.

    This leads to a situation where individual anarchists and anarchist groups can still be effective, often still achieving more given our limited numbers and resources than other strands of radicalism, but anarchism as a real movement is weak to non-existent, with all our achievements often failing to support each other, failing to spread more broadly, and failing to spark any greater understanding or interest in anarchism. We are in a situation where our diversity has made us weaker instead of stronger, because our diversity is one of isolated and sometimes antagonistic individuals and groups, instead of an integrated network of organisations, cells, and people.

    As anarchists, the only way we can fix this problem is to start at the bottom and work our way up, and to start loose and work our way towards tighter organisation. This means building networks of communication that allow all the various anarchist groups and projects in Britain to reliably talk to each other, create shared resources that can direct new people to the place they want to be, spread the word of new groups and projects to the ears of the people who need to hear about them, hold spaces for the discussion and agreement of strategy and practice that allow discussion to turn into action, and develop the kind of joint projects needed to put anarchism in the public consciousness as a coherent and active political force.

    However, the infrastructure to do this will require work from existing anarchist organisations to build and maintain, and this kind of work has often been seen as optional. A big part of this is because we tend to dedicate all our limited time and energy to the problems in front of us. If we do take an interest in the wider movement, it is only to the extent necessary to keep our immediate projects and organisation functioning. Time spent on maintaining a big network that does not yield immediate gains in organising our workplaces, sustaining our mutual aid groups, or defending our communities is time that many people feel is wasted. But this has led to a disastrous underdevelopment of the infrastructure that brings more people from a broader base into the movement and allows us to cooperate effectively, which in the long run would allow us to do more as a revolutionary movement.

    And we need to built this infrastructure, because we are on a timer. There is a real chance that after the next general election in 2029 we will be living under an openly fascist government, and at that point we may be forced to fight for the survival of our movement and humanity. We need to make sure that by 2029 we have the strongest movement possible, one which can resist not just locally but coordinate to resist across the span of the British isles and oppose both the far right and dead-end mainstream political parties. This is what the Eclipse project is attempting to build, but we can not do so alone. We can only provide the space and the framework to make a start, and then we need existing and new anarchists and organisations to communicate and cooperate with each other, to build an anarchist movement that is more than the sum of its parts.

    We are the eclipse.

  • A DIVERSITY OF ANARCHISMS PART II – PLAYING TO OUR STRENGTHS

    We argue that diversity of theory, organisational form, tactics, and strategy is something that anarchists have to accept about our movement for it to succeed as a movement, and we can not impose ideological or strategic unity on our comrades. It is not a question of if we accept this diversity, but rather a question of how we react to it? Should we embrace it and build networks of communication and cooperation across our pluralistic movement, or should we treat disunity as an unfortunate cost of bottom-up structures that we must overcome?

    We take the side of building networks of communication and cooperation across the anarchist movement that mutually embrace our inherent diversity. Such an approach plays to the strengths of anarchism instead of working against them, allows us to better exploit weaknesses in the hierarchical structures we oppose, and ultimately is the approach that will allows us to develop a shared strategy that actually works, if such a thing is possible.

    The first advantage of embracing the diversity within anarchism is that it will allow us to reach far more people. There is often a tendency to treat outreach and recruitment as a zero-sum game, with different forms of anarchism competing for the same small pool of radicals who we might come into contact with. This may be true in terms of our existing base of activists, but that is the attitude of a movement that has accepted stagnation, death, given up on the prospect of significant growth, and turned inwards on itself.

    If, instead of focusing our discussions on each other, we turn our focus outwards to people who are not already anarchists, then this logic changes. People are diverse, with their own interests, preferences, and experiences. Someone who is not interested in anarchist organising in one sector, or around one issue, may be drawn in by some other anarchist project. Someone who dislikes one kind of propaganda may still be receptive to a different set of arguments for anarchism. In this context, the diversity of anarchism does not put us in a situation in which we are competing with each other to build our specific projects and organisations, but covering each others’ blind-spots, and building a movement that draws from the broadest possible pool of support.

    This broadness is important not just for making anarchism relevant to as many people as possible, but also to deny space to our ideological opponents. This is especially important in this time of rising fascism; anywhere we are not organising and building solidarity across society is a space that we risk giving up to fascist opportunists. We need to be in the community, in the workplace, in subcultural spaces, building our movements and organisation around as many issues as we can, working to influence culture from as many angles as possible, and such a diversity of organising space is going to both demand and reinforce a diversity of anarchisms.

    The second advantage of diversity is that it allows us to operate in ways that are harder for the centralised institutions of state and capital to counter. Centralisation grants state and capital access to monstrous resources to deploy against their opponents. Radical movements that attempt to mirror this rigid, homogenised, and centralised structure are often defeated, because state and capital are better at playing that game, and can throw more resources at the problem until it is crushed by sheer brute force. Anarchists should not make this mistake.

    Instead, an anarchist movement of diverse anarchisms can exploit the ways in which centralised hierarchies are weak and ineffective. A diversity of anarchisms allows us to quickly find out what works against state and capital in any given circumstance; a diverse bottom-up movement is capable to testing many more different theories at once, compared to a top-down hierarchy that can only try a limited number of approaches. A thousand activists all trying different approaches to fighting state and capital are always going to find weaknesses faster than 999 activists waiting on one theoretician to come up with the answer through abstract thought. This is a way to offset the resource advantage state and capital have, by being able to use the resources we do have in a way that is more responsive to reality.

    Diverse bottom-up movements also have an advantage over top-down hierarchies in their speed of adaptation. State and capital adapt to better suppress social movements, but they do so slowly; information must be gathered, filtered, and made understandable to each level of the hierarchy as it travels up towards the top where decisions are made, and then orders must flow back down the hierarchy. Bottom-up activists can use their own initiative and adapt to changing circumstances on the fly. This adaptive advantage grants a diverse bottom-up movement another way to offset the resource advantages of state and capital, by adapting faster than they can counter, ensuring those vast resources are going to fight whatever we were doing yesterday, not what we are doing today.

    The third advantage of a movement of diverse anarchisms is that it can better tailor itself to local conditions and specific circumstances than any top-down hierarchy that is always going to have to apply a more one-size-fits-all approach to organising society. We don’t seek to spread a single anarchist monopoly across the land like a fast-food franchise but to connect localities that are unique and relevant to their communtiies, to whom they belong and reflect. Someone embedded in their community or workplace is always going to better understand what is happening on the ground, compared to a top-down administrator. A diverse anarchist movement can organise and resist in ways that are themselves diverse, shifting, and exploit specific local weaknesses in state and capital with scalpel-like precision, while state and capital can only respond slowly with a generalised defence, that cannot cover all of its vulnerabilities at once.

    Lastly, if there is a single collection of ideas, organisation forms, and tactics that are correct for the vast majority of anarchists, we are more likely to discover this within a broad and diverse movement, than in one that is smaller and more homogenous. The greater the breadth of our collective experience, the more experiments in resistance we can look to, and the more angles of critique we can expose our ideas to, the more capable we will be to be able to sort the good from the bad.

    But these advantages can only be leveraged if we commit to active communication and cooperation between different strands of anarchist thought and action. We can not learn from each other if we do not talk to each other in good faith. We can not cover each others’ weaknesses if we treat those weaknesses as irrelevant. We can not support each other, if we do not accept that we need different ideas and tactics for different situations and different sections of society. We can not build an anarchist movement that has maximum social impact, if we dismiss all ideas that are not relevant to our particular projects and concerns. We need to accept diversity and build trust in our movement before we can use it as a weapon against state,capital and the dominant culture.

  • A DIVERSITY OF ANARCHISMS PART I – ANARCHISTS AND ANARCHISMS

    Anarchism is a diverse movement with a long history. There are many routes into anarchism; socialists and greens who reject the state, liberals who apply their liberalism consistently, local traditions of dissent and resistance, experiencing abuse of authority by bosses and politicians, cultural critique, reading anarchist theory, and the countless other ways we all ended up where we are right now. These different origins all leave a mark on our ideas and our practices, and we all have our own preferences and ideological hang-ups. Every anarchist carries a slightly different anarchism within them, which also implies a slightly different communism, or a collectivism, or a mutualism, or perhaps a rejection of any of the old economic ideas in favour of something entirely new.

    This feeds into a diversity of organisational forms, tactics, and broad strategies. Syndicalists who anchor their efforts in the workplace. Insurrectionaries who prefer direct attack against state and capital. Municipalists who are building a new world in the shell of the old in their neighbourhoods. Countercultural anarchists who attempt to live as free as they can in the here and now. Philosophical anarchists who do cultural and education work for a better world in the far future. And even within each branch of anarchism there are important differences between their members.

    This diversity is an inherent part of anarchism. Anarchism has always respected the ability of each individual to organise with their peers based on their own experiences, conditions, capabilities, and desires, and so has always accepted that different people will have different ideas, build different organisations, and follow different strategies. Anarchism has always held that organising both along and across these lines of difference will result in a society that better serves its members, rather than a homogeneous society built on trying to suppress diversity and impose a one-size-fits-all solution.

    As an example of this, someone may need to adopt an anarchism that puts an emphasis on dropping out of society because society is so hostile to them that staying within it is excruciating. That position makes it far harder for them to do the kind of organising that requires being well-connected to mainstream society, like workplace or community organising. Attempting to apply a strict syndicalist or municipalist approach to anarchism would only result in frustration for them, and likely not be effective regardless of the merit of syndicalism or municipalism. But perhaps they are well placed to maintain countercultural spaces, launch acts of insurrection, or reach for new horizons of anarchism in the spaces not yet controlled by the dominant culture.

    On the flip side to this, someone who is well-embedded in their community, local traditions of organising or resistance is unlikely to be able to easily remove themselves from that position even if they tried. They have networks of solidarity that they rely on, and people who rely on them. Building on those traditions and attempting to push them in a more radical direction is probably the optimal thing for them to do. But the very social links that open some avenues for radical action also may close some avenues for insurrection or countercultural activity, regardless of the merits of those approaches.

    In the above examples it is clear that each anarchist should take very different approaches to organising and tactics based on their particular context and strengths. By embracing a diversity of tactics we can better serve anarchism as a whole by doing different things as and where we can. Anarchists have different inclinations, exist in different spaces, and will have built up different skills and networks, all of which would be squandered if they decided to swap places with others because they felt that this was the only ideologically correct course of action according to a certain theory.

    This kind of diversity is also never going to go away. Even if one anarchist theory or strategy becomes the most prominent, there will always be other approaches active alongside it. If this diversity is inherent, then all we can do is choose what to do with it. Ideally, we would turn our diversity into a strength, with different traditions mutually supporting each other as best they can towards building a united revolutionary movement.

    Yet there is still a reflexive ideological absolutism in current and historical anarchist discourse and organising. We tend to treat our particular strain or experience of anarchism as superior to others, and treat what others are doing as simply wrong. We sometimes end up discussing the pros and cons of different kinds of anarchism in the abstract, instead of the needs and capabilities of actual anarchists and our communities. When we dismiss other anarchist traditions like this, we often end up also dismissing potential avenues of communication and cooperation, and damn anarchism to be a “movement” of isolated projects that live and die on their own or end up in spirals of infighting and ideological nitpicking with others.

    This kind of attitude contradicts the pluralistic spirit of anarchism and contains the seeds of a new authoritarianism and, considering how easily authority has re-asserted itself in past movements for liberation, we must do all that we can to guard against it. Whatever else we might be, we must be good anarchists first, and we would much rather have a movement in which someone’s preferred approach was a minority but they could still trust everyone involved to be truly committed to the core ideals of anarchism, and work through disagreements with mutual respect for a diversity of tactics and a shared solidarity.

    That said, this is not a call for everyone to drop their theoretical, organisational, and strategic commitments and adopt an anarchism that is a loosely-defined mush. Having specific commitments and principles in our anarchism is important, whilst remembering that not every theoretical, organisational, or strategic idea is necessarily equally valid. Some people are still doing things that are wrong for them, or wrong for anarchism as a whole. Neither is this a call for everyone to give up on deeper strategy and do whatever is easiest for them. It is laudable when people think beyond their immediate context and develop themselves as activists to fill roles they believe the movement needs.

    This is a call to accept that anarchism will always be diverse, and that diversity isn’t necessarily rooted in some anarchists doing anarchism wrong, but in real differences in where individual anarchists are, what they need, and what they can do. This is a call to start organising a real revolutionary movement for all of us that can incorporate this diversity instead of ignoring it, or pretending we can build a movement on the basis of a single fixed “correct” idea of anarchist organisation or strategy. Many anarchists are going to choose, or be forced, to fight where they stand, and everyone starts standing in a different place. We need to work out how best to support each other on that basis and fight to win.