Stop Nice - get active 50,000 LAN leaflets to distribute

by I.P. - none Fri Sep 27, 2002 15:48

What is the differences between the LAN and the Alliance Against Nice?

What points do the LAN differ on?

Or is it that LAN does not have any organisation or leadership, and Anarchists are happy with that.

by Andrew Fri Sep 27, 2002 16:05

The clue is in the name, ie Libertarains (against Nice). Lane is composed of groups and individuals who don't see the taking of 'state power' electorally or otherwise as the way to bring about freedom. We felt that a campaign against Nice also needed to be a campaign FOR what we believed in, hence the last paragraph of the leaflet
"However, while we do call for a NO vote, this isn't enough. We don't think an X on a piece of paper, useful protest though it might be, can stop the superstate juggernaut. Ordinary working people taking action together can. The groups and individuals involved in this campaign are united by a vision of a better future, one without bosses or governments, be they in Dublin or Brussels. One in which all local communities are directly controlled by the people resident in them, and in which all workplaces are directly controlled by the people who work in them. A future where everyone has an equal say in the decisions that affect them."

That said we don't see ourselves as rivals to AAN, indeed at the moment we are discussing affiliating to it. (And some of the LAN groups like the WSM have already done so). So we recognise considerable common ground as well as differences. We just want to distribute material that carries a libertarian message as well as an anti-Nice one.

by iosaf = o as if - reclaim the streets & genome Fri Sep 27, 2002 17:36 iosaf at email dot com barcelona

Thanks to hyper-capitalism we all now have access to IT facilities to copy and distribute material we like.
Use your scanners and printers.
If you like any material you see
COPY IT!
thus 20,000 leaflets increase exponentially.
because there are more than 20,000 voters.
I´m sure no-one will mind.

HEART AND MIND

by I.P. Fri Sep 27, 2002 20:16

I think it's sectarianism on the part of anarchists.

So what you dont agree on what some members of the AAN! Not all in the AAN agree on the future of Europe. But all in the AAN agree on a No vote along a certain programme.

Individual groups in the AAN will have their own campaigns emphasising the points they want. If the Anarchists wanted they could have joined the AAN and still have an anarchist campaign raising points about Anarchy etc.

I think that the LAN is a farce. It's petty secarian on the part of the unelected unaccountable and self appointed leadership of Anarchists.

by Charlie D Fri Sep 27, 2002 20:19

It seems to me that the L.A.N. is a joke. What kind of proper campaign puts things on a website in the hope that supporters will by magic print off leaflets and distribute them.

If anarchist were serious the would form a party, and they would have proper organisational effeciantcy.

by Ois Fri Sep 27, 2002 22:20

First of all as a member of LAN, I think we should join the AAN. However we aren't at the moment but hopefully we will be.

Now to what motivated me to write this post...

I.P. wrote...
'It's petty secarian on the part of the unelected unaccountable and self appointed leadership of Anarchists.'

What do mean? Who are your 'leadership of Anarchists'? Who are they supposed to be leading? Who would elect them? How are they self appointed? And who are they not accountable to?

If this 'leadership of Anarchists' is meant to mean the leaders of the Anarchist movement in Ireland, well, first of all their aren't any. All (active) anarchists are their own 'leaders' and co-operate on a equal standing with other anarchists. Thus we dont have 'leadership' as such.

If you mean the the co-ordinators and spokespeople in LAN. Well they are elected and accoutable to the members of LAN and were appointed by members of LAN.

What do you mean? You seem to be making completly unfounded accusations against the LAN.

And...

Charlie D wrote...
'If anarchist were serious the would form a party, and they would have proper organisational effeciantcy.'

Anarchist don't form parties. (I my mind mainly for semantic reasons. But then again isn't politics really just a question of semantics (I'm sure George W. Bush's 'Freedom' is very differnt to mine, but it is 'Freedom' that (supposedly) motivates us both)) Anarchists form Organisations, Federations, Alliances, 'Movements' etc etc.

In Ireland we have the Cork Anarchist Alliance, Anarchist Federation of Ireland, Anarcho-Syndicalist Federation, (the people who produce) Derry Anarchist News, and a hell of alot of unaligned anarchists (such as yours truly). We also have the WSM who are probably the most effeciant politcal organisation in Ireland. (I'll remind you that they have 12 members). And I've probably left out at least one or two groups.

Anarchists are also very active in Ireland in a variety of campaigns. A list would be impossible to compile.

Anarchist are serious, are effeciant and are very organised.

Sorry for writing so so much, I couldn't help it.

GET ORGANISED.

by I.P. Sat Sep 28, 2002 00:03

Anarchists do have leaders. The anarchists that take on the work and organisation of their groups are leaders. There's nothing wrong with leadership, except where it is not accountable.

Anarchists seem to think that leaders do not exist. But the reality is that they do. Leaders should be accountable and elected. Those doing work on behalf of others (ie spokepeople, organisers etc.) should be elected and accountable.

Anarchists do not have their leadership elected. This is undemocratic in my opinion.

by Ois Sun Sep 29, 2002 00:43

I hate to repeat myself but in reply to I.P, I think what I said was perfectly clear..

"If this 'leadership of Anarchists' is meant to mean the leaders of the Anarchist movement in Ireland, well, first of all their aren't any. All (active) anarchists are their own 'leaders' and co-operate on a equal standing with other anarchists. Thus we dont have 'leadership' as such.

"If you mean the the co-ordinators and spokespeople in LAN. Well they are elected and accoutable to the members of LAN and were appointed by members of LAN."

So..., a lot of your post simply contradicts me. (Which is slightly offensive.) You also seem intent to deny or distort the facts about anarchist organisation.

(Most) Anarchists don't 'think that leaders do not exist.' We have nothing wrong with leaders or leadership. We simply have a problem with authoritarianism and authorities being authorites to themselves rather than delegates elected by and accountable to 'the collective will'.

Anarchists however do not stifle iniciative and enterprise but rather encourage individual (and collective) creativity. (This is something that most other strands of socialism cannot bost off.)

Maybe its the rethoric thats confusing you... Anarchist don't elect a leadership. Being elected doesn't make someone a good leader. We delegate i.e we give people specific mandates to follow. We delegate Spokespeople, Co-ordinators of various sorts, Treasurers, Secretaries of various sorts, Chairpeople etc. etc. All of these people are given specific mandates to follow and if they don't follow them they are answerable to whatever organisation delegated them the job. This makes them more accountable and prevents them from becoming authorities answerable to themselves.

Of course we only delgate responsibilities when it is impractical for those responsibilities to be upon the persons that make up the group. As little power and responsibility as possible is taken off the indivdual members of the group. Everyone remains on an equal standing.

This is democracy, this is anarchy.