“Anarchists don’t do anything because they arent organized”
This is a lie. A damn lie. Stop saying this. Stop believing this.
This is a very tired, largely bullshit and often bad faith claim dragged out of the intellectual sewers and used to dismiss anarchist tactics without acknowledging history or engaging with any actual theory.
It’s a total distortion of anarchist philosophy, and does very little except cause unnecessary confusion, whitewash history and create greater ruptures in our attempts at solidarity with the masses.
It is not historically accurate whatsoever, and more than that, it is just really, really silly. Think about it: why would anarchists, of all people, be against any sort of organization of individuals working to achieve a common goal? why would that be strategic or desirable? why would anarchists (or any “leftists”) believe that human beings can’t or shouldn’t cooperate, as a rule?
This stereotype of anarchists being antisocial and hard to work alongside might come from the fact that many organizations operate from the top-down. It makes sense that vocal and active anarchists would be among the first to be targeted and isolated by the power structure of certain organizations given their anti-authoritarian tendencies.
Leaders that fear the possibility of having their hoarded power and privileges diffused to the formerly disempowered masses certainly have a motive to reject and attack anarchism and anarchists.
Centralizing power to elevate “leaders” who make all of the executive decisions, who are responsible for regulating the group’s power and resources, and aren’t (easily) recalled or held accountable by other members present a liability in any organization.
Let’s start by asking a really basic question: Is working with (or rather for,) a corrupt organization better than “not organizing”? How can organizations that are little more than cults of personality ever truly come to represent the will of the people?
We can easily see from history that power concentrated into the control of a few individuals often corrupts, and you don’t have to be “evil” for that to happen…you don’t have to be a “western white cishet abled capitalist” either for that matter.
Misleadership is an equal-opportunity sport.
For anarchists, it’s less about ~not wanting to organize~ with others, (which would be extremely difficult anyway,) and more about working together fairly to the greatest possible extent.
In other words, it isn’t a question of “should we should organize”, but “how”?
It’s important to stress that anarchists favor horizontalism, but not because anarchists believe everyone will magically, inexplicably get along. Rather, Anarchists prefer horizontal organization because it is one of the most practical and convenient ways to keep organizations from being manipulated internally or externally. We aren’t idealistic for believing this, it simply works better for everyone when it can be applied.
A horizontal approach empowers everyone in the group, not just putting certain members in positions of (permanent, unaccountable) authority over the rest. Does this totally eliminate the possibility of selfishness or bad actors seeking to exploit the systems we create? No. Of course not, but it makes their job harder.
This is why feds historically had a difficult time infiltrating such anarchist groups. how do you destabilize a group with a leader? attack or corrupt the leader, naturally. how do you destabilize a leaderless, autonomous group? attack or corrupt each of them one by one (if you can find them all!)
Anarchists aren’t “against organization” as a rule. What’s important to anarchists is how an organization functions, not that it exists at all or the very idea of organizing. It’s very common for folks to stretch the “anti-authoritarianism” to mean “anarchists hate organizing”.
how “organizing” came to be synonymous with “authority” is anyone’s guess.
What might help make this idea even simpler to understand is to model it, and scale it down a bit.
In a group of 5 friends, one friend is the “leader”, and the others unquestionably follow the leader’s instructions.
if the leader makes a mistake, they are responsible for the failure of the entire group. If the leader lies and manipulates the other 4 without their knowledge, the group is significantly less able to function in their overall best interest. we’d have to take it on faith that this one person can be trusted with the fate of the other 4.
this naturally leads to some important, fairly complex questions:
what systems are in place in such an organization to prevent this abuse of power?
is such an organizational structure necessary or preferable to any other, and why?
must this leadership role necessarily be permanent? on what basis would this leadership position rotate?
can the other members perform the duties of the leader? if no, then why not? can the necessary skills be taught and developed?
are there any alternatives models we can imagine for structuring the organization?
is this hierarchy (and thus the liability it entails,) justified?
it’s important to ask these question to all members, not just the leadership for what are hopefully obvious reasons.
some leaders will inevitably desire a perpetual and disproportionate amount of control over their “comrades”, and will offer resistance to these ideas, not because they’re interested in being an effective organization, but because they believe the organization is theirs, and that the other members are nothing more than blunt objects at their disposal.
This isn’t to imply that every leader (or even most) are nefarious and horrible dictators in the making. remember, leadership is not inherently bad, only it mustn’t be used as an easy way to exploit others for personal gain.
anarchists don’t want to eliminate leadership, they want to make the opportunity for all to be leaders a real possibility. anarchists want to analyze and challenge the legitimacy of centralized power for the purpose of eliminating the chances fascists have of infiltrating our groups, getting us and our friends killed.
Anarchists want to empower ourselves to make decisions for a collective rather than exclusive and private good. Anarchists want to deprive authoritarians of their chances to leech power from the people that they claim to represent and support, yet constantly underestimate, elevate themselves above and distrust in a paternalistic fashion.
to stress even further, not all corruption happens on purpose. often when organizations fail, it’s because the systems that give them life are lacking in foundation, not necessarily in willpower or ethics. we can’t place all the blame on someone for losing a rigged game with unfair rules and impossible standards.
tons of (well-meaning) people often go into organizations believing they can “change them from the inside”, yet they often get changed more significantly by the system itself. the ends and the means are inextricably linked. If we want to create a freer society, we do it by the means of practicing freedom, not by practicing domination and a total lack of accountability for our actions.
Is this a perfect and foolproof method? Can I personally foresee every instance where this principle goes wrong or becomes impractical? Hell no, but that’s not the point anyway. We’ve had several thousands of years to study how power works and its affect on human social behavior within groups. At no point has a perfect leader revealed itself to us. At no point has authoritarianism been perfected so as to eliminate the liabilities it inherently creates.
As anarchists, as radical communists, as friends and as lovers of humanity, we can do better and must do better than assuming that hierarchal realism is some inescapable truth we are too weak to challenge.
Anarchist FAQ Section A.2.3: “Are Anarchists On Favor Of Organization?”
“Yes. Without association, a truly human life is impossible. Liberty cannot exist without society and organisation.”
Anarchist FAQ Section J: “What Types of Organizations Do Anarchists Build?”
“Anarchists are well aware of the importance of building organisations. Organisations allow those within them to multiply their strength and activity, becoming the means by which an individual can see their ideas, hopes and dreams realised.”
