Anarchy in iraq?

by an archist Fri Apr 11, 2003 11:41

'a state of anarchy and an anarchist state'

there is no such thing as an 'anarchist state'!

If you boys want anarchy, then thank Uncle Sam for anarchy in Iraq.

Anarchism is a nice philosophy, but has nothing to offer the real world.

by pat c Fri Apr 11, 2003 11:47

please use:

chaotic, chaos

nihilism, nihilistic

mayhem

disorder

Anarchists have feelings as well you know

by Hilda Robinson Fri Apr 11, 2003 11:48

This is what you anarchists stand for. You want to abolish the government, you want to abolish all planning, all control. In my opinion its about having a revoluiton and having a state that will plan the distribution of resources.

Make no bones about it. This is what the Anarchists (WSM, Andrew Flood, ASF etc) want. The want individuals to be free to do as they wish, they want to abolish the market and replace it with a free for all.

Under anarchy the strong win and the weak die.

by King Mob Fri Apr 11, 2003 11:52

And I'm sure you and your friends in the state will ensure we're all looked after in the
re-education camps

by pat c Fri Apr 11, 2003 11:53

its a fair cop guv! hilda has figured it all out.
i cant wait for the fall of civilisation. i will lead the new Golden Horde!

by bjg Fri Apr 11, 2003 11:54

"Under anarchy the strong win and the weak die."

So I take it then that the USA is an anarchist entity and that it is exporting anarchy to the world.

OK: at least that makes more sense than the laughable notion that the USA is interested in democracy or freedom or stuff.

bjg

by Ciaron - Catholic Worker Fri Apr 11, 2003 11:55

What we're seeing in Iraq is the "free market" come to town...the retail looting is prelude to the wholesale looting by U.S. oil companies to follow.

by Andrew Fri Apr 11, 2003 11:55

The description of any situation where 'law and order' breaks down as anarchy by the ruling elite reveals quite a lot. It shows that they can't imagine any situation where the state is not able to rule over the 'mob' as chaos. They might not have liked Saddam but 'at least he kept the trains running on time'.

Back in the days when we were all bossed around by kings and queens 'republic' was used in the same fashion by that ruling elite. Same idea - to them the republic meant the rule of the 'mob' and so could not be anything other then chaos.

The mob in Iraq now have three choices
1. They can accept the rule of the US
2. They can choose to fall behind some new nationalist gang (most likely one backed by the US but posturing as opposing it)
3. They can start to construct their own ways of getting society back on its feet in a way that will be in their interests. There is a history of Shoras (workers councils) in Iraq so although this is unlikely (given the repression) it may happen.

The anarchists would of course be hoping option 3. is what emerges from the current chaos.

by Alert Activist Fri Apr 11, 2003 12:05

Anarchists should be happy that one country in the world has embraced Anarchy. Isn't that what you called for during the war, did you not want an anarchist Iraq?

If you are not in favour of what is going on then what do you advocate? a return to law and order?

Anarchists please answer me

by Andrew Fri Apr 11, 2003 12:16

First off 'alert' activist should wake up and read mu post right above his which answers his question.

Secondly himself and Hilda Robinson both seem to be from some other left group. Hilda says "In my opinion its about having a revoluiton and having a state that will plan the distribution of resources." This is pretty much the line of any leninist group including the ones in Ireland, ie SP, SWP, WP, Sparts, etc.

In that context its interesting how Hilda echos the line of the ruling elite in the idea that without a stong state you end up with chaos. She says "Under anarchy the strong win and the weak die." This reveals how the Leninists see themselves as your future bosses and fear a situation where there is no apparatus to order people around as much as our current bosses.

Those who think the behaviour of the SWP leadership in regards to direct action is just down to bad leadership would be wise to learn from this. For them the question of revolution is very tied up with the question of controlling the 'mob'. For them the IAWM is a training exercise that also has the benefit of flushing out their members who don't have the stomuch to play boss.

In terms of what anarchism is we don't need to speculate. There are historical examples of anarchism in practise when things were very different from what Hilda fears. For the largest of these examples see http://struggle.ws/spaindx.html

by James Fri Apr 11, 2003 12:18

Anarchists would like government to be abolished, but the lack of a government doesn’t have to result in a lack of planning or chaos etc. It depends on what replaces the State. Libertarian orgainsatons or a cruder variety of what has gone before.
Anarchism is not just a set of negative ideas, ie against states, but also has definite vision of what society should look like after the destruction of the State.

Anarchists would like to see society controlled directly by the population. So, briefly(!), this involves workplace and community councils which are controlled directly by the participants and not by some authority (however well intentioned) over and above society.

Anarchism reckons socialism to be necessary to attain full liberty – as well as being inherently just - so we’d be looking for thorough-going equality (to each according to need).

Basically the destruction of State authority is not enough, positive alternatives have gotta be put in its place. It’s obviously not inevitable that these alternatives are going to spring up automatically; but it’s not impossible either. It depends on us making it realisble (from each according to ability!).

by an archist Fri Apr 11, 2003 12:19

face it andrew - anarchism is about being against something, not creating something. unless you include belonging to a small gang of friends who leech off each other and call it a 'commune'

by Andrew Fri Apr 11, 2003 12:24

Nice theory 'an archy' but its a pity you lack either the knowledge or honesty that your name reveals. There are countless examples of the constructive activities of anarchists. During the Spanish revolution for instance "estimates of the numbers in collectives range as high as 5-7 million directly or indirectly involved . Certainly millions took part to some degree from periods of weeks to as long as three years as fortunes fluctuated in the war." See http://struggle.ws/spain/ws_collective.html for more details.

by an archy Fri Apr 11, 2003 12:27

oh yes! the spanish revolution, blah blah blah

you boys are as bad as the trots at glorifying past failures and passing them off as successes.

so, what have anarchists done since the failed spanish revo? hmm?

nothing.

by David Rynne Fri Apr 11, 2003 12:31

As far as i can see capitalism is against people for capital, anarchism is against capital for people.

Anarchism is for so many things but they seem far-fetched because people are applying those concepts to circumstances in our existing society and they can not fit.
We have tried capitalism, imperialism, monarchies, religous dictatorships "democracy" for thousands of years and they have not worked.

by ipsiphi Fri Apr 11, 2003 12:32

may I point out that our political policy of abolishing leaderbased and property based notions of social and cultural control do not mean
reprisal killings.
that is disorder.

Peace does not equal Security.
the lack of order does not equal Anarchy.

We participate fully in our societies at all levels with the intention of abolishing the leader class which has proven itself disfunctional. Anarchism is not incompatible with democracy, it the purest form of Democracy.

Anarko-ideas be they of decision making which is open and contributive or property be it intellectual, housing or genetic will save our civilisation this century.

The option is centralised state reconstructed fascism.
which every day we learn has less and less support in the West.

I expect them to say these things about us.
yet they listen to us all the time.
The Iraqi children say thank you for the Water Bertie, and Jose MAria, but they are also singing
NO A LA GUERRA.
¿who taught them that?

by Chekov - WSM Fri Apr 11, 2003 12:33

They also ignore the history and traditions of the anarchist movement - where anarchists have built mass democratic ORGANISATIONS whenever they got half a chance. The Leninists bang on about anarchism being chaos and the rule of the strong and happily accept the distortions of the mainstream media. Just goes to show you that you can't trust anyone who wants to 'lead' you.

by David Rynne Fri Apr 11, 2003 12:36

There was a civil war and the fascists won. is anyone seriously argueing that Franco's rule was more desirable than the peaceful Collectives that sprung up all throughout catalonia and the rest of spain?
Anarchism in Spain was defeated by international intervention, it was smothered by outside capitalist and communist interests before it had a real chance to establish itself.

by - Fri Apr 11, 2003 12:36

archist dont have to prove anything - the question is what have anarchists done or could create? where's the evidence that they have created anything?

by Andrew Fri Apr 11, 2003 12:48

Chinese fast food (no really, 'invented' by Chinese anarchist exiles in Paris in the 1920's)
The Tango (believe it or not)
May Day (marks the execution of US anarchists in 1886)
The collectives in Spain (revealing that the trots find the largest and most succesful example of workers self management boring).
Trade unions (In many countries including Spain, Mexico, the US and France the first mass unions were created by anarchists)

How that for starters

by anarchist rebel Fri Apr 11, 2003 13:10

The 4th international (oh boy did we laugh)
Socialist Worker (Sun style tabloid minus page 3)
Globalise Resistance (Nora and Des, the real anti-capitalists)
Reclaim the Streets (new Carolanite Revolutionary Tendency)
Richard Boyd Barrett (the poster boy of the anti war movement)

add...

by -- Fri Apr 11, 2003 13:24

Gulags
Militarisation of labour
("Deserters from labour ought to to be formed into punitive battalions or put into concentration camps")
'socialist' one-man management

by floJo - i dont know Fri Apr 11, 2003 14:08 Planet Earth Please.

Its all well and good to continue into this bramble of a debate. me, im not anything. i want to see peace, equality, sustainability and individuals to start participating in democracy and how their lives are run, not by listening to a political party or someone with an ideology.
i learn by meeting others, as i engage i reflect, draw conclusions and then i do....Carpe diem.
Pace á tutti.

by Monty Python Fri Apr 11, 2003 14:23

This happened yesterday, three anarchist unions organised the general strike against the war. (CGT, CNT and Solidero Obera) along with the socialist UCT (which had a 2 hour rather then 24 hour strike, the reason I presume for the differnces between morning and evening figures below)

---

Thousands of people demonstrated on Thursday right through to the evening.
In Madrid about 15,000 marched in the morning with about 80,000 in the
afternoon. In Barcelone there were about 45,000 at the early demo and
around 150,000 in the afternoon. Alicante saw 25,000 answer the CGT and
UGT's call and in even in Melilla there were about 4,000. Finally, over
30,000 people marched in Valladolid.
"Not one soldier, not one Euro, not one bullet for this war", read the
banner that opened the demonstration in Madrid by the Union of Students,
which was also joined by the UGT and CGT. The demonstrators, who carried
placards reading "Against the imperialist war" or "no to the war", passed
through the centre of Madrid from Atocha Station to Plaza de la Puerta del
Sol.
In Barcelona, about 40,000 people (according to an AFP journalist who was
present), marched through the streets in the city centre to protest
against the war. It was a long, orderly march that occupied the whole Via
Layetana (about two and a half kilometers) and saw the participation of
workers, students and many young people shouting slogans against the war
and for peace.
Photos from the various demonstrations in Seville, Barajas, Malaga and
Madrid are available on the CGT's General Strike website:
http://www.huelgageneral.info

Further photos from Seville online at: www.cgt.es/andalucia

nmcn/ainfos
[compliled from reports on a-infos-ca]

*******
********
****** The A-Infos News Service ******
News about and of interest to anarchists
******
COMMANDS: [email protected]
REPLIES: [email protected]
HELP: [email protected]
WWW: http://www.ainfos.ca/
INFO: http://www.ainfos.ca/org

-To receive a-infos in one language only mail [email protected] the message:
unsubscribe a-infos
subscribe a-infos-X
where X = en, ca, de, fr, etc. (i.e. the language code)

by Dada Fri Apr 11, 2003 14:37

Phew – for a moment there, I thought the anarchists had run out of things to say.
We were left directionless at Hillsborough (no instructions on indymedia about how to storm the castle) and we still don't know what to do in Shannon tomorrow.
Saddam was overthrown and indymedia nearly closed down for lack of interest. And then, after all the killing and destruction, some Pentagon official has the temerity to use the word anarchy without having read his Bakunin and suddenly (finally) the agit-prop department gets into full swing (24 comments so far, I think). They can take Baghdad but they can never take our name in vain, is that it?

by Joe Fri Apr 11, 2003 14:43

Dada says "We were left directionless at Hillsborough (no instructions on indymedia about how to storm the castle) and we still don't know what to do in Shannon tomorrow."

Looks like he doesn't understand what anarchism is. Clue - it doesn't just mean putting a different face behind the megaphone. Another clue - DIY.

by AL Fri Apr 11, 2003 14:50

When you say "Anarchism reckons socialism to be necessary to attain full liberty – as well as being inherently just - so we’d be looking for thorough-going equality (to each according to need)" what do you mean by "each according to need"? I know you said brief so understand that.

I'm wondering because it is something I have seen many anarchists state, almost along Robert Nozick's line of argument (which I presume you agree with to some degree, considering his libertarian stance) which counteracts the "thorough-going equality" statement you make before the brackets, which would follow the John Rawls argument. So a minor contradiction perhaps, as these two positions were scribed almost in reaction to each other (some say Nozick, others Rawls, was the reactionary in the argument) but I realise I'm taking this from a single sentence which is by no means authorative of your position.
Would appreciate any clarification though.
Thanks.

PS EDs, you still have not responded to my contact from yesterday regarding why my article was deleted, nor have you added to my public request for a response from http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=42416&start=40
Do you suggest I drop it or something or do you simply not have a justified reason as to why that mail was deleted when another poster copy/pasted the entire article to which I had just gave a brief intro? Your call...

by chris Fri Apr 11, 2003 14:51

Maybe instead of whining endlessly about how everybody else in the world uses the word anarchy, you should find some new language to describe your political beliefs.

by AL Fri Apr 11, 2003 15:00

...considering that the term has been claimed and added with negative value it could be worth considering a new approach. For example, the term Washington Consensus (which John Williamson is generally credited with coining in its original context) was originally used to refer to the lowest common denominator of policy advice being addressed by the Washington-based institutions to Latin American countries as of 1989. But it has now become synonymous with neo-liberalism and market fundamentalism. Terms like "universal convergence" would have been more in alignment with "Washington Consensus" but that was not to be. Now the original author is trying to redirect people's understanding of the term but to no avail as it has now been laden with negative value, particularly in terms of advertising partical fiscal policies etc.
Just a thought...

by Chekov Fri Apr 11, 2003 15:03

Most people believe that without rulers we would have chaos. Our task is to convince people in their own capacity to organise society. If we can do that it won't matter what we are called. We could call ourselves something 'easier' to accept, but we do not seek to disguise that our political project aims to create a world that is profoundly different, and thus the 'difficulty' of the word serves us well.

by Andrew Fri Apr 11, 2003 15:06

One thread is endlessly!?!

Anyway as I explain above it is the idea of anarchism (no state) rather then the word that the ruling elite (and wanna be rulers) find threatening. We could change the name to Teletubism but before long the headlines would read 'teletubism and looting breaks out in Iraq'. Anarchism is the term that tens of millions of people have used to describe what they are strugging for over the last 150 years.

It's also the term used by groups all over the globe. If I was meeting activists in Teran and called myself a Teletubby they wouldn't understand where I'm coming from. Anarchism however is a handy shorthand that they could understand (or look up). (I use Teran as an example as a Persian language anarchist site went up this week, plus I am actually conversing via email with some (unrelated) individuals there at the moment.

by Andrew Fri Apr 11, 2003 15:11

For those slow on the uptake 'AL' above appears to be one of this neo-liberal nuts who fancy they are an anarchist because they want to restrict the states role to protection of property. They used to be quite common on the internet until the advent of the globalisation movement (and the rather obvious anti-capitalist role of anarchists within it) proved more and more embarrassing for them when they met up with other neoliberals. Nozick is one of thier main ideologues, you'll find a very detailed refutation of their use of term anarchism at http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

by conor (wsm personal capacity) Fri Apr 11, 2003 15:25

It is Anarchy
by Hilda Robinson Fri, Apr 11 2003, 10:48am

This is what you anarchists stand for. You want to abolish the government,

me: yes on question one - dix points

you want to abolish all planning, all control. In my opinion its about having a revoluiton and having a state that will plan the distribution of resources.

me: no no no no

- anarchism is THE ONLY policitical philosophy that actually addresses these questions head on.
We are for MORE and BETTER organisation of society but in a non coercive, voluntary and democratic way.
This, to us, is the HIGHEST form of organisation.
It is capitalism that is institutionalised chaos, hunger and death for most of the world's people.

>Make no bones about it. This is what the Anarchists (WSM, Andrew Flood, >ASF etc) want. The want individuals to be free to do as they wish, they >want to abolish the market and replace it with a free for all.

WELL in theory the markey is a free for all!
In practise an entirely free market would MORE unlikely in my view then an anarchist society. All capitalism strives towards monopoly through competition. They don't just compete at the same level for ever. Every capitalist seeks to destroy the other as quick as possible.

Market capitalism has always been completely bound up with the state and relys on state protection - this is what the WTO, IMF etc are about a massive, institutional theft of wealth, protection of monopoly.

Any bank or insurance company that looks like going under is ALWAYs rescued - certainly in Ireland - look at the hand outs to Goodman and PMPA when they were in trouble. Capitalism and Staism are one in the same

>Under anarchy the strong win and the weak die.

Nope it happens right now every day and its called capitalism

for those of you might actually be swayed by a rational outline of what anarchism REALLY stands for check the anarchist FAQ

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secAcon.html

>you boys are as bad as the trots at glorifying past failures and >passing them off as successes.

>so, what have anarchists done since the failed spanish revo? hmm?

>nothing.

Agh but we acknowledge the MISTAKES as well as the good things in the past - if you check the links Andrew has supplied

- I suspect I've done a fuck load more then an archy to build a better world but hey I can't prove that !

david: We have tried capitalism, imperialism, monarchies, religous dictatorships "democracy" for thousands of years and they have not worked.

this is for sure !!

david: Anarchism in Spain was defeated by international intervention, it was smothered by outside capitalist and communist interests before it had a real chance to establish itself.

All true
but they did make mistakes and didn't have all the answers in the CNT at the time - in my view-- a tradition prepared to LEARN from it's past mistakes is a strong tradition

flojo : i want to see peace, equality, sustainability and individuals to start participating in democracy and how their lives are run, not by listening to a political party or someone with an ideology.
i learn by meeting others, as i engage i reflect, draw conclusions and then i do....Carpe diem.
Pace á tutti.

hey I agree - in fact that's as good a definition of anarchism as any I've read
- you must become one of us !

(one of us....one of us
- q spooky muzak)

dada : We were left directionless at Hillsborough (no instructions on indymedia about how to storm the castle) and we still don't know what to do in Shannon tomorrow.

I'm sure the leaders will hand you a leaflet with your instructions for the day on the bus !

Oh, boo-hoo
by chris Fri, Apr 11 2003, 1:51pm

Maybe instead of whining endlessly about how everybody else in the world uses the word anarchy, you should find some new language to describe your political beliefs.

or even

act on them !

Conor

by AL Fri Apr 11, 2003 15:44

...if I were one of those "neo-liberal nuts" who fancies that I am "an anarchist because [I] want to restrict the states role to protection of property", would I not just hire a private policing system? Where is the benifit of a "state" in this ideal you suggest I hold? Why would I need a legal system to protect such property when a brutal enough police system would suffice? And anyway, isn't the present "state" not just a version of this with some minor element of social interest (for supression through subsistance) being used to cover up its true role as a vessal for corporate interest?
And your ignorant inferrence that Nozick is one of [my] main ideologues" comes as a shock from someone so astutly "libertarian". If you don't share his views state it. I don't, and nor do I always share yours. But fortunatley you added "appears to be", which opens the space for me to state "is not"

by AL Fri Apr 11, 2003 15:45

"And your ignorant inferrence that Nozick is one of [my] main ideologues" comes as a shock from someone so astutly "libertarian" as yourself"

by James Fri Apr 11, 2003 15:50

I’m not sure if I understand your question, I’m only barely familiar with Nozicsk’s work, so you’d have to outline the two positions before I could respond properly.

I think you’re claiming that there’s a contradiction between “thorough-going equality” and “to each according to need”. I don’t see any contradiction.

Basically the equality would be of opportunity. For example, in current society you may have the right to three meals a day but if you haven’t got the means to get them it’s a pretty meaningless right.

Left Libertarians think everybody should have as much a right, ie meaningful opportunity, to avail of that right, as everybody else. If some people need 5 meals then they ought to have the opportunity to fulfill that need. Everybody will have the opportunity to take the necessary meals – thorough-going equality - but as people have different needs, the right will exercised by people themselves in various ways – according to their needs. Some eating more, some less.

The assumption behind it is that human beings are rational enough, given favourable circumstances, to share the wealth of the earth.
Which may be a dodgy assumption, but that’s another argument…

by Hilda Robinson Fri Apr 11, 2003 16:00

The anarchist should explain where they stand on the State and Iraq. The state no longer exists in Iraq. The result is chaos, there is widespread looting of Hospitals, Universities etc.

Andrew Flood seems to be advocating workers councils to regulate Iraq. Is that not a state? I support the idea of workers' councils in Iraq to defend the property of the Iraqi people. I call that a democratic workers state. Andrew are you now advocating a Workers' State? that's a bit of a turnabout isn't it?

by Andrew Fri Apr 11, 2003 16:02

Don't take offence AL as you point out I did say "appears to be". I don't know of anyone outside neoliberal circles who would take Nozicks claim to be an 'anarchist' seriously so when I see someone who does I tend to assume that is where they are coming from. First time for everything I suppose.

And I wrote "Nozick is one of thier main ideologues"
where the misspelled 'thier' obviously refers to the neoliberals rather then you specifically (unless you refer to youself in the plural?). I have a kneejerk reaction to these clowns going back to the rows in the relatively early days of the internet, apologies for any offence caused by my mislabelling!

by Andrew Fri Apr 11, 2003 16:19

Maybe Hilda came up on the last bus but if not she is more then aware that anarchists do NOT accept that workers councils = a workers state. The council/commune form of organisation was advocated by anarchists as an alternative to the marxist workers/peoples state as far back as 1868, eg "As regards organisation of the Commune, there will be a federation of standing barricades and a Revolutionary Communal Council will operate on the basis of one or two delegates from each barricade, one per street or per district, these deputies being invested with binding mandates and accountable and revocable at all times."

Being aware of the differences the anarchists were prepared to defend the workers councils AGAINST the 'workers state' (in reality the 'one party state') when lenin and the Bolsheviks moved against the Soviets that recalled Bolwsheviks in the Summer of 1918. BTW Lenin and Trotsky would have laughed their ass off at your claim that they are one and the same thing. For example, Lenin in 1921 wrote "After two years of Soviet power we openly declared at the Communist International to the entire world that the dictatorship of the proletariat is possible only through the Communist Party. . . Despite all this, there are people 'class conscious people, who tell us that 'organising management of national economy belongs to the All-Russian Convention of Producers."

If you know this already Hilda then shame on you for trying to confuse matters here. if you don't then I suggest you read some of the material at the link below. It explains in practise why the so called 'workers state' is incompatable with 'workers councils' or at least requires the councils to obey it alone.

by Chuck0 - Infoshop.org Fri Apr 11, 2003 16:49

First of all, a shout out to Andrew, Chekov, and my other Irish comrades from the other side of the Atlantic.

This is an interesting little discussion you have going here, started off by somebody who probably knows what anarchy is, but probably thought it was cute to get folks dissing anarchists.

Of course, the situation in Iraq is nowhere close to anarchism, despite the use of the term "anarchy" to describe the situation. The journalists changed the meaning of the word "anarchy" a hundred years ago to defame anarchism, so it comes as no surprise that they are misuing this term again.

Leaving aside the incompetence of journalists, the situation in Iraq could be described as limited chaos under occupation by a superpower. The Iraqis are nowhere near anarchy, unfortunately, like people in Aregentina currently are. Andrew would argue that the Iraqis would need to organize their workplaces and take control of production if Iraq was to have anarchy. On a more basic level, if Iraqis wera able to start practicing self-management and self-organization, accompanied by a horizontal re-organization of society, they would be getting close to having anarchy.

The Iraqis are the ones who have to make this happen, but they can't do it until we Irish and American folks get our governments to leave the Iraqis alone.

On the lighter side of this thread, in terms of what have anarchists created, I'd like to add the following list:

* Many of the modern art paintings hanging in the museums.
* Organizations like the IWW and global projects like Food not Bombs and Indymedia.
* A shitload of free software
* Alternative media and anti-corporate media activism
* Thousands of housing co-ops, squats, social centers, infoshops, food co-ops, and much more.
* The anti-globalization and anti-capitalists movements, which were put on the world stage by the hard work of anarchists.
* The eight hour day and the weekend
* The bank robbery get-a-way car. ;-)
* Free schools, open universities, and alternatives to schooling
* Hundreds of punk bands, folk acts, and more
* Direct action that gets the goods, instead of boring rallies that sell leftist tabloids
* Affordable housing and homeless activism. Here in Washington, local anarchists working with other activists have forced the city to open hundreds of beds for the homeless.

Is that enough?

by Andrew Fri Apr 11, 2003 17:00

Damn I forgot the getaway car, wasn't that the Bonnot gang?

BTW we are now engaged in 'make the thread with the most ever comments on indymedia.ie'. I think the record is around 60 so any further lists of what anarchists have created are welcome

by anon Fri Apr 11, 2003 17:40

... to the thread record.

by Sylvia Pankhurst Fri Apr 11, 2003 20:32

Government offices being thrashed and looted, people refusing to fight for their government and deserting instead......might not be anarchy but sure looks like the start of it!!!

by alma Fri Apr 11, 2003 21:58

Where were the anarchists this week? -Not at the protest against Bush'n'Blair on monday, NOT at the protest against Haider last night! I know many cool, non-affiliated anarchists but it seems those in WSM are either very lazy, passive or don't give a damn?!
Tis all vey sad.
Shut up and DO something for a change!

by me myself i Sat Apr 12, 2003 01:38

Sorry but i was at the photo shoot on monday night, So were several other 'anarchists' and personaly i wish i had stayed at home rather than listen to all those good statesmen. it was a waste of time.

"SWP!!!! everybody sit down!!!!" no thanks.

by Paddy Mac Sat Apr 12, 2003 03:06

See, the thing about the WSM, as opposed to most anarchists, is that they're only happy when you agree with them. They're forever shoving their narrow understanding of anarchism at people. Grassroots could do without their trot-like blather to be honest.

by Hilda Robinson Sat Apr 12, 2003 18:52

I fully support the idea of having workers councils where deputies are re-callable at any time. I call this a Workers' State. On one hand you are against States, on the other hand you advocate the need for a State (just that you dont call it a state!)

Socialists are entitled to the view that only a revolutionary programme will bring about a workers revolution. How the hell is this undemocratic.

In my opinion the real ones that are undemocratic are 'grassroots' organisations. In my experience in grassroots organisations there is a leadership (ie those that put forward good ideas, those that are practically doing much of the work etc.) The problem is that in a grassroots organisation this is undemocratic as no-one acknowledges this leadership and calls them to account.

In grassroots organisations there can be a very bureaucratic way of organisation. All tasks are divided among a whole number of committees, there is no central co-ordination and there is the accountability problem.

I support the idea of a democratic workers state with a democratically planned economy. There is a need for central co-ordination of the efforts of local groups. I'm not dodging around like Andrew.

by anarcho Sun Apr 13, 2003 11:19 anarcho at geocities dot com

"I fully support the idea of having workers councils where deputies are
re-callable at any time."

Great. Then you agree with Bakunin, who was talking
about this in the late 1860s.

"I call this a Workers' State."

Why? It's not a state as its not based on delegated
power. The delegates have mandates and are revoked if
they do not do what the electors agreed. That's different
from giving representatives power to decide what to do
for you.

"On one hand you are against States, on the other hand you advocate
the need for a State (just that you dont call it a state!)"

Organisation does not equal state! So what is a state? Let me
quote Engels: the state "is the establishment of a public power
which no longer directly coincides with the population organising
itself as an armed force."

So if you argue that the population managed society itself,
then it is not state. But Leninists do not argue for this.
They argue for the party being in power. To quote Lenin,
The party is to "take state power into [its] own hands,"
to become "the governing party" and he considers one of
its key tasks for "our Party to capture political power" and
to "administer" a country, then we can safely say that the
state needed is a state "in the proper sense," based on the
centralisation and delegation of power into the hands of a
few.

This power over the proletariat quickly became the
"dictatorship over the proletariat." Trotsky argued that
this was essential:

"The very same masses are at different times inspired by different moods and objectives. It is just for this
reason that a centralised organisation of the vanguard is indispensable. Only a party, wielding the
authority it has won, is capable of overcoming the vacillation of the masses themselves . . . if the
dictatorship of the proletariat means anything at all, then it means that the vanguard of the proletariat is
armed with the resources of the state in order to repel dangers, including those emanating from the
backward layers of the proletariat itself."

SO much for instant recall! So we have the vanguard using state
power against the proletariat (and every one is by definition
"backward" compared to the vanguard). As put it with blunt
honesty:

"The revolutionary dictatorship of a proletarian party is for me not a thing that one can freely accept or
reject: It is an objective necessity imposed upon us by the social realities -- the class struggle, the
heterogeneity of the revolutionary class, the necessity for a selected vanguard in order to assure the
victory. The dictatorship of a party belongs to the barbarian prehistory as does the state itself, but we can
not jump over this chapter, which can open (not at one stroke) genuine human history. . . The
revolutionary party (vanguard) which renounces its own dictatorship surrenders the masses to the
counter-revolution . . . Abstractly speaking, it would be very well if the party dictatorship could be
replaced by the 'dictatorship' of the whole toiling people without any party, but this presupposes such a
high level of political development among the masses that it can never be achieved under capitalist
conditions. The reason for the revolution comes from the circumstance that capitalism does not permit the
material and the moral development of the masses."

This is what Trotsky meant by a "workers' state," namely the means of
implementing the "dictatorship of the party." And the state is structured
to facilitate this, as its based on delegating power to a few people at the
top of society. Its designed to disempower the base. That is why anarchists
are anti-state and argue for real "socialism from below," the socialism of
Bakunin and his ideas of federated workers' councils of mandated, recallable
delegates.

"Socialists are entitled to the view that only a
revolutionary programme will bring about a
workers revolution. How the hell is this
undemocratic."

Its undemocratic to argue that a handful of leaders
are to be given power in a revolution. Which is what a
"workers' government/state" means in practice. Now, if
you really want workers to control society directly,
then why argue for the state which is based on a few
people at the top making all the decisions?

for a fuller discussion visit:

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH3.html#sech37

and

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH3.html#sech38

by anarcho Sun Apr 13, 2003 11:27 anarcho at geocities dot com

"Robert Nozick's line of argument (which I presume you agree with to some degree,
considering his libertarian stance"

Nozick is not an anarchist. Nor is he a libertarian, he is a
propertarian. While the US right-wing free market capitalists
have tried to steal the name "libertarian" to describe their
ideas of privatised authoritarianism, they have nothing to do
with anarchism or real libertarian ideas.

Visit this link for an extensive critique of right-wing
"libertarianism" for an anarchist perspective:

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secFcon.html

visit "An Anarchist FAQ" if you are interested in what
anarchism is really about:

http://www.anarchistfaq.org

by Hilda Robinson Sun Apr 13, 2003 14:21

"But Leninists do not argue for this.
They argue for the party being in power"

This is competely WRONG! I'm sick of anarchists spreading blatent lies about Marxists. I am a Trotskyist I do not support the idea of a party coming to power. What I support is the WORKING CLASS coming to power.

This can only happen when there are a number of conditions- including a revolutionary programme. If you look at the revolutions and uprisings over the past 100 years you will see failures and set backs are usually due to the absence of revolutionary ideas with an organisation willing to implement these ideas.

Trotskyists advocate the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. That IS NOT the Dictatorship of the Party. We advocate Democratic Workers' Councils that will have Re-callable deputies- we call this a workers' state!

Anarchists stop spreading your lies and answer my points about the undemocratic nature of grassroots organisations.

by Hilda Robinson Sun Apr 13, 2003 14:28

ANARCHO SAID: "Its undemocratic to argue that a handful of leaders
are to be given power in a revolution... Now, if
you really want workers to control society directly,
then why argue for the state which is based on a few
people at the top making all the decisions?"

I agree with you 'Anarcho' when you say that it is undemocratic to give all power to a handful of unaccountable leaders. This is NOT what Trotskyists argue for. We argue for a Workers' State, based on workers' councils (as Andrew Flood argues!) where all deputies are accountable and fully re-callable.

This is far from a "few people at the top making all the decisions"

I am sick of Anarchists spreading these lies. Most have very little experience of what Trotskyists say, yet they come on Indymedia and mindlessly attack us.

Anarchists have still to reply to my accusation that in practice "Grassroots" organisation is bureaucratic, undemocatic and leaves the leadership (ie those doing most of the work, coming up with many ideas, convening meetings etc) unaccountable.

by anarcho Sun Apr 13, 2003 22:47 anarcho at geocities dot com

"This is competely WRONG! I'm sick of anarchists
spreading blatent lies about Marxists."

Okay, which part of the quotes from Lenin and Trotsky
were lies? How about this one from Lenin:

"the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be
exercised through an organisation embracing the
whole of the class, because in all capitalist
countries (and not only over here, in one of the
most backward) the proletariat is still so
divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts . . .
that an organisation taking in the whole
proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian
dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a
vanguard . . . Such is the basic mechanism of
the dictatorship of the proletariat"

How is quoting Lenin arguing for party power be
considered a "blatent lie" about Marxism?

"I am a
Trotskyist I do not support the idea of a party
coming to power. What I support is the WORKING
CLASS coming to power."

SO what about all these quotes from Lenin and
Trotsky arguing the exact opposite? I'm confused.
Surely the opinions of Lenin and Trotsky must be
important for a Trotskyist?

"This can only happen when there are a number of
conditions- including a revolutionary programme."

Lenin was pretty clear -- he aimed for party power.
All through 1917 he stressed this. Have you not read
Lenin? What about his famous essay "Can the Bolsheviks
retain state power?" Note, the Bolsheviks, *not* the
working class.

"If
you look at the revolutions and uprisings over the past
100 years you will see failures and set backs are usually
due to the absence of revolutionary ideas with an organisation
willing to implement these ideas."

Trotsky was pretty clear. As he put it quite explicitly "the
proletariat can take power only through its vanguard." What
did he mean by that? Only with "support of the vanguard by the
class" can there be the "conquest of power" and it was in
"this sense the proletarian revolution and dictatorship are
the work of the whole class, but only under the leadership of
the vanguard." Thus, rather than the working class as a whole
seizing power, it is the "vanguard" which takes power -- "a
revolutionary party, even after seizing power . . . is still
by no means the sovereign ruler of society."

So the "revolutionary party" seizes "power" and becomes the
"sovereign ruler of society." This meant the "dictatorship
of the party":

"Those who propose the abstraction of Soviets to the party
dictatorship should understand that only thanks to the party
dictatorship were the Soviets able to lift themselves out of
the mud of reformism and attain the state form of the
proletariat."

Now, please explain what Trotsky really meant, if he did not
advocate party power and party dictatorship. If he meant
something else, then why did he use these words?

"Trotskyists advocate the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. That
IS NOT the Dictatorship of the Party."

Yet here we have Trotsky stating that it would be the dictatorship
of the party. Not once, but many times. Please explain why Trotsky
is not a Trotskyist.

"We advocate Democratic Workers' Councils that will have Re-callable
deputies- we call this a workers' state!"

So why did Trotsky argue for the dictatorship of the party and for the
party? How is recallable deputies compatible with "Only a party, wielding
the authority it has won, is capable of overcoming the vacillation of the
masses themselves"? Or with this classic:

"The Workers' Opposition has come out with dangerous slogans, making a fetish
of democratic principles! They place the workers' right to elect representatives
above the Party, as if the party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship
even if that dictatorship temporarily clashed with the passing moods of the workers'
democracy. It is necessary to create amongst us the awareness of the revolutionary
birthright of the party, which is obliged to maintain its dictatorship, regardless
of temporary wavering even in the working classes. This awareness is for us the
indispensable element. The dictatorship does not base itself at every
given moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy."

It should be noted that these identical arguments are separated by 18 years.

"Anarchists stop spreading your lies and answer my points about the undemocratic
nature of grassroots organisations."

Okay, so are you saying that these quotes from Lenin and Trotsky are not true?
In which case you are seriously ignorant of the ideas of both of them. Please
visit "An Anarchist FAQ" (http://www.anarchistfaq.org) and find the references
for yourself. Rest assured, all these quotes are 100% accurate. It seems amazing
that a Trotskyist could be so ignorant of their own tradition to deny the facts.

As for grassroots organisations being "undemocratic," well, that is amazingly
strange. Anarchists argue that every group should be run by their members, by
direct democracy and via mandated, recallable delegates to federated councils.
Pretty democratic, far more democratic than electing a few party leaders to rule
for you.

For a further discussion of this Trotskyist nonsense visit:

"Democracy is undemocratic"
http://anarchism.ws/writers/anarcho/democracy.html

That answers the Trotskyist claim that self-management is "undemocratic."

So, please explain why quoting Lenin and Trotsky accurately equates to
anarchist "lies"? It should be an interesting explaination!

by conor (wsm personal capacity) Thu Apr 17, 2003 15:50

In Defence of Marxism
by Hilda Robinson Sun, Apr 13 2003, 1:21pm

What I support is the WORKING CLASS coming to power.

This can only happen when there are a number of conditions- including a revolutionary programme. If you look at the revolutions and uprisings over the past 100 years you will see failures and set backs are usually due to the absence of revolutionary ideas with an organisation willing to implement these ideas.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

me: the Bolsheviks failed becasue they had the wrong programme ! They failed their programme failed and their leadership failed - those who do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them !
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Trotskyists advocate the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. That IS NOT the Dictatorship of the Party. We advocate Democratic Workers' Councils that will have Re-callable deputies- we call this a workers' state!

me: Oh yeah - look it up misus !!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Lenin, in March 1918, wrote (Collected Works, Vol. 27 page 270) that the Party relates to workers by leading "them along the true path of labour discipline, along the task of coordinating the task of arguing at mass meetings about the conditions of work with the task of unquestioningly obeying the will of the Soviet leader, of the dictator during the work". So much for every cook governing.

These are not just isolated incidents. The Party soon began to institutionalise its dominance, for instance factory committees, instead of being allowed to form federations across the industries, had to report to undemocratic bodies which were hand picked by the Party. It is in this context that Daniel Guerin argued that "In fact the power of the soviets only lasted a few months, from October 1917 to the spring of 1918."

How did the Bolsheviks go about 'securing' the revolution? Trotsky, as leader of the Red Army, reintroduced regular army discipline, not only including executions for desertion but also all the petty regulations like saluting that gave officers special positions. He abolished election of officers, writing "the elective basis is politically pointless and technically inexpedient and has already been set aside by decree".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Trotsky on Socialism from Below
"The very principle of compulsory labour is for the Communist quite unquestionable .. . the only solution to economic difficulties that is correct from the point of view both of principle and of practice is to treat the population of the whole country as the reservoir of the necessary labour power - an almost inexhaustible reservoir - and to introduce strict order into the work of its registration, mobilisation and utilisation".

"I consider that if the civil war had not plundered our economic organs of all that was strongest, most independent, most endowed with initiative, we should undoubtedly have entered the path of one-man management in the sphere of economic administration much sooner and much less painfully"
1920, War Communism & Terrorism

"the working class...must be thrown here and there, appointed, commanded just like soldiers. Deserters from labour ought to be formed into punitive battalions or put into concentration camps"
to the 9th Party Congress, 1920

http://struggle.ws/once/sfb_russia.html

do they teach yeese to read even !!!

mean time on behalf of all anarchists i would like to appologise for

for having invented

"Hundreds of punk bands, folk acts, and more"

obviously we can't get EVERYTHING right

Conor