Anarchists: elections, accountability, sectarianism...

by Ray Fri Oct 18, 2002 16:18

Read the WSM position papers
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/wsm/positions.html
or the anarchist FAQ
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/
and you will find answers to these and many other questions.

It might also help if you knew what you were talking about, before you start telling anarchists that they all have an unaccountable leadership. And perhaps you should understand the word 'impose' a little better, before you suggest that anarchists who argue for a certain way of organising are 'imposing' that way on everyone else.

That is, of course, if these are actual questions, and not just badly thought out criticisms...

by Puzzeled Protester Fri Oct 18, 2002 16:25

The key thing is that you argue for a way of organising, not because it's needed by a campaign but rather because it fits in with your anarchist ideas!!

You would all sleep safely in your beds if the Campaign Against Bin tax fell apart, so long as you kept your anarchist credentials. THAT'S SECTARIANISM!!!

Also in the Camapign against the bin tax in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, you refused to distribute leaflets because it mentioned the candidates in the election. The campaing democraticly decided to endorce 2 candidates. Anarchists refused to go along with that democratic decision. THAT'S UNDEMOCRATIC!

by Ray Fri Oct 18, 2002 16:36

- The key thing is that you argue for a way of organising, not because it's needed by a campaign but rather because it fits in with your anarchist ideas!!

Actually, the key thing that we argue for is democracy. We think campaigns should be run by the people involved - its as simple as that. That's partly because we think that the only way for the best ideas to come forward is for everyone to have a say. Its also because we think democracy is an essential part of socialism - if you think democracy is dispensable now, what will you think during the revolution? If people aren't given the chance to take control over their lives now, when will they get that chance?

I know, I know. These are strange and frightening ideas to people who think that 'socialism' = 'the right people being in charge'.

- You would all sleep safely in your beds if the Campaign Against Bin tax fell apart, so long as you kept your anarchist credentials. THAT'S SECTARIANISM!!!

Don't be an idiot. Anarchists (including me) have put a lot of effort into organising the campaign against the bin charges (and against the water charges).

- Also in the Camapign against the bin tax in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, you refused to distribute leaflets because it mentioned the candidates in the election. The campaing democraticly decided to endorce 2 candidates. Anarchists refused to go along with that democratic decision. THAT'S UNDEMOCRATIC!

Er, no, check your dictionary. The anarchists involved in the campaign argued against the endorsement of the candidates, but when the vote was lost they did nothing to prevent the leaflets from being distributed. Given that they weren't under any sort of mandate, they were perfectly within their rights not to distribute the leaflets themselves. Are you suggesting that every member of a campaign has to distribute every leaflet produced by the campaign? Is there a quota system? Are you 'undemocratic' if you miss a meeting?

by Puzzeled Protester Fri Oct 18, 2002 16:47

I agree with your points about democracy. With anarchy and socialism everyone gets their say (which is goo), but the difference is that Anarchists dont implement and cant implement decisions made after a discussion because of their Anarcho-purity.

You're right that Anarchists have put in a lot of work on bin charges and water charges. I'm not disputing that. In fact I'd be the first to say that many of the best people involved in these campaigns are anarchists. What I'm saying is that your arguments for the tactics for the campaign is wrong.

Yes in Dún LAoghaire Rathdown you argued against endorsing candidates (despite that being a good tactic) and then you refused to go along with a democratic decision.

So in ararchist organisations when a decision is made its up to the people that voted for and proposed something to implement it. There is no responsibility on members to go along with democratic decisions.

Ray you just prove that Anarchists are undemocratic and sectarian.

by Neither puzzled nor a professor Fri Oct 18, 2002 16:48

Eugene Debs, the famous American socialist and several times candidate for President, had little difficulty understanding the anarchist position on electing new rulers. In fact it seems he came to have a sympathy for it:

"The workers must organise for their emancipation. They can do this, and only they can do it. I cannot do this for you and I want to be frank enough to say I would not, if I could. For, if I could do it for you somebody else would undo it for you. But, when you do it yourselves, it will be done for ever."

by OK - SP Fri Oct 18, 2002 16:56

I agree that it is the workers that are the ones that will carry out their own emancipation.

From my reading of 'Puzzeled Protesters' posting he does not disagree with that. His/her points are about the way anarchists organise etc.

To say that it's up to the workers to free themselves does not mean you are against democraticly choosen and accountable leaders.

The Socialist Party see our public representatives as organisers of working people in their day to day struggles against capitalism.

by Ray Fri Oct 18, 2002 17:01

- agree with your points about democracy. With anarchy and socialism everyone gets their say (which is goo), but the difference is that Anarchists dont implement and cant implement decisions made after a discussion because of their Anarcho-purity.

You're wrong. Plain and simple. Wrong. Show me ONE example of anarchists refusing to implement mandates because of their 'anarcho-purity'. Just one. One would be great.

BTW, its great to see that after dismissing democracy as something that anarchists impose on campaigns you've already come around to agreeing its a good idea.

- What I'm saying is that your arguments for the tactics for the campaign is wrong.

Well, that's your opinion. And the great thing about anarchist methods is that you get to express that opinion, and then have a vote over tactics. If people agree with your tactics, then they'll be the tactics implemented by the campaign. Isn't anarchism wonderful?

- Yes in Dún LAoghaire Rathdown you argued against endorsing candidates (despite that being a good tactic) and then you refused to go along with a democratic decision.

Oh, hang on, I'm not sure if we both agree on this democracy thing. You see, as far as I understand it, democracy means being able to argue for the tactics that you think are right. Are you thinking of some other version of democracy, in which the anarchists should only be allowed for the tactics that you approve of?

And again, the anarchists in DL/R did nothing to prevent the campaign from producing and distributing their leaflets.
As a matter of interest, what party are you in? Do you want to hear some home truths?

- So in ararchist organisations when a decision is made its up to the people that voted for and proposed something to implement it. There is no responsibility on members to go along with democratic decisions.

If people are mandated to do something, then they have a responsibility to implement it. But anarchists support things like factional rights, and rights for dissenting minorities. Do I need to explain these concepts?

- Ray you just prove that Anarchists are undemocratic and sectarian.

Either that or you don't really know what those words mean. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader...

by Puzzeled Protester Fri Oct 18, 2002 17:13

* "Show me ONE example of anarchists refusing to implement mandates because of their 'anarcho-purity'. Just one. One would be great."

In DL/R you refused to distribute campaign leaflets.

* "If people agree with your tactics, then they'll be the tactics implemented by the campaign. Isn't Anarchism wonderful"

So if someone disagrees the tactics most approve of they can be a loose cannon and jeopardise the success of a campaign? Anarchy is not wonderful if it means that decisions are not implemented and no-one is sure if anything will be done.

* "....democracy means being able to argue for the tactics that you think are right. Are you thinking of some other version of democracy, in which the anarchists should only be allowed for the tactics that you approve of?"

I fully agree with the right of anarchists to argue their case (although I think it's wrong). But the thing is that when a decision is made about tactics etc you refuse to take part. How ca you have a democracy when decisions are not implemented?

* "But anarchists support things like factional rights, and rights for dissenting minorities. Do I need to explain these concepts?"

Socialist support these rights too. It's the SWP that doesn't.

* "Either that or you don't really know what those words (undemocratic, sectarian) mean. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader..."

Your tactics and methods are undemocratic because you do not provide for democratic decisions to be implemented properly. Sectarianism means putting the interests of one group in front of the movement, when anarchists refuse to implement democratic decisions etc. they are being sectarian.

by Andrew Fri Oct 18, 2002 17:25

First of all 'activist' it would be easier to take this sort of post seriously if we knew a little about you. From the points you raise which are broadly similar to ones raised earlier I'd guess you are a member or supporter of the Socialist Party. But anyway if it helps clarify things here are a few answers.

1. Different anarchists actually have different views on Trade Union elections. So in Ireland while the WSM decided to support Des Derwin's campaign for SIPTU general sec. neither the AF nor ASF did so. The reasons for this are related to the points you raised.

However you generalise too much. You don't seem to be aware for instance that many union positions people are elected as delegates rather then representatives and are thus subject to mandate and recall. Traditioanlly anarchists have no problems with electing people to these sort of positions. In theory in most unions even the union tops are subject to mandate (at conference) and recall (also at conference). In practise this is a lot more difficult to achieve, hence the different position taken by different anarchist organisation here on this question.

It's very odd that even a trotskyist would be unaware of the differences between a delegate electoral system and a representative one. I guess this just shows how poor your understanding of freedom is!

2. Your other comments about elections are simply laziness. Do a little research and you will find anarchists have some pretty detailed reasons for not standing in parliamentery elections. This is true even in countries where they have or have had mass working class support. The Spanish CNT even with over one million members (a little bigger I'm sure you'll agree then the SP) never stood in elections and it had no need to prove how big its support base was. For the reasons anarchists don't stand in parliamentary elections I suggest you take the time to read the article at http://struggle.ws/rbr/rbr5/elections.html

3. Like many people educated under capitalism you are unable to distinguish between people whose role it is to make decisions for others (leaders) and those whose role it is to see they are implemented. Anarchists don't have leaders but our organisations do have co-ordinators. These co-ordinators are answerable to the organisations that appoint them.

Your comments on LAN are quite funny, paraphrased they read 'according to my prejudiced view on organisation you must have made a mess of things'. In fact we seem to have got about 97% of the leaflets out at this stage and while a little doubling up occurred (I'm aware of two incidents) this would be less then 1% of the leaflets distributed. On that basis you need to re-think your prejudices as obviously anarchist organisational methods (in this case having a co-ordinator for areas where a lot of leafletting was being done) work!

4. On the bin charges/water charges
If you actually read what we wrote at the time (rather then making it up in your head) you'll find out key argument was that taking part in the elections would be bad for the campaign. Events showed us to be correct but luckly the campaign was already won. More details at http://struggle.ws/wsm/water.html

So from this you see that your understanding of what has happened is incorrect (BTW I'm amused to hear that I don't exist). Now in Science when you have a theory and the facts don't fit the theory you need to go away and come up with a new theory. So called 'scientific socialists' tend no to be very good at this. But have a go

by iosaf mac diarmada = o as if - reclaimthestreets! Fri Oct 18, 2002 17:30 iosaf at email dot com Barcelona 0034679708674

An anarchist is one who believes
Autonomy begins with self.
Property is Theft.
They are "peer-responsive" thus "team-players".
Different people have different talents and abilities and each gives to the collective what they are capable of.
This works perfectly "real world" examples include the LETS [lending/exchange trading system] which allows for non-money communities.
another "real world example" is any squatted social centre, which you might have noticed me mentioning serve a community of 7 million people on the continent of Europe and in Britain.
Decisions are made by assembly.
Assembly debates and decides timetables for decision making.
We are "peer-responsive", most who have commited themselves to Anarchy as a political/social way of life know what "peer-responsive" means.
Property is theft.
This is where marxist, critical marxist, maoist, leninist and even post-structuralist leftwing philosphies fall down.
Property is presently taken to include intelectual property, biotech and copyright.
We argue quite succesfully that such concepts are ludicrous, immoral, inethical and an obstacle to the future development of humanity as a whole.

In my opinion the 7 million who squat their homes as part of the european occupation movement, the countless more who use the facilities and educational options of the affiliated social spaces are definite proof that Anarchy is "progressive, accountable and workable".
We do more than sit on bar stools Mr Puzzled protester.

We in many countries are involved in trade union disputes always articulating the ideas of the "anarcho-syndicalist" movement. One which you might remember has roots as deep as the very accountable and effective assasinated anarcho-syndicalist-pacifist Jean Jaures.

IF you are interested go to http://www.cnt.es to see the history and work of one of Europes oldest anarcho-sydicalist trade unions founded in 1914.

As for "sectarian" that is a very loaded word in Ireland as well you know, and it was an inappropriate word to use in this context, I suspect you are merely speaking to your own probably very dogmatically conditioned audience.
Comments have recently been made on IMC Ireland which touch upon the ingrained ethnic hostilities in the north of the island. I defy you and yours to debate your allegations or to make "short-term political gain" from such issues.

Finally MR PUZZLED PROTESTER
I must address my own peers:

We who believe in Autonomy and who seek a society without state control and with neither money nor property are seeing our philosophy take centre ground for the 21st century. But to achieve our aims we must remember never to uphold utopic visions of the future.
I believe and many of my weird friends too, that the ludicrous nature of "hyper-capitalism" will best be shown by ending biotech patents, and healthproduct patents, and also copyright.
I believe that those who wish to live in anarcho-social/political peer groups may best facilitate that legitimate ambition [enshrined by international human rights law] by supporting democracy for those who as of yet are not ready to enter our peer group.

No totalitarian state has ever allowed anarchists survival or voice.

And if ever in doubt as to our efficacy we need only look at our past and our history.
We are the people.

HEART AND MIND

by hs - sp Fri Oct 18, 2002 18:40

anarchists and socialists have many things in common as well as differences, and although i'm no expert I presume their is as many different anarchist groups with different ideas of anarchisim as trots.

Some differences (in general) are we believe a party is necessary for the overthrow of capitalism, the trick is to create such a party that can be a tool of the working class rather than (as has happened too many times) the other way round.
Because we haven't had such a party in Ireland in the past doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Otherwise we might as well all give up.

I think standing joe as a water campaign candidate helped the campaign, it seems a little much to say it worked against the campaign but we won anyway. Electing a TD didn't for a moment stop the mass non payment which led to the victory, but it certainly helped for publicity and to scare TDs.

The difference about the CNT not standing in a general election is as Andrew says also because they had no need to. The SP don't quite have the numbers the CNT had so we need to use the dail as a platform. But thats what it is a platform we have never claimed we would bring in socialism throught a majority in the dail, let alone one person! If we a a situation with mass factory occupations and workers committees in existance prepareing to take over as gov. we wouldn't be necessarly be standing in elections. But this is not a period we are living in. And we are not as some ultras say giving the dail credibility, it has it. No one said suddenly they respect the dail cause the SP decided to stand candidates!

On democracy in campaigns, when we campaign as a party we are a party. We come to a position through debate and carry it out. Obviously if someone doesn't want to do the work involved no one will put a gun to their head. But it is almost impossible to get people to agree 100 percent on every word on every leaflet, and people should carry on the work.

A campaign is completely different though and I wouldn't expect anarchists to distribute election material and as said as long as they don't stop others from doing so that is absolutely no problem. I have heard no complaints about anarchists not being allowed to point their point across. This idea that only anarchists allow people to discuss or criticize is a little ridiculas. Any group or party which does not allow democratic discussion will not survive simple as that. Any campaign which does not allow discussion will not make it either, ie globalise resistance.

Every campaign we are involved in is democratic. When we run party campaigns they are clearly party campaigns and they are democratically decided on at branch level. For example for the nice campaign, draft leaflets were made up. Brought to the branches discussed ammended changed and brought back again.
Not everyone agreed with the No to a bosses europe slogan, but most did so we carried on. And we carried on discussing every week.

When we are involved in broader campaigns such as water or bin charges we argue our ideas and hope to win others to them. I have heard no complaints of us ever forcing something down anyones own throats. In the WSM article on the water charges it says there was a debate and they were listened to and got a good hearing but lost the vote.

On anarchist democracy, I have no doubhts about anarchists being democratic, but there can be a danger of "leaders" (for want of a better word) emerging naturally and becoming unaccountable. I would point to Lucca Casarini of the disobiedients (formelly tutti bianche) in Italy as an example of this. I am not saying the WSM are guilty of this but this is a trend that is just as dangerous as an individual taking over a party, and anarchists like a party should have the necessary checks and balances to prevent this. Which in turn makes them more similar to a party. I have absolutely no dissagreement with anarchists when they say all elected representatives (including within my own party) should be elected as delegates on a right to recall basis. And should always remain accountable to the rank and file, this is what democratic centralism is about. Its not about party line dogma, simply if we as a party come to a decision democratically our representatives such as joe and clare should respect them.

by Phuq Hedd Fri Oct 18, 2002 19:33

What does the comment about Casarini from the Socialist Party person mean? What has Casarini done and exactly what type of organisation has he come out of? I don't know much about the disobedienti, but I do know that many anarchists didn't march with them at Prague or in Genoa choosing instead the Blue and Black blocks. (Here's an interesting link on Prague b.t.w. http://www.wombles.org.uk/lessons.htm Look at the section called "The Revolution Will Not Be Bolshevised".

On a side note: to the person that is so concerned about unity and effective campaigns, perhaps now is the time to be out there handing out YOUR leaflets or putting YOUR argument against Nice across to as many as possible instead of having a debate here?

by pasta barilla Fri Oct 18, 2002 19:41

1. "Luca"Casarini
2. "Tute" bianche
2. He is not an anarchist
3. He has nothing to do with the "disobedients"
4. He is not, and has never claimed to be, a leader.

by Anarch watcher Fri Oct 18, 2002 19:59

He is an anarchist (may not be your brand but he is) and he is effectivly a leader.

by iosaf = o as if - reclaim the streets! & Genome (for peace!) Fri Oct 18, 2002 20:31 ipsiphi23 at email dot com codols 23 Barcelona Catlunya 0034679708674

now you are all arriving to see a debate in english on the current state of European Anarchy and anarcho-syndicalist beliefs.

It is likely you have come here because the second article on the transnational global indymedia network told you about Ireland´s vote on Saturday.

Well in Ireland that is very soon.

Ireland is a "neutral" state occupying over three quarters of n island.
Its nearest neighbour is Britain where the British live. They are the number one ally of the USA.

Ireland (the state with the vote) is voting on a treaty to enlarge the EU. The EU is the European Union, the states where you use eurodollars they are just the same as american $.
But its a bit bigger too. It has 8 neutral states. They are places that remain neutral when WAR happens.
Now most of the Irish people will not be voting today or tonight depending on where you are right now in cyberspace USA/Canada/South American/Australia.
Most Irish will not vote because they can´t.
If an Irish person leaves the Irish state they can´t vote anymore.
So if you can ask someone you know who can vote tomorrow / today / in a few hours you know what to do.

If Ireland is not neutral very very bad things will happen.
If the EU (just like the states except with more languages and money is roughly the same too) gets bigger very very bad things will happen.

now stay with us a while over here in Euro-indymedia because we have lots to tell you.
I´m writing from Barcelona where less than 510 years ago Columbus came back.
he brought slaves, parrots, jewellry but no gold.
"los reys" were said to be very upset.
(he lost a ship as well)

Now comrades friends transnational readers
we are not going to lose any ships.

We have lost generation upon generation of those with enough courage or wit to fight the injustices of command economy communist systems, naked greed of hyper-capitalism, famine or pestilence of patent controlled drugs or health products, and lots more....
But we still have lots of people like all of you and us.

by redJaDe Fri Oct 18, 2002 21:44

I think the reason Anarchists and Socialists cannot get along is that they have too much in common, like brothers and sisters.

redJaDe

---

Emma Goldman Meets Eugene V. Debs

http://socialistpartyoforlando.freeservers.com/sp_emma_debs.html

Hearing his views, I could not help exclaiming: "Why, Mr. Debs, you're an anarchist!"

"Not Mister, but Comrade," he corrected me; "won't you call me that?"

Clasping my hand warmly, he assured me that he felt very close to the anarchists, that anarchism was the goal to strive for, and that all socialists should also be anarchists. Socialism to him was only a stepping-stone to the ultimate ideal, which was anarchism.

"I know and love Kropotkin and his work," he said; "I admire him and I revere our murdered comrades [the Haymarket martyrs] who lie in Waldheim, as I do also all the other splendid fighters in your movement. You see, then, I am your comrade. I am with you in your struggle."

I pointed out that we could not hope to achieve freedom by increasing the power of the State, which the socialists were aiming at. I stressed the fact that political action is the death-nell of the economic struggle. Debs did not dispute me, agreeing that the revolutionary spirit must be kept alive notwithstanding any political objects, but he thought the latter a necessary and practical means of reaching the masses. We parted good friends. Debs was so genial and charming as a human being that one did not mind the lack of political clarity which made him reach out at one and the same time for opposite poles.

by hydra Sat Oct 19, 2002 00:17

'Anarch watcher' and 'Pasta Barilla' have both contributed factually incorrect pieces of information to this admittedly confused discussion.

First Luca Casarini is not an anarchist but rather a Toni Negri protege, which is to say that he comes from a left communist tradition, fused to some extent with influences from Foucault and Delezue, for what that's worth. The Negri-ite project is certainly not anarchist and even the most cursory reading of Empire, www.sherwood.it or www.disobeddienti.org (the web portals associated with this tendency) demonstrates this. In fact this group have been running candidates in local elections.

Secondly Luca Casarini is not only involved in the disobeddienti, but is their 'portavoce' or spokesperson. Given the hierarchical nature of their organisation this means that he is effectively their leader. This is why he was threatened with prosecution after Genoa.

by Livid Leninist Sat Oct 19, 2002 02:34

I hate the way anarchists call themselves 'libertarian communists' ITS CONTRADICTION IN TERMS!!!

Libertarianism is about every individual doing as he wishes regardless of others/

Communists believe in community and society and not individualism.

Make up your mind you hippy fucks which one you are! Stop smoking pot, stop reading Chomsky and Empire, stop going on about Krondstadt, stop smelling. In a few years you will all be wearing suits, having hair cuts and in Fine Gael.

by libertarian socialist Sat Oct 19, 2002 16:36

"livid leninist" should read up on his history before he/she shoot off his/her mouth in total ignorance and make an arse of him/her-self.

by h. Sat Oct 19, 2002 21:58

Yep, disobeddienti are the rebranded Tute Bianche. On autonomedia you'll find the interview with Casarini from last year where he announces 'No More White Overalls Any More.' If anything it is more Negri-ite, taking its language directly from Empire.

Tute Bianche had a more interesting composition in many ways, at least before Genoa, where their leadership shamed themselves, obnsessing about police plots etc. to distract attention from their own fuck-up.

by hs sp - sp Sun Oct 20, 2002 18:46

I gave cassarini as an example of what can happen without checks and balances or structures. I never claimed he was anything, I just pointed to a danger inherant in these movements. Cassarini is the leader though have no doubht, his name is chanted at manifestations. On a sidenote he is actually in court for a manifestation on legalising cannabis, I think it was in naples. The charge is promoting drugs I think. Why didn't anarchists march with Tutti bianc? who said they didn't they're lots of differnt types of anarchism and lots of different people who consider themselves anarchists. Along with most people from the disobiedients I have ever met.

by hs sp Sun Oct 20, 2002 18:52

just another note, the marxist autonomist movement in the social centres is just as popular as the anarchist, it has its roots in operismo or workerism but has moved away from that now and remains on the fringes as far as workers go. It remains a big youth movement though. Most social centres include anarchists and automonist marxists and they work better together than comrades on this newswire. It is normal here to see the hammer and sickle and A sign side by side. And I know one social centre partly run by anarchists (with maoists of all people) which holds closed meetings too.
They're is also more to workerism than negri and empire was a break from it if anything.

by Phuq Hedd Mon Oct 21, 2002 00:43

hs: you appeared to be claiming that Luca Casarini demonstrated something about anarchists, specifically something about how anarchists are disorganized and can thus be subject to the emergence of leaders? No?

Well, from the little that I've been able to glean here:
http://slash.autonomedia.org/article.pl?sid=02/08/07/1457258&mode=nested

and here:
http://www.ainfos.ca/ainfos13743.html

it would seem that Casarini says that he's not an anarchist, that he denounces them, that he's keen on reformist social-democratic organisation and that he wasn't a very good example for you to pick. Here's a quote from Casarini:

"The State isn't anymore the enemy to throw down, but the counterpart with whom we had to discuss things." (Interview of Luca Casarini, leader of the W.O., supplement of the daily Il Gazzettino, 23 April 1998).

and another:
"...Excuse us, comrades, but for us your intransigence regarding principles and refusal of any mediation with the institutions are more binded to anarchist thinking and populist maximalism, like that of the former left wing organization Lotta Continua, than to our political formation of activists."

So, "hs sp", what was the point of mentioning Casarini?

Wrt the question about why anarchists didn't march with them it's because they were keener on symbolic confrontation with the police and rejected the use of violence in self-defense. The Black Blocs, which they attempted to demonize, refused to hobble themselves in refusing to meet violence with violence when necessary.

by Ray Mon Oct 21, 2002 09:52

- In DL/R you refused to distribute campaign leaflets.

But the anarchist members of the campaign were not under mandate - they were just ordinary members.
mandate -
An authoritative command or instruction.
A command or an authorization given by a political electorate to its representative.

The anarchists in DL/R were not instructed to give out those leaflets, any more than the other campaign members were.

- So if someone disagrees the tactics most approve of they can be a loose cannon and jeopardise the success of a campaign? Anarchy is not wonderful if it means that decisions are not implemented and no-one is sure if anything will be done.

I think most people understand that anarchists are not going to give out leaflets that call for candidates to be elected, any more than SP members would give out leaflets calling for people to spoil their votes. Given the decision of the campaign, the anarchists involved had a choice between leaving the campaign completely or not distributing those particular leaflets. The people involved decided that, since the main focus of the campaign was still on mass non-payment, it was better to just sit out that particular leaflet distribution. This is not mandate-breaking, since there was no mandate involved, and I think its a sensible solution.

(BTW, I can point to cases where the SP members in a campaign lost a similar vote and decided to leave the campaign completely rather than put the policy they opposed into practice. This is as much 'ignoring democracy' as the DL/R example)

- I fully agree with the right of anarchists to argue their case (although I think it's wrong). But the thing is that when a decision is made about tactics etc you refuse to take part. How ca you have a democracy when decisions are not implemented?

Elected officers and delegates must be bound by the decisions made by the organisation - that is mandating. But its needlessly inflexible to expect every member of an organisation to take part in every action of the organisation. The Campaign against the Bin Charges should unite those that agree on the tactic of mass non-payment - beyond that, there has to be a certain flexibility.

* "But anarchists support things like factional rights, and rights for dissenting minorities. Do I need to explain these concepts?"

- Socialist support these rights too. It's the SWP that doesn't.

If you support rights for dissenting minorities, then what is your problem? This is a textbook example of a dissenting minority opting out of an action because of a principled objection. You need to reconcile your theory with your practice.

- Your tactics and methods are undemocratic because you do not provide for democratic decisions to be implemented properly.

We do. If someone is acting under mandate then they have to implement the decisions made for them. But we also allow for dissent.

- Sectarianism means putting the interests of one group in front of the movement, when anarchists refuse to implement democratic decisions etc. they are being sectarian.

It makes as much sense to argue that the SP are being sectarian by putting the interests of the SP ahead of the interests of the Bin Charges campaign, or that they were being sectarian by leaving campaigns in which they were outvoted.
The anarchists in DL/R were exercising the minority rights that you say the SP defends. Just like you have to learn that democracy means allowing people to argue for tactics that you think are mistaken, you also have to learn that there's no point in having these nice rights on paper and then complaining when someone uses them.

by Observer Mon Oct 21, 2002 10:55

Anarchists come along and demand they are allowed to change decisions already agreed by the organisers.

They demand to be able to overturn these decisions but refuse to be bound by the outcome if it doesn't suit them.

You see they're too clever to be bound by any decision. Democracy for them is not a means to arrive at a decision and implement it but a rod with whcih to beat their opponents...

That's the beginning and end of this tedious thread,

by piet - punchline pioneering Mon Oct 21, 2002 11:22

go down the linked file to where it mentions butterbach.de and freebankingalphabet.htm
freebankingalphabet2.htm
freebankingalphabet3.htm
freebankingalphabet4.htm

Have a read and if you succeed I promise you will never need project proceedings and -cessions of monopolistisms and dominance on all such antithetical, resisting, avoiding, ignoring and opposed means measures and communions and minions

ps: I'd like to come here more often but the godawful palor hurts my eyes .. .couldn't yall go get inspired at places like portland at least (maximal effect with minimum means) or our new members kyimc.org (their colours could compensate for chronically greytone skies in your case maybe?)

by Ray Mon Oct 21, 2002 11:37

- Anarchists come along and demand they are allowed to change decisions already agreed by the organisers.

When a demonstration is attended by many people who aren't in any organisation, by people who are members of unaffiliated organisations, and by members of affiliated organisations who were unable to attend organising meetings, it makes sense to have a discussion at the beginning of a demonstration.
That way, the decision is made by the maximum number of people possible.

- They demand to be able to overturn these decisions but refuse to be bound by the outcome if it doesn't suit them.

Compare this to the behaviour of the SWP in Prague. They go along to an organising meeting, agree to follow a particular route on a demonstration, and then unilaterally change their mind.

- You see they're too clever to be bound by any decision. Democracy for them is not a means to arrive at a decision and implement it but a rod with whcih to beat their opponents...

If our 'opponents' weren't so blatantly undemocratic it wouldn't be nearly as effective a weapon, would it?

by Livid Libertarian Mon Oct 21, 2002 11:46

**Anarchists come along and demand they are allowed to change decisions already agreed by the organisers.**

So democracy is allowing the "organisers" to make the decisions. You are obviously no democrat.

** You see they're too clever to be bound by any decision. Democracy for them is not a means to arrive at a decision and implement it but a rod with whcih to beat their opponents..**

Give some examples?

by Phuq Hedd Mon Oct 21, 2002 15:26

"Anarchists come along and demand they areallowed to change decisions already agreed by the organisers."

Ah, that's the real crime isn't it? The "elitism" of refusing to obey The Organisers.

"You see they're too clever to be bound by any decision. Democracy for them is not a means to arrive at a decision and implement it but a rod with whcih to beat their opponents..."

So, then you feel bound by the results of the Nice Treaty to work to implement all its provisions? I can expect to see you out privatising our water supply and slapping asylum seekers upside the head as they stumble out of the shipping containers? Because the EU Organisers have had the "mandate" of the people and you are obviously bound to implement the neo-liberal agenda. Probably you will, Stalinoids like yourself have a good recent history of doing exactly that.

"That's the beginning and end of this tedious thread,"

by hs sp Tue Oct 22, 2002 11:58

Again casarini is an example of not having necessary structures or checks and balances and leaders can come to the fore. I think someone called it the "star" system before. Again I am not saying the WSM or any other organisation is guilty of this. My point was many libetarion movements which as spouted up around the world have an understandable anti party bias. Therefore any checks or balances are thrown out because they are seen as oppressive, my point is this can often prove to be the opposite. As he who shouts the loudest takes over (ray anyone, that was a joke BTW) I was trying to point out the necessity for structure, which I believe anarchists from the platform tradition would agree with. So really I am talking about the need for democratic structure, and I'm not accusing anyone of not having such structure, although I don't if you are with a group or an independent anarchist (or an anarchist at all for that matter). Either way I don't think there's much of a debate in it. Every group or party needs such checks and balances whatever their tendency and any without them is doomed to end in reformism. Wheter that be radicals like Casarini or the Black Block (the most infriltrated group in history!!!) or communist parties or indeed anarchists.

by Nicholas Thu Oct 24, 2002 16:00 Cork

I am not an anarchist. I do not believe we can divide the world neatly into the oppressors and the oppressed, and I do not think that saying that we're against the system excuses us from the contribution that we all make to the crimes committed by the system we are all part of. I do think that we have a duty to use our power within the system (and yes most of us who read indymedia have a lot more power in the system than the vast majority of people in the world) to challenge these crimes.

However, I have a huge amount of time for anarchists promotion of democratic principles within the protest movement. A huge number of anarchists known to me have made hugely positive contributions to campaigns, co-ops, and demonstrations in this respect. I believe that anarchist structures are more conducive to empowering individuals to make their own impact in their own way, than the many hierarchical systems that simply tell us what to do.

by Phuq Hedd Sun Oct 27, 2002 21:38

I don't see the point in mentioning Casarini, who appears to come from a hierarchical organisation that believes in running for elections, when talking about the "tyranny of structurelessness". There are few anarchist _organisations_ that don't have organisation! The Tute Bianchi and Disobbedienti appear to be both highly organized and highly hierarchical and have no evidentiary value in the discussion.

If anything it would seem that Casarini demonstrates the problems in having an organisation that facilitates leaders: people who are un-recallable, un-mandated, people who have more _power_ than anyone else in the organisation, just as Joe Higgins has more power than anyone else in the SP. Yes, he might lose it if he sold out in office, but he still gets to be the one to make that decision.

by xSiemAx - WBW Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:40 xsiemax at hotmail dot com Galway

"Anarchy sounds nice in theory, but doesn't work in practice."

And what about Spain 1936??? 6 mln people was involwed in @ revolution!
What about early revolution in Russia 1917??? Only because bolshevics betrayed workers and anarchists USSR screwed up!