Dublin - interested in joining WSM?

by anarcho, sort of. Tue Jul 19, 2005 13:55

> interested in joining WSM?

No thanks.

by Nestor Tue Jul 19, 2005 22:40

Just a quickie, Why is there no 'all ireland' anarchist organisations?

Does the WSM have any interest in developing their organisation up in Norn Iron? They do have a focused anti-imperialist agenda.

As can be seen many times through discussion, even here on indymedia, those anarchos in Ulster have a strange sense of the history of the island and the anti-imperialist struggle.

What is happening?

Nestor

by Andrew Wed Jul 20, 2005 12:21

Your a bit off topic Nestor as this is a Dublin meeting called by the Dublin branches.

But both the WSM and Organise have the intention of being all island organisations - current geograohical limitations are a reflection of where members live rather than any decision not to allow membership from particular areas.

In our case if your outside Dublin or Cork (where the existing branches are) and are interested in joining then email us [email protected]

by MarioBros Wed Jul 20, 2005 20:05

2 branch is not island wide

by Sonic Wed Jul 20, 2005 20:16

"But both the WSM and Organise have the intention of being all island organisations "

So where did they claim that it was, Mario?

by Suzy Fri Jul 22, 2005 17:31

There is no time or place given

by snip Fri Jul 22, 2005 17:43

"If you're interested email [email protected] and we'll send you more details."

by Alanis Fri Jul 22, 2005 23:35

Does anyone find it ironic that the WSM are always haveing a go at the SP and SWP for wanting to recruit people

by Andrew Sat Jul 23, 2005 11:49

Err no we don't ...

There are problems with the way some left groups recruit - that is another conversation - but it is not the same thing as an opposition to asking people to join organisations in all circumstances.

by anarcho, sort of. Tue Jul 26, 2005 14:09

No thanks, because

1. wsm members are unapologetic about eating meat, in fact militantly express their right to do so - arguments i;ve had before - "its human nature" "its part of the food chain" "the working class eat meat" (!!) "crop farming also damages the earth" etc

2. wsm members are unapologetic about wearing nike and adidas, agruments included "someone has to make them" "if they get paid well then its fine" (they dont)

the paper's a bit crap too, despite graphix changes, content & style is still very similar again & again.

& no, I'm not interested in joining & "changing it from the inside"

by Gawdle - TTP - Personal Capacity Tue Jul 26, 2005 14:15

I presume that's a joke post... surely?

by Andrew Tue Jul 26, 2005 14:36

In my opinion an organisation that could dictate what its members wore or what they were allowed to eat would be far, far too cult like to be anything other than a gang of mates (or a cult). I certainly wouldn't be interested in such an organistion.

So we have members that eat meat and members that don't eat meat. There are some strong opinons on both sides. But if someone was to suggest that we should insist that members do one or the other they would rightly be looked at a little oddly. The same would apply to a suggestion that there should be some form of dress code.

by James - WSM Tue Jul 26, 2005 14:50

"2. wsm members are unapologetic about wearing nike and adidas, agruments included "someone has to make them" "if they get paid well then its fine" (they dont)"

Eh, I think you'll find we're in favour of workers' self managment and communism generally. More short term-wise, if you can suggest fair trade shoes or factories with a minimum of trade union working conditions or even a campaign to get these I'm sure there'd be a lot of interest. Like the "stand up for your rights" one that WSM members are involved in for starters.

by anarcho, sort of. Tue Jul 26, 2005 16:37

we'll have to agree to disagree on this, i dont think you could call yourself anarchist/anti capitalist while giving money to the capitalist and barbaric meat industry; likewise its not a "dress code", just an afirmation of a political stance not to support unfair working practices & expliotation in the far east

i imagine there are some ethics you wuold expect your members to adhear to, so i dont see why you couldnt adhear to these.

by Gawdle Tue Jul 26, 2005 17:36

....the left (in general) suffers. Elitism. Even justifiable ethical elitism....

Try and be a little more open-minded and perhaps the world will take notice.

Actually, you've no f*cking chance.

by Andrew Tue Jul 26, 2005 17:39

I'm not entirely unsympatheic to your position but if you give it some thought you'll see your essentially trying to impose a pretty restrictive set of codes of behaviour that would exclude 90% or more of the population.

That is the sort of thing that can work or even be required amongst a gang of friends but which for a political organisation would just turn it into a weird sect unable to break out of a very marginalised counter cultural scene.

It is also about how you think things can be changed. Is it be imposing on ourselves a set of more and more restrictive rules that in reality just swap one form or exploitation for another. Or is it by organising to do away with the system that gives rise to exploitation in the first place. You can do both of course - which is what some of our members choose - but you seem to argue for a form of politics that would really limit your ability to organise outside a particular sub culture..

by James R - WSM (Pers Cap) Tue Jul 26, 2005 17:53

However valid the arguments about industrial agriculture I find large aspects of veganism and animal rights stuff quite off putting. Personally, I don't think the soya industry is something that exists autonomosuly from industrial farming. Neither do I think it is clever to wear non-brand clothing just because you escape the usual ethical conundrums because you are ignorant of where a product is manufactured and your mates can't criticise you for it. I wonder is Linda McCartneys plants unionised? In the same way I wonder what conditions in chickpea and red kidney bean plantations are like? Do you place more value on human life than animal life? And at that, are the methods you use for animal liberation really that effective? For instance whats the point of liberating seven chickens with clipped wings as some rebellion within the terrain of empire when you do nothing to change the social relationship that produces industrial farming?

This was brought home to me in Dissent in Sterling when someone commented that there T-shirts were fantastic, because they were produced using fabric spray and stencils. Hence avoiding sweatshops. I flicked the collar back and found it was the same label t-shirt we in Dublin have ended up having our designs for fundraisers emblazoned on on multiple occasions.

I also don't think a social revolution will be brought about through ethical capitalism. For instance I can't afford to eat in the vegan hot spots of Dublin, places like Cornocopia, and Govindas are a stroming rip off in my opinion and I'd sooner eat from a Spar Delhi counter five times a week and afford it than starve four times a week and eat in Govindas once. Of course, that argument does not apply to the great work the people of Vegan Death Cafe do, but it certainly highlights that even if society were to adopt the points you make we would still be screwed.

In a situation like Sterling, I'm delighted to see vegan food left right and centre, as it means every one can eat. But I'd be hesitant to give up my right to call it 'vegan slop' if I don't like it. I'd also think it would be fucking stupid and irrational of me to argue that meat is all wrong, especially when I can go home and eat steaks from animals I have seen raised myself where you will eat chick peas from an unknwon source. Someone would still be screwed over in the punk store you buy your t-shirts in, and someones head may have been cracked open for passing out a union leaflett in a strawberry field.

That reminds me, in the early 1990's wasn't it the doen thing among Italian squatters to shop left and wear brands like Nike exclusively. Do you think this is selling out even though the product has been extracted from the market? This is a much more complex topic than "WSM members wear Nike and eat meat." Some do and some don't, but all of them stand for the liberation of humanity from a social relationship defined by profit and for libertarian communism. On that basis we work with common strategies to achieve that. I don't think consumer action and adopting ethical capitalism is the foremost way to get this. But a boycott against Coke in support of union struggle is effective. Are you just clearing you own conscience and living off the waste of industrial capitalism because you live in a society that facilitates that or do you want to strive for anarchism?

by james r Tue Jul 26, 2005 18:23

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=123890

If ye are subscribed...

by By Any Means Necessary Wed Jul 27, 2005 15:55

Agreement on your post.

There has been a bourgeoise tendency on the "right on left" to exclude and divide by elitism interpretations of what must be done, worn, eaten...it strikes of individualism and middle class thinking...

On the issue of "Meat is Murder", eat what you can and what you can afford...because the majority of this planet does not have the luxury of choice..when it comes to what they eat...

I have a question.."libertarian communism" is this syndicalism ?

by Andrew Wed Jul 27, 2005 16:02

Many syndicalists including the historic CNT would describe themselves as Libertarian Communists but not all libertarian communists would be syndicalists.

The term libertarian seems to have arisen when the self-description as 'anarchist' was banned in France after the 1871 commune. Anarchist groups and papers simply changed their name to libertarian.

Later with the Bolshevik revolution and the distortion of what communism meant the term libertarian communism became increasingly frequent to distinguish between the sort of bottom up self-managed communism anarchists wanted and the 'one man management' top down model of the leninists. Some marxists (incl I think the ISN in Ireland) also describe themselves as libertarian communists for similar reasons.

by By Any Means Necessary Wed Jul 27, 2005 16:08

Thanks

Why does the extreme right use the term libertarian ?

In respect to non-state intervention in individual choice ?

by Andrew Wed Jul 27, 2005 16:27

The use by elements of the US right of the term libertarian seems to have arisen in 1970's USA where there was no anarchist movement to speak of. Although what was left of the movement also used that term (eg Libertarian Labour Review).

From what I understand it was something of a strategy on behalf of the minimalist state right to take over the term because a good part of their strategy is to try and 'own' the term freedom so they can dress up all sorts of oppression as freedom. A fringe of them even called themselves anarchists for a while - they seem to have more or less given up.

I wouldn't describe that lot as on the extreme right - they are more classic liberals (hence neo-liberal) the neo-cons are on one on the right on both social and economic issues.

"... freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice
... Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality"

as an old Russian once observed

by The Other James Wed Jul 27, 2005 16:39

Syndicalism is a militant form of trade unionism often utlilising liberatian forms of organisation. Anarcho-syndicalism explicitly does so. The aim is to use workers' power in production, by marshalling workers in massive unions, as well as organising outside of the workplace to break capitalist and state power.

Sydincalism was also very useful in giving people practical training in direct action both in terms of disruption and in self-managment. Unfortunately there aren't many strong anarcho-syndicalist unions left, the CGT in Spain springs to mind. Syndicalism still strikes me as the best method for revolutionary change so things could take a while...

The right in the USA have taken to using libertarian, but without much justification. Possibly it stems from a strong individualist and anti-state current in American history some of which was progressive. Thoreau and Tucker for example. But modern day right-wingers have forgotton much of the original radicalism and while retaining the anti-state rhetoric are happy with privately contracted exploitation. It's a major contradiction, one which makes their use of libertarian a joke.

Still with a nice word like libertarian, it's attractive for people to appropriate it...nobody really wants to advertise their political philosophy as the "rampant exploiters party".

Have the ISN a website? After seeing the report of their conference I'm interested in reading their more on their theoretical background...what do they see as libertarian, why the aspiration for a mass party, tension between elections and libertarian and the function of the state now and in revolutionary situations. Libertarian isn't just a fancy word for being decent and upfront with your politics. Or if the website is up yet, I'll catch one of youse the next time there's a picket...

by a former US Libertarian Wed Jul 27, 2005 16:40

in America 'Libertarian' usually means free markets and really meaning it - as in legalising drugs, for example and it means socially liberal as well - gay rights and so on. One of the US Libertarian Party's mottos is 'Free Markets - Free Minds' - many would even call themselves 'anarcho-capitalists' or even Individualist Anarchists.

its a different paradigm over there :-)

But an old joke says that a (US) Libertarian is really just a (US) Republican who smokes dope.

And this is true to a large degree - they do smoke a lot of dope and hallucinate Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand having sex, mostly.

But the Libertarian meme-phrase has expanded in recent years and spread to this side of the atlantic. Now the Chicago Boys in Ireland's 'Freedom Institute' ( http://www.freedominst.org/blog.html ) like to call themselves 'Libertarian'.

But for them, I suspect, it is the same kind of rhetorical slight of hand as smoking dope when you're US Republican - a convenient way of disassociating one self from the ugliness that has become the US Republican Party.

The Freedom Fries Guys don't want to associate themselves from the likes of Tom Delay , Tom Tancredo, Pat Robertson and other wingnuts - so they take a holier than thou 'intellectual' stance and call themselves 'Libertarian'

US Libertarian Party: http://lp.org

by By Any Means Necessary Wed Jul 27, 2005 16:43

Nice one

Use of extreme right obviously wrong...how do libertarian communists view the "dictatorship of the proletariat" or this model outmoded 21st century ?

by Andrew Wed Jul 27, 2005 16:51

You get semantic arguments over just what this might means so some don't mind it.

But the historical context of this phrase was a party dictatorship over the proletariat as in Russia.

But even before this anarchists had (rightly) asked how in any real sense of the word dictatorship you could have a dictatorship whose members were in the majority in society. They suggested (and it turned out to be true) that the phrase would simply be camoflage behind which the leadership of a self defined 'party of the proletariat' could rule.

In the modern world where 80% of all countries are workers then it is really meaningless. For anarchists a revolution involves workers taking over their workplaces - and that includes the newspapers and TV stations. The bosses end up in a tiny, tiny minority (2% or less) - 80% does not need a dictatorship to imposes its will on 2%.

by By Any Means Necessary Wed Jul 27, 2005 17:08

Why is there so much criticism of anarchist thinking from leninist / trot parties, when, it seems to me that the organisation of society, after the workers revolution seems to be similar...

by Andrew Wed Jul 27, 2005 17:21

This all comes down to the question of how do you get there.

Leninists believe that their party has to seize power on behalf of the working class - thus the greatest problem is anything that might undermine the chances of this happening - like another party or organisation that appears to stand for something similar.

Anarchist believe that if a party seizes power then the revolution will be doomed to dictatorship.

So although the eventual communist society both talk of looks similar from the point of view of both sets of ideas the other cannot deliver such a society. In fact it can only undermine it.

by Michael McDowell Wed Jul 27, 2005 17:28

How can Anarchists achieve anything when the powers that be will do all they can to maintain the status quo (or turn it to their favour even more). Every time in history when anarchists have got going someone always put the stoppers on them Lokk at Spain in the 1930's or the Ukraine just after the Russian revolution. Anarchists always come to grief, not because they're wrong, but because other people - cops and soldiers - destroy them when they seem to be winning. How can anarchists survive when confronted with such brutality?

by James Wed Jul 27, 2005 17:30

Probably because they're not as similar as they sound. Leninists postpone the anarchist form of organisation to the far distance future when the objective conditions which make it possible appear. I think it was Trotsky who said that under socialism every human would have the capacity for genius like Mozart, but for now an iron dictatorship was necessary to get there.

Anarchists think the iron dictatorship will never voluntarily leave the stage. So, in short, Leninists think we're naive in terms of organising to overthrow capitalism now, while anarchists think they're naive in what will happen with the rule of a party, no matter how well intentioned, during a revolutionary situation. Maybe we're both right!

An old indymedia debate on the subject:
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60525&time_posted_upper_limit=1059019200&time_posted_lower_limit=1058932800

by Andrew Wed Jul 27, 2005 17:35

We've had civilisation for around 12,000 years and for the first 11,800 or so years that meant autocratic kings or (at best) 'democracies' where women were property and labour was mostly provided by non-voting slaves.

There were rebellions throughout this period (well OK the oldest I know of is a strike by the tomb workers in the Valley of the Kings arond 2500 BC).

So I'm sure in the 1760's there were no shortage of characters going 'a republic - that will never catch on' sure didn't they crush them everywhere that was tried. Fortunately not everyone gave up on the idea.

by Michael McDowell Wed Jul 27, 2005 17:42

For the groundswell of popular support a revolution needs, don't conditions have to be totally shit. I mean things like the Spanish, Russian and (maybe) Cuban revolutions all sprang from a population that had been totally shafted by those 'in charge'. In that case, won't Ireland have to become a total kip before people will be angry enough to rise up. And if Ireland does hit the skids, isn't emmigration more likely than revolution? Or to go back to my earlier point, won't the government just crack heads?

by Andrew Wed Jul 27, 2005 17:49

The idea that things have to be desperate in order for a revolution to break out has historical counter examples. Paris '68 is what is usually given but even the Spanish revolution actually broke out at a time of less repression than any of the 30 odd years before it.

It depends by what you mean by revolution - if what is really meant is a coup that brings a minority to power than yes times of desperation can be central. They allow a small group to first of all take advantage of chaos and then once having overthrown the old way use the excuse of chaos to impose their rule.

But for anarchists revolution is part of a process - much of which has been completed before the revolution breaks out. The revolution occurs when the right moves against a growing movement not when the party decides the time is right for a coup.

Quite how this relates to current Irish conditions is of course the big challenge but its clear that the Irish revolution will not occur because there is a famine in progress. It will happen when all of us working here not only decide there is a better way to organise things but have taken the first steps in doing so. That is a process that at one level or another goes on every day.

by Michael McDowell Wed Jul 27, 2005 17:56

Say, lots of people go and find out about anarchism and think its right. How do they then go about creating a way of life that puts them in the driving seat? Surely it would take the coorination of, basically, everyone in order to ensure that the vested interests don't float to the surface again.
I think anarchism is a good idea, and know it can work. But i imagine most of the others on this island haven't a baldies...

by Andrew Wed Jul 27, 2005 18:00

That is the challenge for the tiny anarchist movement that exists here - to popularise the idea so that most of the population is willing to act on it.

Not going to happen tomorrow but what matters is that this day and every day we take a step towards it (to paraphrase an old Italian)

by Michael McDowell Wed Jul 27, 2005 18:03

Who is this old Italian?
What kinds of 'propaganda'/advertising do the anarchists here use? Have you thought about TV spots like in the run up to an election? Or radio spots? Or newspaper ads? Or bill posters? Or ISP pop-ups?
Just wondering...

by Barry Wed Jul 27, 2005 18:03

Its not that far off . Therell be thousands of people on the streets feeling very patriotic and revolutionary. Thats the time to go for it . Start tooling up now , draw up your hitlists for who goes up against the wall / under the guilloitine and be prepared to lead from the front .. This time lets make sure we get them before they get us . McDowell , Ahern , Myers , OConnor , Harris and all their west brit capitalist chums and corrupt paedophile judges and Shell executives hanging from the lamposts from Parnell Square to Portabello .

Like Spartacus with a happy ending .

The flames from their gasoline soaked carcasses lighting up the Easter night .

What a thought .

by Michael McDowell Wed Jul 27, 2005 18:09

I'm not too keen on the burning bodies (incinerating mad cows pollutes the atmosphere), but the idea of a 10 year target for promoting an anarchist agenda isn't such a bad one.
Maybe the best way would be in tandem with spreading ideas, try setting up co-ops on anarchist bases and holding them up as examples that it can be done without having the peelers storm in and kill everyone.

by Barry Wed Jul 27, 2005 18:20

But seriously though , if anarchism was to have a chance in this country youd need an awful lot of people , with an awful lot of guns prepared to kill a shitload of people who got in their way .
Im not necessarily advocating it . I just dont reckon the capitalist west brits would ever give in unless you physically slaughtered them .

by Andrew Thu Jul 28, 2005 12:18

This thread went a bit crazy overnight.

I'm not too keen on all the revolutionary terror stuff Barry - experience shows that it tends to push the wrong sort of people to the top of the pile and the terror can turn onto the revolution itself. In a bitter struggle like a civil war all sorts of nasty shit can happen but if you want a free society at the end of it then trying to minimise that sort of stuff makes a lot more sense then glorifying it.

The 'old Italian' was a guy called Malatesta http://struggle.ws/anarchists/malatesta.html

The proper quote is
"The point" Malatesta wrote in A Conversation Between Two Workers, "is not whether we accomplish anarchism today, tomorrow, even within ten centuries, but that we walk towards anarchism today, tomorrow, and always."

In terms of 'propaganda'/advertising' lack of money limits what we can do at the moment to printing and the web. In printing terms we do 6,000 copies of a free newspaper every 2 months and 1,000 copies of a 1 euro magazine. You can read/download a PDF of the paper from http://struggle.ws/wsm/ws/2005

The ambition would be towards a daily paper, radio stations and maybe even TV but that is a long way away as yet.

by Plato Thu Jul 28, 2005 12:25

Its funny how all these left wing worker movements are all fronted by machiavellian D4 or Blackrock types.
Daddy being at the Bar they must simpy "insist" on tose awful commoners dignity, jolly good.
Then after the few years as head of the Union in Trinners they join the revolutioinary Finegael for Dublin south east!
Power to the erm....... workers.

by By Any Means Necessary Thu Jul 28, 2005 12:28

Middle class guilt.

by Andrew Thu Jul 28, 2005 12:29

I think you might have us mixed up with someone else - either that or you've a desperate need to say something critical coupled with a chronic lack of imagination. Can we have the hippies/dogs on string thing next please - or do you not do requests?

by Curved Ball Thu Jul 28, 2005 12:48

I'm sure Barry is building up to saying he'd rather be a paki than gay.

by Gary Baldie Sat Jul 30, 2005 10:57

This has gone a bit too far hasn't it kids, well really!

So the WSM has only members in Cork and Dublin then?

Is there any members North of the border who agree with your line on the IRA, Ireland and Anarchism.

Is the reason for a partitionist anarchist organisation due to the fact that the south anarchists don't agree with those up in the north or that type of thing.

We never hear of Anarchists in the North or what they stand for or what they get up too, do we? It is always the same green or orange views.

by Barry Sat Jul 30, 2005 12:06

When in the name of Jaysus did I start making NF football chants ? what balls . Insult me all you want but theres no feckin basis to that one .

For all you know I might well be of Asian origin , sitting here in hotpants , leather vest and cowboy hat listening to the village people, wondering whether my flan in the oven will rise to the occasion .

Those kinds of chants are never heard at Clones, the home of civilised sport and people . Where did you hear it ?