Michael Albert gives the ISO a boot in the ass

It's a good thing that self-described anarchists aren't sectarian or authoritarian, so long as you live by their strict moral code and listen to punk rock. Questioning tactics of the black bloc or veganism however does not make many friends in the movement that talks so much about "liberation".

Funny. At the Cheney protest yesterday, I didn't see any anarchists. Wait. Take that back. There was the usual suspect from Berkeley.

In fact, I don't really see many anarchists doing any sort of political agitating and organizing, unless it involves punk rock, puppets, and bookfairs (read: intentional capitalist gatherings).

In fact, I bet the "smash the state" shirts they wear are made with sweatshop labor. Don't believe me? Why don't you check the tags of your AK Press t-shirts and see if they're union made.

Well, enough slagging the a-boys (alpha?) and girls. At least some of them help out with the IMC. Thanks.

Michael Albert has some good things to say, and I respect his tenacity.

However, his vision for a new world is about as inspiring and poetic as the DMV.

<It's a good thing that self-described anarchists aren't sectarian or authoritarian, so long as you live by their strict moral code and listen to punk rock. >

That's funny! I like that! But a sense of humor with this crowd will get you shot.

By the way, the current issue of the ISO groupthink magazine contains shameful lies about the Spanish Anarchists, accusing them, inter alia, of sponsoring a failed socialist model. A Leninist magazine has the nerve to say this! Pass the sectarian soup! I'll have an extra helping!

Communists and Socialists are OPENLY sectarian, while anarchists can be more sectarian but usually they try to pretend like they are not.

Much of this has little to do with real ideological differences and has everything to do with social dynamics. Socialists tend to be sectarian as a way to define their group; a group has to define itself as different from the other Communist groups by taking specific stands on historical issues (usually ones that most people these days care little about). Anarchists are sectarian more out of self rightousness or personal differences (pointing out problems in the dynamics of other groups that are real problems but also exist in anarchist groups). It is harder to work with a Socialist group if you disagree with them but you rarely get much personal animosity due to your differences. It can be hard to work with anarchist groups if you think for yourself due to the social dynamics among anarchists.

Anarchists hate the ISO due to the irritating pushing of papers, the ISO's ability to take over groups, the appearance of the ISO as a large hierarchical organization and only secondarily for differences that are really ideological. Anarchists specifically hate the ISO due to its size and success on campuses.

Socialists dislike anarchists due to the appearance of wishywashyness on major isues (there are so many strains of anarchism its a hard ideology to define and some radical anarchists are a little too accepting of rich libertarians who hate government mainly due to personal greed). Before Seatle socialists pretty much ignored anarchists but now there is a level of dislike caused out of the success of anarchists in terms of publicity. Also many Socialists dislike Anarchists since Anarchists are frequently the harshest critics of the Socialists.

Sectarianism is destructive from both sides. We ALL agree on most immediate issues and there is unfortunately little chance of a revolution soon, so long term differences seem irrelevent.