Anarchists play key role in Fianna Fail election victory

by Bertie Ahern Sun May 19, 2002 03:46

I'd like to thank yez all for turning out to demonstrate the power of democracy. We've got to all remember that no matter what our differences we're all in this democracy together, and like I always say, let the best man win! And I have, and I know that as yez all respect democracy, that that means that yez have all agreed that I get to be in power again. Thanks lads! And keep on bashing those pesky anarchists, it'll leave less for the lads to do on Dame St. the next time!

Vote Proletarian Dictatorship!

by anarcho Sun May 19, 2002 11:07

I must admit that this is the sadest example of
satire I've read in a long time. anyways...

"If they can't even get people out to vote
for change"

If you think that voting leads to change then I
think you really should have a look at the
history of radicals using elections! The only
"change" which happens is that the radicals end
up changing themselves to fit into the
system rather than vice versa.

Equally, if people think that voting for someone
will result in change then why should they bother
with direct action? After all, they have voted
for someone who will make change for them. but
why bother with logic?

" - how do they possibly expect to be able to organise people in more active campaigns."

Quite easily. By rejecting the farce of elections
people see that only by organising and acting
themselves will they achieve real change.

"This was a concerted and effective attempt to increase disempowerment and alienation - particularly amongst the young and the working classes and has been a spectacular and resounding success!"

So by voting for someone, by giving them a mandate
to act for you, you are somehow "empowering" yourself? Being an isolated voter in a box putting
a cross on a bit of paper is an example of "empowerment"? as if!

As for alienation, well surely we have to encourage
people to feel alienated from capitalism and the
state? If they are not alienated from them, why
would they seek real change?

I also have to assume that the poster seeks to
overcome this "alienation" by giving the masses
a voice in the system, by working within it on
their behalf to reform it... In other words, by
proping up the system and making it last longer.

"The sooner we all except that there's no point trying to change things the better it will be for all of us."

Sorry, but if you read anarchist propaganda you
would discover that the whole point of anarchist
"don't vote" campaigns are to show that real change can only come from below, when people
organise themselves and use direct action to
change things for the better.

I suppose this shows the mentality of the left --
they want a few leaders to fight for the masses and
when the masses don't vote for them then the
masses are simply "disempowered" and "alienated."
That people could see through their nonsense is
not a possibility, of course, as the left are
the vanguard leading the backward masses to the
promised land.

What a sad reflection of left politics! Rather
than reconsider their own approach which has
resulted in failure, they seek to blame others
-- anarchists, the working class, the young --
anyone but their own dead-end politics.

If you are interested in anarchists really have
to say, visit:

www.struggle.ws
www.anarchistfaq.org
www.infoshop.org

by Oliver O'Hern Sun May 19, 2002 13:10

If calls of our anarchists friends have been respected, those lousy subversives, Higgins und Healy would not being in the next Dail and that uppity female Clare Daly would not have given us a terrible fright in Dublin North.
There will have to be even close co-operation between our feely fail party and the WSM in order to increase the level of apathy of the underclass und other undesirable elements. Even so, our great victory will enable us implement health and decrease the number of houses being built.

Don’t vote WSM, don’t vote for us (or anyone), stay at home or go guerrilla gardening and give our security forces some experience in the use of their batons.

by anarcho Sun May 19, 2002 14:50

"Don?t vote WSM, don?t vote for us (or anyone), stay at home or go guerrilla gardening and give our security forces some experience in the use of their batons."

God, talk about stupid arguments. If this is the
best the left in Ireland can come up with no wonder
people did not vote!

Just to state the obvious:

1) While anarchists argue against voting, we do not
urge people to "stay at home." Rather we argue that
people need to organise themselves in their workplaces
and communities and use direct action to create
real change by their own efforts.

2) "guerrilla gardening"? Then again to talk about
direct action, strikes, occupations, boycotts, demos and so on which anarchists point to as the
real alternative to voting would be to undermine
the argument and so is forgotten.

3) "give security forces some experience in the use of their batons." Says it all. So voting
ensures that people will not take the sort of
action which will cause the state any problems?
Nice to see it admitted! In other words, put that
cross on a bit of paper, stay at home and don't
do anything which may give the security forces
problems like, for example, using direct action!

Little wonder anarchists argue for direct action
rather than voting. Electioneering creates such
levels of apathy that its supporters denounce any
form of action which could actually achieve change!

by james - socialist alternative Sun May 19, 2002 16:12 antrophe at hotmail dot com

In a two page special report in todays Sunday World called 'battle field ireland' Eamonn Dillon launches a broadside against the anti-capitalist movement, describing how 'gardai draw up plans to prevent violence spilling on to the streets during EU Summit'. The report smacks of the media hysteria generated at the behest of the state before the mayday events in london in 2001, and as the summits here in 2004, i suspect the movements going to face a lot more of this hysteria whhipping crap. Its hilarious, if you want satire, and the media at its worst, check it out...sensationalists ahve released their dogs of war.
Fuck, those 'anarchists' even 'wear masks to avoid police identifying them'.

by aengus Sun May 19, 2002 17:08

-"Equally, if people think that voting for someone
will result in change then why should they bother
with direct action? After all, they have voted
for someone who will make change for them. but
why bother with logic?"

Perhaps voting for the right person will lead to change, or at the very least it may mean less resistence to change.

If you feel strongly enough about something to use direct action are you suddenly going to become indifferent the moment you tick a box?

by Oliver O'Hern Sun May 19, 2002 17:23

My comment was an attempt at a little humour at the thought of bertie & co. getting an overall majority. You should activite your sense of humour.

On a totally serious note, participation in elections and electing socialists such as Joe Higgins and Seamus Healy is an integral part of the struggle, but only one part. Solidarity work re Palestine, Afghanistan, and struggles at home are also equally important.

by Dermot Sun May 19, 2002 17:59

"On a totally serious note, participation in elections and electing socialists such as Joe Higgins and Seamus Healy is an integral part of the struggle, but only one part. Solidarity work re Palestine, Afghanistan, and struggles at home are also equally important."

But which part is more important? Are you seriously saying that in a movement with "representative" politicians at the top that solidarity work (let alone serious direct action)can ever be more important?
Why exactly must electoral politics be an integral part of it at all, unless you are suggesting that no struggle can be won without the participation of TDs and councillors?
Also, since the first, simple-minded posting raised the issue, why all of a sudden are Joe Higgins, Seamus Healy and the Green Party, for God's sake, being conflated as if they were all part of some homogenous movement. I suspect the political differences between them are more than just cracks.
And finally, are we to assume that the "anti-fianna fail votes" that the mighty WSM kept at home include Fine Gael votes? Would voting for Noonan have helped the struggle against Fianna Fail? This is the level that electoralism gets to-the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Dermot.

by Oliver O'Hern Sun May 19, 2002 19:36

Sorry to hear you think I am simple minded, actually I call it having a sense of humour, even in the most adverse of circumstances e.g. Bertie & Mary are back. Staying at home or organising "direct action" won't cause either of those two individuals to lose any sleep.

The fact that persons of repute and principle such as Joe Higgins and Seamus Healy were elected means that they repesent the people who elected them. People who are looking for a radical alternative. Other people have looked in the direction of SF who, despite my political differences with them do at least show up in working class areas. I live in a working class area. Bourgeois politicans no longer show up here. Unlike some members of the WSM, people where I live do not have the luxury (the means) of going to protests in EU countries against globalisation. How many working class people are members of the WSM, I suspect very few.
Life is a daily struggle,against the system,
against anti social elements and discrimination.

Supporting radical dail candidates does not provide any "quick fix" solutions but it does provide a progressive voice in the corridors of power. It does not mean that campaigns and struggles outside the Dail are discontinued.

by zach Sun May 19, 2002 20:44

Oh, look, l've found yet another site where the left bashes the left. How original is that?
You should be an ANARCHIST, a SOCIALIST, a PROGRESSIVE, etc. Well l've heard it all before, and fuck anyone who wants to convince me that their particular brand of politics is the correct one.

Does anyone really believe that the OTHER brand, whatever it might be, consciously seeks to make things worse for the unemployed, the working class?.. So, all sides make mistakes, some sides are better than others, but l ain't ever gonna associate myself with any group that spends it time trying to undermine another socially progressive group. In my experience, as a libertarian, those groups which concentrate on bashing others are not only the more congenial groups, they also have some confidence in their own politics which comes from rigourous application.

by PhuqHedd Sun May 19, 2002 21:25

They're as working class as it gets:

1. Cloth caps, some with a sprinkle of coal dust
2. Tracksuits, with huge Nike swooshes on them
3. A chip-butty in one hand, a pint of plain in the other and a packet of cheese'n'onion in the third
4. Emphysema wracked coughs after years in 't mill picking potatoes

Rumours that they subsist off their investments and employ other people are just filthy propaganda spread about by Leninists.

Seriously, what is this "working class" of which you are a member and no-one else is? People that _work_ for a wage maybe?

Ever heard of bullshit and inverse snobbery?

by Oliver O'Hern Sun May 19, 2002 21:59

Yes I have seen members of the WSM, but they are in much better health than the ones you know. It sounds like the WSM's you know are all terminally ill. The WSM's I know are students at the local university, a institution where working class people are in very short supply. I think it's safe to say they are unfamilar with coal dust.

I am afraid that I can't help you if you don't know anything about social classes. Though perhaps a read of some relevant literature might help. As regards your comment on "inverse snobbery", it appears that you are suffering from galloping paronia.

by anarcho Sun May 19, 2002 22:00

"Perhaps voting for the right person will lead to change, or at the very least it may mean less resistence to change."

Or, then again, it may encourage a passive, "They
will do it for us" attitude which will hinder
change...

"If you feel strongly enough about something to use direct action are you suddenly going to become indifferent the moment you tick a box?"

Why do you think that not voting shows "Indifference"?
Rather, it shows a political statement and analysis. And an awareness that real change
comes from below, by direct action and
self-organisation in the community and workplace,
not by a few leaders acting for us in parliament.

Given the less than wonderful results of socialists
using the ballot box (the Social Democrats
spring to mind) I'm surprised that people still
suggest it! How many times has history to
repeat itself before socialists actually bother
to learn its lessons? First the Social Democrats,
then the German Greens, what next?

"My comment was an attempt at a little humour at the thought of bertie & co. getting an overall majority. You should activite your sense of humour."

Ah, yes, "sense of humour." And I thought that
the piece was trying to make a serious political
point using humour. Silly me. It was just a
joke with no politics whatsoever :)

"On a totally serious note, participation in elections and electing socialists such as Joe Higgins and Seamus Healy is an integral part of the struggle, but only one part. Solidarity work re Palestine, Afghanistan, and struggles at home are also equally important."

When socialists talk like this its like the
last 150 years never happened. Here we are
after the bancrupcy of social democracy and
socialists still waffle on about standing in
elections!

The results of electing socialists
has proven to be a serious handicap to creating
socialism. Rather than an "integral" part of the
struggle, it draws radicals into reformism and
bureaucracy, undermining real struggles for change
as well constructive working class self-organisation
in the workplace and community.

Marx was right, history repeats itself, first
time as tragedy, second time as farce. Its
nice to see his followers trying their best to
prove him right!

by anarcho Sun May 19, 2002 22:10

"The WSM's I know are students at the local university, a institution where working class people are in very short supply."

Yes, once you understand that for many Marxists class is dependent on your ideas, not your social position, the various comments by them make sense.

You see, if students are Marxists then they are
really working class "objectively." If students
are *not* Marxists then they are not working class,
regardless of whether they come from a working
class background or not. Easy!

Equally, you can have a factory owner who plays a
key role in the Marxist movement but that does not
enter into it at all.

For the record, most of the WSM's I know are working class and, in fact work for a living. The ones I know who are students come from working class backgrounds. Obviously our Marxist friend seems to think that getting an education is bad for working class people. They should be in factories all day, perferably ones owned by Marxists?

I've never been impressed by this "prolier than thou" attitude which some Marxists seem to enjoy
inflicting on the rest of us...

by Oliver O'Hern Sun May 19, 2002 22:46

I am afraid that the WSM must live in a different world from the rest of us. Certainly, I don't know any any marxist factory owners. Are you trying to give the board members of IBEC heart failure. As regards education, I am all in favour of proles being educated, since I am one myself.

by Ray Mon May 20, 2002 10:03

You know who I blame for the Fianna Fail victory? Those bloody trots. If they hadn't spent all that time working for their own loser candidates, and had instead got behind Fine Gael and Labour - the only possible alternative government - then maybe we wouldn't be in this mess now. Yeah, if it hadn't been for those selfish bastards then maybe we'd be sitting high on the hog, with Micky Noonan as the next Taoiseach, Ho Chi Quinn as Minister of Finance, and the Greens in charge of local government, making sure that councils and corporations were able to levy the charges that would grant them financial independence. But no, they wanted to see their faces on posters, and their names on ballot papers, the egotistical bastards, and now we're all being sent off to the workhouses, instead of the land of milk and honey that Noony had promised us. Thanks a lot lads!

by DrGroove - WSM Mon May 20, 2002 12:06 drgroove at eircom dot net

It truly is pathethic. Once again people failed to turn out and vote in their hundreds of thousands for either the SWP or the Socialist Party. Joe Higgins held his seat - primarily because he is seen by the people in Blanchardstown and Mulhuddard as someone who'll take on the councils and the government on specific issues. More of the passive - he'll sort it out for us politics.

The SWP had a really poor election - despite what they full timers may say internally to the poor young ones who've had to try and pull out a vote when they surely signed up to change the world- and had no idea that it would mean campaigning in a general election. Aine Ne Chonnaill (the
racist) got more votes than Brid Smith. The SWP Canididate who did best of all was Richard Boyd Barrett who got over 800 votes in the constituinecy of Dun Laoighre / Rathdown.

So then I come into work on Monday and - lo & behold there is this bitching session saying that Bertie wishes to thank the anarchists for his victory. I wish we had that much influence over
the general election - but in truth we didn't. Less people voted in this election than in the last one - and those that did voted for their own reasons which none of us can interpret. Finian McGrath got voted in - as people saw him to be a champion of community based politics. Some want a National Stadium, some want lower income taxes, some wanted to ensure that it wasn't a one party government, some wanted more of the same. Who knows ?

The reason why as Anarchists we don't call on people to vote is simple. We don't want to participate in choosing who are going to be our rulers - and who are going to make decisons that effect our daily lives without ever listening to us again for 5 years. This isn't idea of democracy or how it should work. We are not into the idea of leaders and led. It's only natural for the trots - who continue to use this dinosaur
model for a party structure - to put forward their "leaders" for a position in the Dail. But it isn't going to change jack shit. Lets hear from Joe what his voice has managed to stop in the dail in the last 4 years. Nothing. He is a lone voice - and if he was joined by 20 others - we'd still have to live our lives under the government and what it decrees. Our "anti-election" leaflet - if people go to the bother of
reading it rather than just attacking us - states that it the way you change society is by becoming involved in campaigns to fight the decisons made by goverment. Not by voting for a few Trots or
the fuckits of the Labour party or the guy who promises you cheap motor insurance.

This passive politics is over, we're either all going to get involved in the fight for a new society - or their isn't going to be one. It's sad that there are a few out there who see anarchists as the problem - rather than the politics of asking people to vote for "leaders"
in the party to get into the dail.

It doesn't matter who you vote for - the government always wins - and we are all going to have to work together to fight what it's going to bring in - which is privitisation. More & more
people see voting as a duty - to pick those who
are going to manage best the policies being dictated by big business & Europe. The Lefties
will try and convince them to vote for their candidates - I'd rather convince them that we can
defeat the agenda of beig business - by fighting
them everystep of the way - and ultimately I
want to convince them of an alternative that's worth bringing about by revolution. The job
of convincing them of that does not start with
asking them to vote.

Dermo
(personal capacity - WSM member)

by Ray Mon May 20, 2002 12:24

Just for the hell of it, I thought I'd have a look at where transfers from socialist candidates ended up. After all, the whole point of running candidates in elections is to spread socialist ideas, right? So you'd expect people who voted socialist to transfer to other radicals, right?

In my own constituency, Dublin South Central, where Brid Smith (SWP) was eliminated after the first count with 633 votes. Fair enough, the major beneficiaries of her transfers were Labour, Workers Party, and the Greens - your standard left reformists. But you also see 66 of her votes going to FF/PD candidates, and 23 to FG candidates. If that wasn't enough, 19 went to Aine Ni Chonaill! Looks like some of those voters didn't understand that they were supposed to be supporting Marxism!

In Dublin South, Lisa Maher (SP) was first eliminated, with just over 1,000 votes. Most of those votes went to SF, the Greens, Labour, and Karen Canning of the IHA. 150 went to Fine Gael - not very leftwing, but at least they're the opposition, right? Except 209 then went to FF/PD candidates. That's 20% of the SP vote transferring to the government parties.

What does that tell you about the people who voted for these parties? Can anyone still claim (with a straight face) that these are votes for socialism?

(In the other constituencies where SP/SWP people ran, transfers were impossible to track because of other candidates being eliminated)

by anarcho Mon May 20, 2002 12:33

Oliver O'Hern writes:

"I am afraid that the WSM must live in a different world from the rest of us. Certainly, I don't know any any marxist factory owners."

Two sentence, two mistakes! First,I'm not in the
WSM -- I'm not even in Ireland! Second, you never
heard of Engels? God, the education you get in the
SWP must be terrible!

"As regards education, I am all in favour of proles being educated, since I am one myself."

So why did you think it relevant to note that
some of the WSM were students? I think I know,
its just a sad attempt to attack anarchism by
implying its activists are not "really" working
class. As if that critieria bothers the SWP
when its Marx or Engels, or Lenin or Trotsky!
Or, then again, its own student activists...

As I said, "prolier than thou." Not impressive
at all.

by badman. Mon May 20, 2002 16:01

The original poster seems to be quite deluded. Anarchism is still a very little known set of theories in Ireland. If anarchists really did have enough influence to have a decisive effect on the outcome of the election then you would notice that the country would also be in flagrant revolt. Factories and workplaces around the country would be occupied, anti-racist mobs would have forced Noel O flynn to go into hiding and churches and cop shops all over the country would get burned down every weekend.

At the moment we are a small movement, albeit growing quickly across the world. Anarchism is only starting to have a name recognition in Ireland and anarchist ideas are still barely known here. Happily we have the tide of history on our side. Social democracy is dead and the ossified remnants of the Marxist movements are dying, damned to eternally fail to sell the theories which were responsible for two of the greatest authoritarian dictatorships the world has ever seen (China & USSR).

by chekov Mon May 20, 2002 16:13

Oliver, are you making up stories about WSM members being students at your local university? What university are you talking about? Why do you think it is relevant? Have you ever met a WSM member? Do you think that being able to travel to a continental European city disqualifies you from being a member of the working class? Are your insinuations just 'humour' or are you trying to blacken the name of a movement which you seem to know next to nothing about and understand less?

by Andrew Mon May 20, 2002 16:25

A few comments.

First off the original poster is fairly obviously a Shinner rather then a trot. In part because of what they list as 'the left' (SF and Greens) but more obviously because the only trot that was nearly elected was Clare Daly but there was no organised leafletting in Dublin north I'm aware of. However SF candidate Nicky Kehoe missed out on a seat in Dublin central by a small number of votes. Quite a lot of leafletting was done in Dublin central because quite a number of anarchists live there. In leafletting outside Phibsboro shopping centre at the start of the campaign we got a very positive reception with the acception of a FF canvesser and to a lesser extent a SF one.

Secondly they obviously don't get the point. Anarchists belive elections change nothing significant ie 'if voting changed anything they would make it illegal'. So whether or not our campaign made any difference to Nickys vote is not relevant to us. We were using the elections to point out the problems in 'representive democracy' rather then to 'take' votes off any candidate.

It's not surprising that a shinner would be unable to seperate mobilising people from getting them to vote for their party (the original poster oddly belives that convincing people that direct action rather then electoral politics is the way to bring about change will somehow mean people are less inclined to take direct action!). We have already read SF organiser Justin posting here that SF in relation to Nice and the Bin Tax was only interested in distributing party litreature rather then the litreature of the broader campaigns. With that approach obviously anything that weakens the party also weakens everything else because nothing can exist without the party. Of course this sort of 'logic' is exactly why we saw a need to campaign on the elections in the first place.

Personally I dougbt the anarchist intervention around the elections made any difference to who was and who was not elected. This wasn't its purpose. However by distributing 12,000 leaflets plus all the other activity we did manage to get a bit of a debate going about electoral politics of which this thread is one example. Ironically whoever posted this satire has actually helped us fulfill this original aim. Read more at http://struggle.ws/election.html.

by Oliver O'Hern Mon May 20, 2002 18:40

This is my last contribution on the "debate" of socialist standing in elections. First of all I am not a reformist. I have worked for many years for a revolutionary transformation of society. I believe that electoral work is an important element of the struggle. The election of radical candidates to the Dail is important. Campaiging work re solidarity with workers in struggle, and solidarity work with for example the Palestinian People also important. The two are not mutally exclusive. I will co-operate with any organisation or individual if there is an issue we are agreed on. I do not believe that ignoring the fact that the majority of people wish to take part in the electoral process serves any useful purpose. The level of political awareness in many areas is low, which explains why some voters could transfer from a socialist to a person such as Aine. The states that emerged in the former USSR and in the PRC were not socialist states where workers control existed but were deformed workers states rules by a stalinist bureauracy.

Joe Higgins has never said that workers should be passive, ther reverse is the truth, he has supported workers in struggle e.g the Nurses, Teachers amongst others. He played a prominent
role in the anti services charges campaigns and most certainly did not say that people should stay at home and leave it to him.

by Gregor Kerr - wsm member (personal capacity) Mon May 20, 2002 20:44 gregkerr at oceanfree dot net

Firstly, let me clear up one thing. I am a member of the WSM, I am a teacher, I am most definitely a member of the working class. Those who mix up the terms 'poor' and 'working class' do themselves and their political point a disservice.
Secondly, let me use an example to illustrate the point about electoralism and passivity. During the election there were two different posters put up in the area of Tallaght in which I live regarding the bin charges. One of them said "Axe the Bin tax. Vote No.1 Mick Murphy, Socialist Party." The other said "Don't Pay The Refuse Charges. We need YOU to help build the Campaign" and advertised a public meeting in the area on the issue. Three seperate leaflets which mentioned the charges came through the letterboxes. A leaflet describing Mick Murphy as the "Anti Refuse Tax Candidate" said "There is one issue in particular in which your vote can make a real difference and that's the refuse charges......The strong vote that Joe Higgins got in the Dublin West by-election in 1996 was crucial in forcing the abolition of water charges. Councillors are dur for re-election in two years' time. A strong vote for Mick Murphy now could do the same on the refuse tax. Mick is the only candidate in this election who you can really trust on this issue."
Two points here - Firstly despite the fact that Mick is one of the organisers of the 'Campaign against Refuse Charges' he failed to use the opportunity presented by producing a leaflet to state clearly (in fact to state at all!!) 'Don't Pay The Charges' even though Mick knows and anyone with half a brain knows that the only way in which the charges will be defeated is by building a campaign of mass non-payment. Instead he tells people that the way to defeat the charges is to elect him as a Councillor in two years' time.
Secondly, he repeats yet again the lie that the election of Joe Higgins defeated the water charges. The water charges were defeated for one simple reason - people wouldn't pay, the councils couldn't successfully take people to court, a massive campaign of popular resistance was built (in which Joe Higgins played an important part).
Another leaflet which was distributed in the area was the Dublin South West Sinn Fein newsletter 'The Fenian'. On bin charges it said "Councillor Sean Crowe is among Sinn Fein representatives from across the city and county who have called on all parties to stand with the people of Dublin against the payment of bin charges in the face of threats from local authorities..... Sinn Fein has campaigned against this unjust form of double taxation across Dublin and our councillors in Dublin City Council and South Dublin County Council voted against their introduction." Sean went on in the leaflet to say that he had met with representatives of the Association of Combined Residents Associations and NATO the National Association of Tenants Organisations 'which together represent over 1 million households [and] gave them a commitment that we would do all in our power to have this unjust tax repealed."
Again, no call for the only tactic that can be successful - non-payment. Instead a vague call for all political parties (does he mean Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, the PDs etc who voted in the charge??) to 'stand by the people', and a meeting with a couple of people who represent nothing. ACRA and NATO may have had some standing in the 1970s but I don't think even they claim to represent anything much any more. Certainly they didn't exist in any sense during the fight against water charges. One other thing, Sean forgot to mention that his party colleagues in Sligo voted for the charges!!
The third leaflet distributed in the area (a total of 3,000 leaflets advertising two seperate meetings was headed up 'Don't Pay The Refuse Charges. Build the Campaign' It outlined in detail 4 principal arguments against the tax and went on to say "The tactic of MASS NON-PAYMENT is the one which will see the defeat of these charges. If we don't pay there is nothing they can do about it......What we need to do now is to build the campaign at local level. This needs YOUR involvement..... To build the campaign at local level needs the involvement of ordinary people like you so please come along to the meeting and help build the campaign..."
It's a simple choice really - is politics to be about treating people as consumers (ie choose between Mick and Sean to voice my opposition to the charges) or about activism (ie me myself getting involved as an active player - not as someine who sells papers or delivers leaflets for someone else who does the political thinking but as an active participant in the formulation of ideas as well??
You can't do both - and those who claim they can always always end up forgetting the 'direct action' in favour of the 'vote for me'.
BTW the two public meetings were small but have resulted in approximately 25 people getting involved at a local level in starting to build the campaign. Which do YOU think will make more difference in terme of getting rid of the bin charges - the work those 25 and others will do over coming months knocking on their neighbours' doors, or the speeches Sean Crowe will make in Leinster House???

by anarcho Tue May 21, 2002 11:24

Hello all

"This is my last contribution on the 'debate' of socialist standing in elections. First of all I am not a reformist. I have worked for many years for a revolutionary transformation of society. I believe that electoral work is an important element of the struggle."

You seem to be missing the point of the argument. No one denies that at the start parties which
consider themselves "revolutionary" can take part in elections. The lesson of history is that such
parties do not remain "revolutionary" for long. They become reformist, less radical, they adjust
themselves to the system.

Secondly, electoral work changes the focus of struggle away from the streets and workplaces
into parliament, into the council chamber. Away from the masses and their own self-activity
and self-organisation and onto leaders. It hinders constructive activity and the building of a
militant working class movement.

"The election of radical candidates to the Dail is important. Campaiging work re solidarity with workers in struggle, and solidarity work with for example the Palestinian People also important. The two are not mutally exclusive."

You can do both, of course, but the results of both activities are different. The former placed the
emphasis on leaders who will act for you, places the focus for change to the top rather than from
below. The latter creates self-confidence, self-activity, self-organisation. It builds workers power
directly and encourages direct action, self-management and a real alternative to the current
system.

Its a question of what message you want to present. One which stresses the role of leaders and
voters or one which stresses the power of people to fight back and change things by their own
efforts.

"I will co-operate with any organisation or individual if there is an issue we are agreed on. I do not believe that ignoring the fact that the majority of people wish to take part in the electoral process serves any useful purpose."

The majority of people also support capitalism. Does that mean we do not try and undermine that
fact?

"The level of political awareness in many areas is low, which explains why some voters could transfer from a socialist to a person such as Aine."

I thought that one of the points of electioneering was to raise "political awareness"? Not doing a good
job of it...

"The states that emerged in the former USSR and in the PRC were not socialist states where workers control existed but were deformed workers states rules by a stalinist bureauracy."

Actually, even under Lenin there were not under workers' control. The Bolsheviks disbanded and
gerrymandered soviets to remain in power. Lenin always equated workers power with party power.
That is unsurprising, as a "workers' state" is a contradiction in terms.

"Joe Higgins has never said that workers should be passive, ther reverse is the truth, he has supported workers in struggle e.g the Nurses, Teachers amongst others. He played a prominent
role in the anti services charges campaigns and most certainly did not say that people should stay at home and leave it to him."

But that is the message he sends when he stands in elections. Otherwise, why would people vote for
him if they did not expect him to fight for them? The obvious lesson from his standing is that a lone
socialist can do little, so we need more of them. Then they can act for us so we do not need to take
to the streets... And slowly but surely the reformist seeds grow and before we know it we get
the German Social-Democratic Party part 2...

by J. Beerbelly Tue May 21, 2002 17:31

ok, let's see, anarchism hasn't existed anywhere (unless you suborn the "tribal" types in a rhetorical move of massive indirection and anthropological arrogance), and socialism hasn't existed anywhere..... the modern citizen is asked to choose between two unsubstantiated pipe dreams? Well, more than likely they will go for the minions of the status quo. At least the Stalinists and the Maoist managed a substantial increase in the life expectancy of their populations while keeping the consequent slaughter associated with industrialiazation pretty much within their borders. That's more than can be said for the US and the UK. Of course, the US borders were largely the result of a rolling continental genocide.

Idealists should not mix their Notions with the real world. They just end up getting confused and frustrated. You would be better off engaging in Sigil Magic wanking to depose the state. The perfect theory in your head isn't going to change anything. Take a hard look at reality and make a calculated compromise with the less than Perfect. That's probably as close as we will ever come to the Good. And it does not mean simply accepting the status quo.

by badman Tue May 21, 2002 19:48

Anarchists do not merely talk about the perfect future society, we also work towards it. The question for us is, what is an advance and what is not? For anarchists, whenever we can increase the self-confidence of the working class and its ability to organise itself, we have made an advance. We work within campaigns whenever we think that there is this potential, such as in the bin taxes campaign, even though we hardly think the bin tax being defeated is likely to lead to a perfect anarchist world, at least any time soon. We do not reject advances in themselves but we think that some advances, such as electoral victories, are in reality dead-ends and likely to lead to worse defeats to come.

by Andrew Wed May 22, 2002 10:52

The largest scale working example of anarchism to date was the Spanish revolution. July 1936 to mind 1938 saw quite large areas of Spain (and millions of people) living in what was the largest example of libertarain ideas been put into practise to date.

Stalin's industralisation and related policies led to famines that killed millions of people, Mao's 'great leap forward' probably killed 20 million. If this is your 'real politics' then no thanks. I choose slef-activity over brutal industralising dictatorship any day

The link below has lots of material on the Spanish revolution

by Robbie Wed May 22, 2002 22:50

Spain is offered as the best example of actual existing Anarchism. But whatever happened to Spain?

Well the answer of course is that this rare experiment in Anarchism was betrayed by the forces of Stalinism. So Stalinism is to blame.

But doesn' this show the major weakness of anarchism - its a nice idea, but its so nice that its longest existence was in parts of Spain for a few years at best. It was incapable of defending itself against authoritarian forces like Stalinism.

So why are we to believe that anarchism in the future would ever be able to defend itself against other forms of authoritarianism?

by Ray Thu May 23, 2002 09:16

Or Portugal? Or France? Or any other revolutionary situation? All previous revolutions have failed - does that mean that all future revolutions are doomed to failure?
No. No more than the successive failed attempts at heavier-than-air flight proved it was impossible. You examine what went wrong, you learn from the mistakes of the past, and in future you don't trust a Leninist any further than you could throw one.

by anarcho Sat May 25, 2002 17:47

"Spain is offered as the best example of actual existing Anarchism. But whatever happened to Spain?"

As is the Ukrainian revolution and a few others...

"Well the answer of course is that this rare experiment in Anarchism was betrayed by the forces of Stalinism. So Stalinism is to blame."

No, actually the answer is that the anarchists
were crushed between the fascists on ine side
and the Stalinists and Republicans on the other.
While the anarchists sought "anti-fascist" unity,
the Stalinists and Republicans used the threat of
Franco to attack the anarchists. Any fighting
was considered an aid to Franco, so defeat was
inevitable.

"But doesn' this show the major weakness of anarchism - its a nice idea, but its so nice that its longest existence was in parts of Spain for a few years at best. It was incapable of defending itself against authoritarian forces like Stalinism."

Actually, it was more than capable of defeating
fascism (the early gains were due to anarchists).
What it was "incapable" of overcoming forces which
had better arms and more troops, particularly when
one force used teh threat of the other to stop
the anarchists fighting them!

"So why are we to believe that anarchism in the future would ever be able to defend itself against other forms of authoritarianism?"

Simply because someone is betrayed and defeated by superior forces says little about anarchism. It
simply means we need to be better organised in
the future and not to make the same mistakes (like
creating a false "unity" against a common enemy).

It is significant that anarchist revolutions have
been defeated by outside force. The Russian Revolution
failed due to internal developments. As such, the
failure of the Russian Revolution says much more
about anarchism than the failure of the Spanish.

But a serious analysis of the problems facing the
Spanish Anarchist is the last thing most Leninists
present us with. Instead we get simplistic and
superficial comments...