10 reasons to hate anarchists.. add your reasons

by Ray Fri Oct 11, 2002 16:30

As a true anarchist, I have no choice but to support the bureaucratically-deformed WSM. Comrade "Chekov" and his crypto-Harperite deviationists may be in control, but the WSM remains a true anarchist organisation, as we can see from careful examination of the new Workers Constitution*. As such, it is my duty as an anarchist to offer unconditional military support to the deformed workers republic (and the deformed workers' republic). As an objective opponent of the Chekovist regime I am obviously counter-revolutionary, and so will be executing myself immediately.

Forward the People's Council of Soviet Revolution!
Death to the Counter-Revolutionary Obstructors of People's Justice!
Build the Second Revolution to Overthrow the Backward Troika!
A Party Cell in Every Graveyard!

Ray

*in particular Section 1 (1) (a), where 'the workers' are defined as those persons making up the membership of the central soviet, and Section 1 (1) (b), where 'the bourgeoisie' are defined as those people who are not members of the central soviet. Who then can deny that the workers are in control of the WSM?

by Andrew Fri Oct 11, 2002 15:37

Shit does that mean I'm going to be paraded around town in a dung cart with a 'capitalist roader' sign hung around my neck.

Seriously though, these trotskyist projections are pretty revealing are they not! Freud would have a field day! I'm off to polish up my iron rod, I fancy imposing some discipline over the weekend :-)

by Chekov Fri Oct 11, 2002 15:01

Ray, sorry to break it to you, but Andrew is now my puppet. At the recent, secret congress of the seventeenth and a third international of peasants, workers and oppressed masses soviet, the Feeney-ist faction succeeded in electing a slate of true vanguardist revolutionaries to the interim steering committee for exercising true (non-deformed) workers control over the WSM, thereby expelling once and for all, the chauvinist, labourite reactionaries of the ray-ist wing.

Comrade Flood will henceforth be taking orders from the people's revolutionary council under the dictatorial control of the popular troika for the advancement of the proletarian revolution, under the glorious chairmanship of commandante Feeney.

One of our first acts (article 12, subsection 122, paragraph 14 of the programme for securing control of the workers organisations issued by the presidium of peasants and workers soviets councils, Leixlip, October 1st) was to commission a titanium ice-pick which has been issued to comrade Flood with orders to anihilate the counter-revolutionary ray-ist faction.

Be warned!

p.s. We will wage a merciless war of extermination against any uncontrollable petit-bourgeois factions engaging in illicit use of hemp, not because we bow to the bourgeious logic of prohibition, but because any act that causes a worker to lose one iota of his or her productive capacity as a cog in the soviet industrial machine will be considered as an act of sabotage, class collaboration and war against the incipient social order championed by the popular troika. Whatsmore the proper use of hemp shall henceforth be the manufacture of grey overalls to clothe the liberated masses of the industrial proletariat, no longer shall they be the victims of the chains of bourgeouis fashion.

by Ray Fri Oct 11, 2002 11:51

- Another thing, why do you anarchists always say you're against leaders when the WSM has a leader type figure of its own, Andrew Flood. From what I heard he runs WSM like a tyrant.

Andrew is just a puppet, a figurehead I installed to take the flak from ignorant critics like yourself. Yes, I do run the WSM like a tyrant, but I don't see what your problem is with that. I have already pointed out the necessity of recognising the dictatorial authority of single individuals for the purpose of carrying out the soviet idea. The revolution demands, in the interests of anarchism, that the masses unquestioningly obey the single will of the leaders of the WSM, and unquestioning submission to a single will is absolutely necessary for the success of the WSM. That's why I've introduced saluting in the WSM, to make sure everyone remembers that the working class must be thrown here and there, appointed, commanded just like soldiers.

Idiot.

For anyone actually interested in finding out how the WSM operates, their constitution is on their website.

(Oh, and in case it wasn't clear, pretty much all of the paragraph above is made up of paraphrases of Lenin and Trotsky, as quoted in the thread here
http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=14054&start=40

by Angry Trotskyist Fri Oct 11, 2002 11:40

The mistaken ideas and tactics of Anarchists have lead to the death of far more workers than the tactics of Trotskyists.

Another thing, why do you anarchists always say you're against leaders when the WSM has a leader type figure of its own, Andrew Flood. From what I heard he runs WSM like a tyrant. At least Trotskyists/Leninists hold their leadership accountable to the membership.

by Brian Fri Oct 11, 2002 11:16

"Revolution is a serious business"

Only backstabbing mass murdering trots and leninists could refer to a revolution as business!

by IMC Dalek Fri Oct 11, 2002 10:45

"Is it true that Trickey Boy Barrett and Commander Kevin Wingless are having an affair?"

I'm sure Kevin has better taste.

by Ray Fri Oct 11, 2002 10:08

- i mean the WSM don't even support the de criminalisation of weed.

What gives you that impression?

and irony really is dead -

On the one hand, right and wrong is completely subjective. On the other, join the 'counter revolutionary side' and you'll get the 'appropriate medicine' - ie, its the gulags or the firing squads for you.

That's trotskyist logic for you...

by Irony is dead Fri Oct 11, 2002 09:18

It doesn't matter - its purely subjective. But if you join the counter revolutionary side like they did at Kronstadt then you'll get the appropriate medicine. Kronstadt was necessary. In revolutions to come if the Anarchists start pissing around like they did in Spain then they will be swept into the dustbin of history. Squeal all you like. Revolution is a serious business.

by Harry Pollitt Thu Oct 10, 2002 22:06

And the really annoying thing is the bastards are right and you have no answer to them!

by mal Thu Oct 10, 2002 20:21

anarchists are boring, i mean the WSM don't even support the de criminalisation of weed. nah i don't hate em, i know quite a few non platform anarchists and they are intelligent, funny people.
its the surmonising of andrew and ray i find grating.

by Andrew Thu Oct 10, 2002 16:21

The answer to this question is almost certainly yes. Any serious study of the October revolution (including some Bolshevik ones) does not treat is as a Bolshevik coup, even in a loose sense of the word.

In summary what actually happened was this
- months of self-activity by workers including the peasants that resulted in de facto control of areas of industry, large areas of the countryside and importantly the army units near Petrograd in particular by the time of October. Some of the activists were bolsheviks, others were left SR's, some were anarchists, many were non-party (quite like indymedia really :-)

- the government and right widely expected that the all russian congress of soviets would be used to take power in October

- many sections of the left including the anarchists and the SRs wanted to do just this and published a lot of articles (and engaged in military co-operation to that effect)

- the Bolsheviks were split into a section that wanted to cease power before the congress (led by Lenin) and a faction that wanted to get the congress to cease power.

- but (and the story is more complex then this summary), the government moved first and in the couple of days before the congress tried to take military control over petrograd, presumably to stop the congress meeting.

- this had two effects
a) it became clear that almost no military forces in the city were answerable to the government
b) it forced everyone to choose sides meaning that the pro revolution forces swelled and quite quickly took control over the city. It is quite possible that if lenin had won the internal argument for a coup in the party that many would have taken sides in the opposite direction BTW

The storming of the Winter Palace version of events in a myth created by Soviet film makers (actually workers snuck in through the cellars until they greatly out numbered the pro-government guards arresting them).

But anyway even if you scenerio was correct would it give the Bolsheviks the right to crush workers democracy in 1918, 19, 20 and 21? I don't think so.

Oh to the idiot posting the 'the Bolsheviks didn't kill enough workers' comments. That sort of posturing and glorification of death is more typical of fascism then any sort of progressive set of ideas I'm familar with.

by I hate Anarchist Thu Oct 10, 2002 15:57

I have one problem about the way the red army went in against the counterevolutionaries at Krondstat. They were too easy on them, they should have gone in harder, so the anarchists would rewally have something to complain about.

by pat c Thu Oct 10, 2002 15:56

"without the Bolsheviks would there be an October revolution?"

without the bolsheviks would there have been a stalin?

without the bolsheviks would millions have died in purges, from famine & in gulags?

without the bolsheviks would there have been a sellout of the spanish civil war?

without the bolsheviks would there have been a workers victory in china in the 1920s?

by Bolshy Bolshevik Thu Oct 10, 2002 13:30

The Bolsheviks didn't destoy the Russian Revolution. You have to look at the objective situation. No international revolution, an underdeveloped Russian industy, the small russian working class, the civil war etc.

To say the Bolsheviks destroyed the revolution is inaccurate. If anything the BOlsheviks lead the working class towards the revolution, without the Bolsheviks would there be an October revolution?

by Andrew Thu Oct 10, 2002 11:15

This thread is slowly slipping into the past on indymedia (in both senses). For those who wish to continue it you can post comments on http://flag.blackened.net/wwwthreads/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=revoltnew where there are already threads on Kronstadt and another on anarchism and leninism

by Andrew Thu Oct 10, 2002 11:12

Well 'Bolshy Bolshevik' if you are complaining that that anarchists bang on about the way the Bolshevisk destroyed not only the Russian revolution but also the hope for socialism in the 20th century your right.

We do 'bang on' about what you no dougbt consider to be a 'minor detail' of history. We will consider to 'bang on' about it as long as people are foolish enough to imagine that socialism and freedom can be created through the firing squad and the gulag. No doubt such 'banging on' is very irritating to those who would like to fool activists into supporting their party - for this I make no apology.

For those who actually want to see the revolutionary project succeed in creating a new society I recommend the article linked (Freedom and Revolution) for showing how the Bolshevik method cannot achieve this.

by Ray Thu Oct 10, 2002 11:00

The reason why anarchists don't trust Leninists - political dissent will be suppressed. I wonder - should we 'get over it' in prison, or wait until we're taken out and shot?

by Bolshy Bolshevik Thu Oct 10, 2002 10:56

Andrew, and all the other anarchists, in the original posting 'AnarchoHater' gave the following reason for hating anarchists:

"2. Always banging on about Krondstadt"

I think that the postings by the likes of Andrew Flood et al show exactly what 'Anarchohater' was talking about.

In my opion there is no problem with Krondstadt. The fact is that after the revolution there will be a workers' state. A workers' state is still a state and can use violance against opponents. Krondstadt was regrettable but shit happens get over it.

by Andrew Thu Oct 10, 2002 10:31

Hmm,

I don't know where 'Hail Red Army' reads his history but its a bit off to say the least.

1. I'm not aware of a single anarchist that took part in the suppression of the Kronstadt rising. In fact this claim makes it look like 'Hail Red Army' knows nothing about the event as the Bolsheviks didn't even trust regular Red Army units after the first days when some went over to the rising. They used the officer training core instead (standard dictator stuff)

2. He is also completely wrong (to put it mildly) in saying this was an issue only raised by anarchists in the 1930's. Read for instance Berkmans account written in 1922 at http://dwardmac.pitzer.ed Bu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/kronstadt/berkkron.html
In fact there were many anarchists accounts published in that period. 'Hail Red Armys' mistake probably arises because Trotsky tried to defend himself from the accusations against him in the 1930s and this caused a further flurry of writing on the subject. Trotskys 'defence' and the replies to it can be found with other material on the rising and the Russian revolution at http://struggle.ws/russia.html

All this is covered in great detail in the Anarchist FAQ in the section called' H.5 What was the Kronstadt Rebellion?' on the web at http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/secH5.html
This is something every socialist should read!

As for 'Hail Red Armies' claim that Lenin. "supported free elections and he said that bureacratic tasks should be rotated to stop an elite forming.He also supported freedom of speech and association for all groups that were not fascist or counter revolutionary. Lenin fully supported freedom of speech for Anarchists." This really just shows how appaling his knowledge of that period is.

Briefly by early 1918 the first soviets were suppressed, anarchist and other 'pro-october' papers were shut down and the first internal party faction was suppressed. By 1921 all the non - Bolshevik left had been banned and tens of thousands of anarchists were in prison. At the time of Kroptkins funeral in early 1921 the Bolsheviks allowed up to 5,000 anarchist our of prison on day release turning the funeral into the last anarchist demonstration in Russia until the mid 1980's.

In fact in 1921 factions were banned in the Bolshevik party itself at the Party Congress (occurring at the same time as the Kronstadt rising). 'Hail Red Army' can educate himsself further on this at http://struggle.ws/russia/bol_opp_lenin_avrich.html and http://struggle.ws/russia/cp/maximof_terror1940.html

Finally you can read the full English translations of the newpapers published by the Kronsdadt rebels at the link below.

by Ray Thu Oct 10, 2002 09:38

For all the people wondering who or what Kronstadt was ...
it was a naval base near Petrograd, one of the mainsprings of the 1917 revolution. In 1921 (after the civil war was over)workers in Petrograd went on strike for food, and the Bolsheviks brought in the army to put the strikes down. In response, the Kronstadt Soviet issued a series of demands -
1. immediate new elections to the Soviets. The present Soviets no longer express the wishes of the workers and peasants. The new elections should be by secret ballot, and should be preceded by free electoral propaganda.
2. Freedom of speech and of the press for workers and peasants, for the Anarchists, and for the Left Socialist parties.
3. The right of assembly, and freedom for trade union and peasant organisations.
4. The organisation, at the latest on 10th March 1921, of a Conference of non-Party workers, solders and sailors of Petrograd, Kronstadt and the Petrograd District.
5. The liberation of all political prisoners of the Socialist parties, and of all imprisoned workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors belonging to working class and peasant organisations.
6. The election of a commission to look into the dossiers of all those detained in prisons and concentration camps.
7. The abolition of all political sections in the armed forces. No political party should have privileges for the propagation of its ideas, or receive State subsidies to this end. In the place of the political sections various cultural groups should be set up, deriving resources from the State.
8. The immediate abolition of the militia detachments set up between towns and countryside.
9. The equalisation of rations for all workers, except those engaged in dangerous or unhealthy jobs.
10. The abolition of Party combat detachments in all military groups. The abolition of Party guards in factories and enterprises. If guards are required, they should be nominated, taking into account the views of the workers.
11. The granting to the peasants of freedom of action on their own soil, and of the right to own cattle, provided they look after them themselves and do not employ hired labour.
12. We request that all military units and officer trainee groups associate themselves with this resolution.
13. We demand that the Press give proper publicity to this resolution.
14. We demand the institution of mobile workers' control groups.
15. We demand that handicraft production be authorised provided it does not utilise wage labour.

Natrurally the Bolsheviks couldn't allow this kind of 'freedom and liberation from below', and responded by telling everyone it was a White plot. Trotsky then commanded the Red Army to shoot the workers and sailors of Kronstadt 'like partridges'.

Ida Mett's book on the subject and other related articles are here
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/russia.html

by me Thu Oct 10, 2002 01:42

The '10 reasons to hate anarchist's' generated more response (at the time of writting) than the '10 reasons to hate the CPI' did.

by Hail Red Army Thu Oct 10, 2002 00:10

In Krondstat the Anarchists were involved in a counterrevolutionary coup.

One fact that anarchist overlook in regard to Krondstadt is that many anarchist assisted and supported the Red Army at the time.

Another thing why was it not until the 1930s that Krondstadt was brought up by anarchists? Is it a coincidence that it was the same time that the US propaganda machine started to step up its offensive on Trotskyists?

As for Lenin. He supported free elections and he said that bureacratic tasks should be rotated to stop an elite forming.He also supported freedom of speech and association for all groups that were not fascist or counter revolutionary. Lenin fully supported freedom of speech for Anarchists. It was not Lenin that rolled back democracy in the USSR, it was Stalin.

by Brian Wed Oct 09, 2002 23:14

Im an Irish anarchist and i rarely discuss such things as Kronstadt, though it is a shining example of how Lenin killed all who opposed him, including those asking for free elections to the soviets, how counter revolutionary. But, most of the time i spend discussing like our friend in barcelona ending copyright, sexual politics, gender politics, sustainable ecology, criminilisation of activists, bullshit war on terror, active ways of subverting and destroying capitalism, how to build a mass movement in ireland and other more important things...

by a womble Wed Oct 09, 2002 21:56

I´m wearing a wooly hat
and underneath
::::::::::::::cue heavy breathing
a standard issue gas mask
..............more heavy breathing
and back-up oxygen supply
..............on my hands i´ve got
.............latex gloves
and underneath i´m wearing
............heavy heavy breathing
stolen underpants.
YES!!!
STOLEN UNDERPANTS.
:-)
and they smell as sweet as roses.

by iosaf = o as if - reclaim the streets! Wed Oct 09, 2002 21:51 ipsiphi23 at email dot com barcelona 0034679708674

if you´re sick of our comrades in the Irish Anarchist movement banging on about Kronstadt
come to Barcelona.
We never mention Kronstadt.
We talk about-

Ending patent
freeing the internet
Ending cloning
ending copyright
squating
sexual politics
gender politics
sustainable ecology
criminilisation of activists
history
and drugs.
HEART AND MIND!
AUTONOMY BEGINS WITH SELF!

by Dave Wed Oct 09, 2002 20:55

Just noticed the second last comment, it's just SICK!!! please tell me it's not true!!!

by Dave Wed Oct 09, 2002 20:53

The reason I hate anarchists is that they are always banging on about Kronstadt. What happened at Kronstadt? The Peoples Army led by Comrade Trotsky put down a counter revolutionary coup, the fact that some anarchists participated in this counter revolutionary action is not anything to be proud of.

by For fuck sake - For fuck sake Wed Oct 09, 2002 19:16

I've just realised that i've become sad bastards just like the rest of you sad bastards. For fuck sake!!!

Is it true that Trickey Boy Barrett and Commander Kevin Wingless are having an affair?

by For fuck sake Wed Oct 09, 2002 19:11

For fuck sake don't all you sad bastards have nothing better to do with your time. Jesus christ go and read a book or get out and actually do something. There actually exists a world out there, quite fucked up due to world capitalism, which needs radical changing, how about geeting up off your arse and engage in a struggle to change the world.

And at least the anarchists are sincere unlike the SWP!

Actually why am I wasting my time here.

by Harry Pollitt Wed Oct 09, 2002 18:51

What members of the WSM wear black??????
I can't think of one of them having anything more than the occassional black jacket.

by ipsihsi Wed Oct 09, 2002 18:25

by lunatic fringe - up there. Wed, Oct 9 2002, 1:31pm
[email protected]
as an addition to someone else´s post today.
just some things the attentive reader might like to be reminded again because the attentive readers are remembering.
1. They know everything
2. They are everywhere
3. They fund the CIA
4. They defined Class War (vacancy for History, Chemistry and Biology teachers just been announced at Eton College for Boys. http://www.etoncollege.com
5. They call the Sparties "dude".
6. Some of them aren´t human
7. They are always right (look back across the past two months newswires at their comments).
8. They brainwashed everyone
9. They undermined everyone´s cherished positions.
10. They have no leaders.
11. Everyone secretly would like them to be in their party.
12. They are secretly in everyone´s party.
13. They are under your feet.
14. They speak for the planet.
15. They speak english, tá gaeilge acu, and thae ken scots.
16. They stay in the shadows
17. They come out of the shadows
18. They never underestimate the
POWER OF PLAY
THANK YOU VERY MUCH
O AS IF = IPSIPHI = IOSAF

by silo Wed Oct 09, 2002 17:48

"Compared to the SWP the WSM are far better in my opinion. If in an election I had tochoose between WSM and SWP I'd go for WSM every time.... maybe you lads should contest the odd election??!"

sort of misses the point...

by cat Wed Oct 09, 2002 17:12

no they don't - at least the male ones. Very passive and lazy...

by Independent Leftie Wed Oct 09, 2002 17:11

Compared to the SWP the WSM are far better in my opinion. If in an election I had tochoose between WSM and SWP I'd go for WSM every time.... maybe you lads should contest the odd election??!

by Anarkitty Wed Oct 09, 2002 16:40

13. Anarchists make the best lovers. (yo, they’re CRAZY freaks)

Maybe if the author of this list was gettin’ some anarchist lovin’ we wouldn’t be subjected to all this negativity, hmmm?

by bfyrekedbfui - very little Wed Oct 09, 2002 14:20

i would say (in the GB context) the anarchists have singlehandly revived the socialist movement from the doldrums since 1999. New thinking was needed, and if they hadnt taken the initiative, most of we marxists would still be stood around trying to sell grubby papers to each other. Now, Mayday is firmly re-established as an annual event, usually with some real surprises. without the anarchists, there would have been no input from young people for the SWP to cynically take advantage of through Globalise.

by Brian Cahill - Socialist Party Wed Oct 09, 2002 14:09

Jim B hugely overestimates the impact which the anarchist "don't vote" campaign had in Cork. The left wing parties got votes roughly equivalent to their levels of support: ranging from a thousand or so for the Socialist Party to two hundred for the SWP. There is no point pretending that there were massive numbers of people who would have voted for socialists if only they hadn't been talked out of it by those cunning anarchists.

Anarchists oppose elections. They will campaign against voting. I disagree with them, but they are entitled to do so. A huge number of people don't vote - very few of them because some anarchist sticker campaign convinced them.

As an aside, the Sparts in Ireland are actually targeting the anarchists quite heavily.

by Give us a break Wed Oct 09, 2002 13:37

Maybe we could join Des (Nora's daddy) pro-Nice campaign.

by Nora Geraghty - Globalise Resistance Wed Oct 09, 2002 13:06

While I recognise the value of negative publicity, shouldn't we leave that to the tabloid press? When are we going to see the "10 reasons to work with our anarchist brothers and sisters"? or "10 reasons to stop wasting your time critizing others who are fighting for change in their own way" The European Social Forum is coming up in a month, a chance to unite with our European comrades, how can we do this effectively when we spend all our time slating our own on the newswire?

by Babycakes Wed Oct 09, 2002 12:38

my old mother used to say " when you have enemies, you know you're going the right direction". Thanks for hating us, it's our job. It could have been open though Mr ( or Ms) Anarchist Hater...or you are chicken shit?
And the WSM does not represent the whole of the anarchist movement in Ireland.
For the newspaper I do know they give a big part of their wages to publish it. Now, that's dedication to the cause.
By the way, what do you do about it? slander?

Babycakes

by iosaf = o as if - lunatic fringe Wed Oct 09, 2002 12:07 ipsiphi23 at email dot com

against life patents.
against copyright.
for a free internet.
against world debt.
against borders.
for free humanity and renegotiated
contract with the Earth and its species.
Anarchists are just too clever
by half.
We have all the answers
We pose many of the questions
& we have the best sense of humour.
And the CIA fund us.
And we only we can stop any city on Earth.
That´s why people hate us.
Well I and Mr O´ asif and
all the others
(Ignatius the indignant is presently juggling 300,000 white block crew with 300,000 red block crew for the defence of Rome= THANK YOU VERY MUCH)
say:
Poo on ye!
Anarchy is and will be
the
Catalyst for change.

by Andrew Wed Oct 09, 2002 11:10

I must say I'm very relieved to see that someone finally posted a ten reasons to hate anarchists. We were beginning to feel a bit left out of all this. A few replies to add

On voting - I'm quite amused by the idea that the anarchists 'lost' the left the election. I really had no idea our ideas had such an influence already. I suspect the truth is that the left lost the elction for themselves (but this is harder to deal with of course).

Our campaign (see http://struggle.ws/election.html for texts, photos and posters) aimed at getting across the message that not only does real power NOT lie in parliament but choosing to play that game only re-inforces the divisions into leaders and led. Getting active in sorting out the problems you face with those around you is the alternative. If as is claimed the left lost votes because people were convinced by this argument then this is a good thing. But the wild claims of us losing people seats I think just over estimate our influence to date.

Now on to the top 10
1. Sparts don't hassle them

They gave up a year or so back but before that they followed us all around the place, at one point even doing a paper sale in the corrodor of the Bachelor outside our branch meeting. To appreciate the full humour of that you'd have to be familar with the pub!

2. Always banging on about Krondstadt

Usual Leninist nonsence that wants to hold up Lenin as a model but doesn't want ANY discussion of the fact that he suppressed workers democracy and murdered, jailed and exiled those he opposed. Read the link at the end for more details

3. As libertarians they're in league with Thatcher

Ho, ho

4. They say they oppose elections but vote in referendums and union elections... double standard I think!

Someone who doesn't understand the difference between making a decision yourself and electing someone else to make all your decisions for you for the next X years.

5. The WSM members tend to wear black... why?

This is obviously related to 11. below, if we wore white we'd be washing all the time!

6. Where do the WSM get the money to hand out their papers for free... It's a good publication I have to conceed.

As already answered we put a percentage of our income (you can find out what percent under the 'Join' link on our web page). As we don't follow the usual left of practise of having (badly paid) 'full timers' to attend campaign meetings etc we can spend the money on more useful stuff (and avoid the deep alination produced by the full timer system)

7. Belief that the internet has fundamentally changed class struggle

We do? Don't know where you got this from, most anarchists are keen on the net as a method of communication and education somewhat outside the control of the state. We also recognise that of course the working class has changed as a result of new technology (in Ireland more people behind desks and counters, a smaller percentage on assembly lines). But this hardly amounts to a fundamental change in class society, the old division between boss and workers, owner and eage slave exists just as much (if not more so) is the new tech area.

The idea that fundamental change has resulted in something that actually comes from various form ofd academic marxism - most of which send me to sleep before I can work them out.

8. Black block which always gets infultrated by police

Not a big fan of the BB but as the Italian cops (for instance) pointed out in Genoa (for instance) they infiltrated all sections of the demonstration. It's rather naive to imagine they would do anything else isn't it?

9. Inability to get things done because of opposition to structures

Now this is funny given the record of Irish anarchists at getting things done. Right now we are distributing the last of 50,000 leaflets calling for a No vote to Nice for instance. Given the relatviely small size of the anarchist organisations in comparison with the claimed membership of the various leninist outfits this seems to be an example of how are methods are better when it comes to getting things done. So it BTW does the production of Workers Solidarity.

10.They refer to the SWP as Leninists, which they really are not.

Oh come on, no leninist outfit admits that any other rival leninist outfit are leninists. This is in part because the man himself wrote quite a bit of stuff and different bits can be seized on by different groups. But more fundamentally its because you all fancy yourselves as a government in waiting which makes all the other governments in waiting dangerous rivals. Anarchists avoid all that crap because none of us want to be the government so while we have pretty heated rows we can also work together. (See Irish anarchism archive for some examples)

11. They don't wash
Hence we wear black

by bysshe Wed Oct 09, 2002 10:51

now covers everyone.
Can the next ten reasons to hate.. any one be deleated as a repeat post or on the grounds of tedium.

by Jim B. Wed Oct 09, 2002 10:15 Cork

During the last general election Anarchists put up posters around Cork telling people not to vote and what a general waste of time voting is, etc. The result .... the Socialist Party, Workers' Party and SWP were trounced. The people who took the anarchists message to heart were the very ones who would be likely to vote Left. Don't think it lost Simon Coveney too many votes on the Rochestown Road though.

by Irony is dead Wed Oct 09, 2002 09:57

They denigrate the term Fascist ;-)

by Ray Wed Oct 09, 2002 09:33

- 1. Sparts don't hassle them

Ha! I repeat, Ha! As far as the Sparts as concerned the WSM are running dogs of Catholic moralism (because of a headline calling for paedophile priests to be kicked out of schools), and that's just for starters...

- 2. Always banging on about Krondstadt

You stop worshipping Lenin and Trotsky, we'll stop bringing up their massacres of workers who demanded free elections and freedom of speech. Deal?

- 3. As libertarians they're in league with Thatcher

Thatcher was a wuss. So she taxed voting. Big deal. If she'd followed our advice, and taxed breathing those anti-Poll tax demonstrators would have been really screwed...

- 4. They say they oppose elections but vote in referendums and union elections... double standard I think!

Guess you need to think again...

- 5. The WSM members tend to wear black... why?

Because they're all goths, of course. That's partly why the WSM dislike the SWP so much - Kieran Allen said goth is 'bourgeois' and real socialists should listen to Dire Straits, the band of the working man.

- 6. Where do the WSM get the money to hand out their papers for free... It's a good publication I have to conceed.

Robbing banks... I have to say your approval makes it all worthwhile.

- 7. Belief that the internet has fundamentally changed class struggle

Of course it has - now you can join the SWP over e-mail.

- 8. Black block which always gets infultrated by police

Unlike the red block, which doesn't do anything worth infiltrating...

- 9. Inability to get things done because of opposition to structures

I can assure you that's just a facade. When I ruled the WSM, I imposed iron discipline on all of the members. How else do you think they managed to produce a regular paper & magazine, and get involved in so many campaigns? They're screwed now, of course. Without my leadership they won't last another week.

- 10.They refer to the SWP as Leninists, which they really are not.

You are so right. The SWP are anything but Leninists. Perish the thought.

- 11. They don't wash

Washing is fascist, man.

by silo Wed Oct 09, 2002 09:27

"1. Sparts don't hassle them"

no reply.

"2. Always banging on about Krondstadt"

this is possibly the most obvious example of the russian revoution betraying the people it claimed to represent, and therefore a relevant point to raise with those who see a 'revolutionary party' as the be all and end all of activist engagement. however, it is true that some do tend to go on about it far too much.

"3. As libertarians they're in league with Thatcher"

this confuses libertarian capitalist ideology (which thatcher, reagan, bush 1 & 2 and others claim to represent despite the fact that they were actually reliant on massive state funding for industry, but that's a whole other issue) with libertarian socialism. anarchists oppose, to a greater or lesser degree, the ownership of extensive private property. libertarian "laissez faire" capitalists view property as not only a right but a fundamental aspect of their ideology.

"4. They say they oppose elections but vote in referendums and union elections... double standard I think!"

referenda are a decision on a specific question, therefore they deserve an answer. voting in parliamentary elections is essentially a process of division into order-givers and order-takers, as well as an exercise in futility for those desiring radical social change. however, it is legitimate to criticise anarchists on the manner in which they have promulgated this point of view: the last election saw somewhat of a blunderbuss approach.

"5. The WSM members tend to wear black... why?"

no reply. nice colour.

"6. Where do the WSM get the money to hand out their papers for free... It's a good publication I have to conceed."

as far as i am aware (i am not a w.s.m. member) the paper is produced through contributions from the earnings of members. perhaps one of the w.s.m. can give a more detailed response.

"7. Belief that the internet has fundamentally changed class struggle"

is this a specifically anarchist belief? perhaps what you mean is the general observation that the internet has facilitated agitation, organisation and education, despite the fact that it is not the borderless utopia some believe it to be.

"8. Black block which always gets infultrated by police"

not all anarchists are black block and vice versa. i personally believe that they have no positive effect, outside of rarefied arguments about their moral right to violence etc. it is true that they are often infiltrated, advocation of violence is the classic pose of the agent provocateur.

"9. Inability to get things done because of opposition to structures"

simply not true. plenty of evidence. and, generally, anarchists are not opposed to structures per se, but to hierarchies.

"10.They refer to the SWP as Leninists, which they really are not."

explain why they are not. they wish to "build a revolutionary party" to "take advantage" of the whims of the idiot workers who can't lead themselves.

"11. They don't wash"

no reply. neither do the pregressive democrats.

by m Wed Oct 09, 2002 05:35

THere usually right.

by james jimmyo Wed Oct 09, 2002 02:33

money for paper comes from members subs and contributions (as well as secretive donations from the CIA and Tony O'Reilly)

the wsm.... those handsome devils!!

by billy - rts Wed Oct 09, 2002 02:31

jaysus but we do get hasseled by the sparts, i remembar at an anti war demo when i was holding up an 'Anarchists Against The War' banner and one of them came up to me trying to sell me their paper, after i politely declined, he kept insisting and told me that it was ok because it wasn't anarchist ... stupid and he supports Communist China

by z Wed Oct 09, 2002 02:10

they demand everyone use consensus then force their will by blocking others proposals. Then claim to be anti-elitist.