Of all the groups and organizations that went to Seattle, anarchists were one small segment, a minority. Other social actors–unions, environmntal orgs., NGOs, etc.–sent many more people. Anarchists, together with a wide variety of other groups, did take to the streets. This is what I meant.

As far as anarchists actually “working together” with these mainstream or liberal groups, I think that was quite limited. I know what anarchists think about liberals. Unfortunately, many consider them a worse enemy than the authoritarian (even the totalitarian) left. As I’ve written at my blog this a huge mistake and has resulted in the slaughter and imprisonment of anarchists.

Most of the NGOs and liberal groups–especially the unions–went to Seattle not simply to protest, but to actually change the policies of the WTO. This placed them at odds with so-called revolutionary organizations. Palliatives, reformists, “sell outs,” you know the lingo, I’m sure.

This is really the key to my point about politial marginalization. Anarchist ideology and policies (really, the lack thereof) simply do not appeal to the vast majority of people in the country. Same with communist ideology and policies. They may have appeal elsewhere, but here in the U.S., not so much. Many anarchists feel this is simply due to the bad rap anarchism has received. I think it has to do with the actual content of the ideology. Again, I would say the same thing about communism.

Also, I would contend that the anti-globalization movement is actually an amalgam of a variety of (often conflicting) ideologies and movements. For example, a world without borders versus protectionism, nationalist farmers vs. urban anarchists, etc.

You write:

“for the first time in thirty years–forced a serious debate about the economic and political structures that govern our world.”

Really? 30 years? From the 1960s-1990s there were no “serious debates” about capitalism? I must disagree. Surely you are familiar with the New International Economic Order of the 1970s. The NEIO actually impacted policy–on the ground– in these countries.

Which brings me to your (or my) point about marginality. If you consciously want to be marginal, fine. Nothing wrong with that. But, if as I suspect is the case, you prefer some sort of major social change, let alone social revolution, you need to be engaged with folks on the ground and not simply enaged with folks in your own isoloated and marginal political communities.

Here are my replies to some of what you and your co-author wrote:

“Thus, we think our immediate challenge is to ensure that the anti-war mobilizations are decentralized and democratic in structure.”

How would you evaluate the anarchist movement on this? I would say, all too often, anarchists simply latched onto existing demos organized by ANSWER and UFPJ. This is understandable. If anarchists organized their own demos. the turnout would be mediocre, at best. So I realize the libertarian left is in a bit of a bind.

Take my advice—distance yourselves from all Stalinists and authoritarians—and you lose influence. But ignore my advice, and you ensure than anti-war mobilizations are dominated by Stalinists and authoritarians. This is not an enviable situation to be in.

“Decentralized political structures have little significance unless complemented by a decentralized, radically democratic politics.”

I’ll be frank. I do not think *most* anarchists are concerned about politics. Sure, there are some individuals who are, but most people involved in the anarchist movement are more concerned about the environment, economics, culture and society, etc. than politics and political institutions. In fact, a key differentiation between anarchists and other leftists has been this disdain for politics.

I think you are describing extremely marginal ideas that have a minimal—if that—influence on politics. For example, when you claim that the “U.N. is an illegitimate political body” because it “presupposes the nation-state” you must realize that you are placing yourself on the fringe of political discourse. As such, you can expect to be ignored by most people, not simply elites.

I know this seems harsh but it is the conclusion I have come to after spending much time on the anarcho-left. Things may seem different at the Institute for Social Ecology, surrounded by people who agree with your political ideology, but I encourage you to get out and talk to people in Jackson Heights, Flushing, Jamaica and other neighborhoods in Queens.

Feel free to visit and comment @ “The New Centrist” any time.