WSM website on Nice Referendum shows up swp/SP luddites

by Chekov Thu Aug 29, 2002 01:02

Actually it's not really true to say that it originates with the US government. Like most high technology, the initial research was financed by the US department of defence, but it was actually developped in US universities in the main, and later in universities and research facilities all over the world.

In any case, it's completely irrelevant who first created a tool, the point is whether it's useful or not. Clearly the internet is extremely useful to lots of people (including ourselves) and not only the US government. In fact its probably safe to say that it is one of the very few large scale technological developments in recent years that have somewhat shifted the balance of power away from states and towards ordinary people. Of course many of the other developments that have happened at the same time have had the opposite effect, so it's far from being a simple equation. The fact remains that the internet exists, it's a useful means of propagating information, there is nothing to be gained from not using it, so we should get as much out of it as we can.

To go back to the tool thing, you could say that since the inventor of TNT was a pacifist, it's therefore a great technology, or since many of the Manhattan project scientists were lefties and pacifists, atomic energy is right on. The creators of tools very often have no notion of how they are going to be used in the future and even the US government can't see into the future and can lose control of it's tools.

by C. Wed Aug 28, 2002 22:52

I'm interested in Chekov's point but I'm not sure if I get it? I see the structure of the Internet as an example of real working anarchism - decentralised, non-hierarchical and constantly in flux. the fact it originates from the Us government makes it even better.

by red Tue Aug 27, 2002 23:44

you could say that anarchisim is overrepresented on the net or underrepresented in the real world, or it could say anarchism in most countries is a movement of mainly middle class youth with access to computers and information, which I do not mean as an insult it could be a fact. Other than Spain and a small way in Italy anarchism is not huge in the communities ( i'm not saying marxism is) and in italy you see very little anarchism on the net because they have a national weekly paper trade unions and a small conferderation.
But don't get me wrong I'm not against it simply defending our parties shit website, but tiny marxist groups have millions of websites if you look.

by Nora Tue Aug 27, 2002 21:44

The Geraghty's are always the biggest, in every way

by chekov Tue Aug 27, 2002 14:19

ME:
"I don't think that you can put the strength of anarchism on the net down _purely_ to the existance of a couple of computer whizz kids"
RED:
"the arrogant notion anarchists are good at internet sites because they are anarchists is plainly ridiculas"

Note the underscored word in my quotation. From this it is clear that I am not making the point that you seem to be arguing against.

If you look at the internet you will see that the anarchist movement is way, way over represented compared to any Marxist current in relation to its strength on the ground. It is inconceivable that every anarchist group in the world is blessed with more computer whizz kids than all the Marxist groups, therefore we need to find another reason for this strength. I think that the type of organisation favoured by anarchists is an important reason, that's all that I am saying.

by moses Tue Aug 27, 2002 13:17

towards communities, yeh? good does that mean that you droped the transitional programme bible to socialism. bloody leninistas

by red sp Mon Aug 26, 2002 21:09

No not quite true, you need to know how to do it first if you don't know how its not possible. We had nothing really on the internet until socialist youth was set up and people who knew how to do it joined and set up sites. Theres 3 or 4 sites now including branch ones that are updated. And there is discussion boards too. Also our orientation has always been generally towards communities and alot of our supporters aren't computer literate. So for example we have the fingal voice which is a free paper of about 10,000 an issue are posted through letterboxs.
We've been slow on the internet but we are getting it together now, it has nothing to do with idelogy just simply having people whio are involved and have the know how.
For nice we will letterbox thousands. I never said it was either but that saying we weren't serious about nice because we didn't have a website is bullshit, and there is I fear a tendency towards computer activisim, which I suppose is at least a step up from the bar stool variety!
But the arrogant notion anarchists are good at internet sites because they are anarchists is plainly ridiculas. As for globalise resistance, you should have known better the swp have acted like this for years

by Sean Bhean Bhocht - SWP Mon Aug 26, 2002 14:03

as well as other major current events

by chekov Mon Aug 26, 2002 12:40

Anarchists will also be knocking on doors during the upcoming Nice referendum, it is not an either/or situation as many people seem to claim. Indeed the people who are most active on the net are often the same people who are most active in the real world. The net is another means for getting a message across, and those who have a message to spread should use any means available.

However, I don't think that you can put the strength of anarchism on the net down purely to the existance of a couple of computer whizz kids. The internet naturally lends itself to open, decentralised information networks and this gels very well with the anarchist methods of organising. So anarchists are good at setting up mailing lists, websites and other such stuff that incorporates the work of lots of individuals and have no central controlling committee. Contrast this with the SWP whose various mailing lists are generally used to send out the party line and are strictly monitored so that nothing 'off-message' can appear. When GR originally set up their mailing list it was open, after about 2 weeks when they had got a couple of critical posts, it was switched to 'announcement only', ie only those who ran the list were allowed to post to it. Naturally the list has since been dead. Similarly there have been lots of Leninist gnashing of teeth about the anarchist conspiracy that is indymedia, which is nothing more than an open publishing site, open to all points of view. Democratic centralism is not a method of decision making that is very compatible with succesful internet projects. Anarchism is.

by x Mon Aug 26, 2002 10:58

Finghin, the basis of your perspective seems to be that individuals do not exist and we're all just components of a 'class'.

Society certainly does exist - and can and should be influenced by democratic collective action for the betterment of all. But individual uniqueness, difference and freedom also exist and must be respected as well.

The issue is balance - and not the extreme 'big idea' one-system mono-culture inherent in the theories of both state socialism and corporate capitalism.

by red sp Mon Aug 26, 2002 02:13

"WSM website on Nice Referendum shows up swp/SP luddites. Congratulations are due to the WSM on its excellent website. It shows who is serious on the issue of Nice and who is not. One minor quibble though, the no2nice list on yahoo groups is using the yahoo corporation's services, which although free for the moment may not remain so. It would have been better to use a newsgroup. Newsgroups have been around for a while now and are effective."

What complete and utter bullshit! This shows the WSM have a couple of whizz kid computer experts and the SP don't! That we aren't taking it seriously! We will be knocking on doors causes contrary to what you seem to believe everyone doesn't have a computer or look at anarchist political sites. We'll have to talk to people out in the real world too. These computer activists are beginning to annoy me!

But granted our party website is shite, but the youth one is excellent, can't remeber the address but you can find it. This is because (another surprise) the youth are all computer experts!
the international one is good too
www.worldsocialist-cwi.org
and theres loads more linked to that.

But in the end as excellent as the internet is as a tool we still have to convince people in the real world. And it won't repalce talking to people and arguing ideas.

BTW congratulations to the anarchists on the website it is excellent.

by Finghin - Socialist Party Mon Aug 26, 2002 00:33

I agree that every human being is unique in their own way. But this does not mena that class does not exist. I do not believe that every class is homogenous, each class has different strata which may persue different aims and have different intrests etc.

Socialism and capitalism are very different. Capitalism is based on exploitation, the profit motive and private ownership. Socialism is based on the common ownership of the commanding heights of the economy and democratic planning of the economy so it can be run in the interests of all working people and the environment etc.

I am not 'worshiping' Marx or any other thinker. Marx made a valuable contribution to the understanding of the way in which human society functions. For you to completly dissmiss Marx is unjustified. If you have problems with Marx, I'd like to hear them.

'X' the basis of of your argument is that society does not exist and that we are all just individuals persueing our own interests. This is self evidently wrong and is essentially a very right wing idea. This is what Thatcher claimed when attacking the miners and the anti poll tax movement.

'b' you seem to think that the Socialist Party is dominated by Joe Higgins. Anyone that knows the socialist Party they will tell you that is not the case. Joe is of course a leading member of the party that has been involved in struggle for years. But Joe is not unique, we are a democratic party that campaigns on many issues. We've been doing it for decades in Ireland and internationally. We are not just the 'joe higgins party.'

I think that you think that we were cheerleaders for the bureacracy in the USSR. This is obviously not the case. We always opposed the undemocratic leadership caste in Russia and activly campaigned for genuine workers democracy in those Stalinist states.

by x Sun Aug 25, 2002 22:47

There are 6 billion unique and individual people living on this planet. Generalising them into a few 'classes' is lazy, dangerous thinking, like all big ideas of how people are supposed to live.

Why are people still worshiping in the cult of Marx so long after he's dead? It just as bad as worshiping poor Adam Smiths ideas. Capitalism and socialism are more alike than different. Big ideas from Europe under which we're all supposed to live.

Don't try to impose your big idea on me. i'm not a member of a class. i'm a human being.

by b Sun Aug 25, 2002 21:50

the reality is, there will be no dictatorship of the proletariat, there will be a dictatorship over the proletariat with chairman joe at the head.

by OK - SP Sun Aug 25, 2002 20:21

We do believe in the dictatorship of the proletariet, we dont hide that.

You misunderstand the term 'dictatorship of the proletariet'. Currently under capitalism we live under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. We believe that the working class should take power from the bourgeoisie, no individual party will take power. It is up to the working class (a vast majority of the population) to take power.

Yes the SWP would also agree with the dictatorship of the proletariet. This does not mean we are the same. Just because two people or groups agree on one thing it doesn't mean that they agree on all things.

We are two distint parties. Anyone that's active in the labour movement or on the left generally will know that there is a world of difference between the SP and the SWP.

by Phuq Hedd - none Sun Aug 25, 2002 19:51

Does the SP believe in the Leninist program of "dicatorship of the proletariat" (managed and run _for_ the proletariat by the Party?).

Anarchist "types" could be forgiven for confusing the SP/SWP if the answer to the above is yes.

by OK - SP Sun Aug 25, 2002 14:27

Why do a number of anarchist types keep on lumping SWP and the Socialist Party together?

Any person with practical experience on the left and in the labour movement in Ireland (and internationally) will know the dramatic difference between the approach of the SP and SWP.

The Socialist Party is the largest group on the left in Ireland in terms of support from working people. We have a genuine international organisation that has support from workers on all five continents.

To lump us in with the SWP shows up your own inexperience of activity on the left.

by Al S - Anarchist Federation Ireland Sun Aug 25, 2002 10:24 ireaf at yahoo dot ie http://www.afireland.cjb,net

Suggest you also check out

http://www.rebelweb.cjb.net

which is open for all to use

by Graham Caswell Sat Aug 24, 2002 22:11

Please do not disrespect the memory of Ned Ludd, who led the revolt against the introduction of mechanised textile production in Britain at the start of the industrial revolution.

He was not anti-innovation or anti-progress (real progress, that is). Rather he correctly predicted that mechanising production would remove power from people and put it in the hands of capital. This, of course, is what happened and for more than a century afterwards millions of people, including children, spent lives of misery in the sweatshops as slaves to machines.

Technology has effects - on individuals, on society and on the environment. Often these effects are different from the 'advantages' used to promote the technology. In other words, they are side effects. The car is great for transportation - except it causes commuting, gridlock and climate change. CFCs are a great inert gas for refridgeration - except they destroy stratospheric ozone. Nitrogen fertiliser is great - except when it shows up in the rivers, streams and water supply. Think of how many people spend their lives manipulating abstractions in a cathode ray tube.

New technology should not be introduced solely because somebody can make a lot of money at it. It should be examined, tested and judged over time. We should control the machines - not the other way around. Technology should make our lives and our world better, not worse.

Ned Ludd was right.