Yeah, I know that the IAC thinks highly of themselves, but they are mostly irrelevant. I'm pretty sure I know what the IAC says about anarchists, since I get these deceptive emails from IAC supporters all the time. Did you know that they ask their members to send emails to critics like myself, asking me to stop being "sectarian?" It's funny, because I turned the tables on the last IAC supporter who pulled this stunt on me and got him to start defending the government of North Korea.
Let's make a simple comparison: who is getting calls from the media, the IAC or anarchists?
Hmmm, that must explain why I'm quoted in Diario (italy) this week in their cover story on the black bloc.
> >How else would the anti-globalization movements have sprung up? There must
> >be something going on outside of the Stalinist current/
>
> Unfortunately, much about the anti-globalization movements and
> "anti-capitalism" are quite amenable to Stalinist doctrines, such as the
> popular front idea we keep mentioning. Think about it: mainstream labor
> unions, liberals, NGOs, worn-out '60s radicals, academics.... top it off with
> a few communist revolutions brewing in the 3rd world, and you've got a
> Stalinist wet dream!
I'll bet they are having a wet dream, hampered by nightmares about anarchist whiping the floor with their collectivized asses.
But the IAC, like many sectarian Leftists, doesn't understand the nature of the anti-capitalist movements. They try to get rid of anarchist practices and methods, not understanding what our overall strategy is.
I find this situation to be very amusing.
> >I don't understand why the Left doesn't unite around marginalizaing the
> >IAC, which is the most annoying and disruptive of the Stalinist groups.
>
> Perhaps because it is impossible to determine where popular-front Stalinism
> ends and most Leftism begins? Popular-front Stalinism thrives on the
> meandering eclecticism and lack of ideology that is so characteristic of the
> Left.... even many anarchists! Is it any wonder why there is any such thing
> as a "Che-Leila brigade"?
I dunno, I can handle many different kinds of leftists, including Trots and Maoists, but the IAC has a proven track record of disrupting the movement. This is old news, on this list. Liza has written about this in several of her excellent pieces.
> >> David:
> >> How is it that you can speak for an entire tendency within the
> >> "anti-capitalist movements"?
> >
> >I speak for the tendency because I know the tendency.
>
> Stalin: "I speak for the workers because they are close to my heart."
> Clinton: "I feel your pain!"
Chuck0: I have ears and eyes and understand what is being said and written. I'm just the messenger.
> >Yes, but the use of the movements to conduct "netwar" is something
> >different. Harry Cleaver has explained thisthink any one group or person can
> claim to "represent"
> >> the anti-globalization movements in any hegemonic sort of way.
> >
> >Right. This is an important fact to understand. The movements have been
> >successful because there are many currents. My problem with groups like GR
> >is that they want to claim that THEY are THE movement. I'm sure they do
> >some good activism, but if they decieve people about the nature of the
> >movements, then that is a problem.
>
> And as for those who say they "speak for the tendency because" they "know the
> tendency"?
There is a difference. I'm speaking the truth about the nature of the anti-globalization and anti-capitalist movements. I can dig up any number of articles which support my supposition. GR is simply pursuing the Leninist goals of their parent organization.
> >Wouldn't it
> >make more sense, if you were pursuing a strategy of class war, to
> >encourage the workers to take their fight against the capitalists?
>
> Well, yes and no. It also depends what you mean by "strategy of class war"--
> I don't think we're necessarily thinking of the same thing. The only way that
> workers can better their situation while bolstering meaningful forms of
> production is to advance politicaldemands and gain power as a class.
I say that this is precisely the problem! You say that this is "the only way," much like many labor-oriented leftists who refuse to think outside of the box.
> The
> demand of increased wages, simultaneous with the immediate reduction of
> working hours, cannot be delivered by capitalists but by workers who fight,
> independently as a class, for state power.
LOL! You ain't going to get any agreement from me about that state power bit!
Soviet Union, China, and so on. Good examples of what happens when working people fight against the ruling class and then see their revolution taken over by a new class of power and privilege.
> If it is street fighting, acts of
> terrorism, and decentralized wildcat strikes that you consider to be "class
> war," then you're simply asking the state to pile up a lot of dead
> syndicalists on the ground....
Ah yes, putting more words into my mouth. Lots of people on that list have been doign that today! I imagine that my mouth has been so stuffed, that I have a few good speeches that should be given really soon.
> >Again, these are just writers and speakers. When I think of leaders, I
> >think of natural leaders in the movement, like Lisa Fithian or Nadine
> >Bloch. Or the women who organize the black blocs. Or the numerous local
> >organizers.
>
> Okay, so you concede that the anarchists, too, have their leaders. And this
> is true. Lack of a formal leadership structure, in a society with centuries
> of history rooted in hierarchy, merely ensures that those with more
> experience, access to resources, or louder voices are going to dominate.
Sorry, but that isn't what I said. I would call these people 'natural leaders,' in the anarchist sense. They are respected for their experience and skills and voice, but they have no special power to order people around. They are all accountable to the greater movement.
> >Because the anti-globalization movement was really kicking ass when there
> >were lots of different people involved.
>
> I seem to remember the Worker's World newspaper also lauding the Jubilee 2000
> movement for the same reason.... interesting....
>
> I assume the "kicking ass" equals your "successful" above. You defined
> success, above, as getting a lot of press and scaring the capitalists. So was
> it those Christian ecumenicals who really tipped the balance when they made a
> ring around that stadium and got Bill Gates to crap his pants?
When did Bill Gates crap in his pants?
If you speak of Seattle, I would say that it was successful because many different groups participated.
I think it can be argued that the black bloc tipped the balance, but I've always maintained that Seattle was successful because of its unity through diversity.
> >I don't know. There is far more temp work now and capitalism has been
> >globalized.
>
> Yes, you're right. There's much more contingent labor without unions,
> benefits, contracts, right to unionize, or worker protection laws. There's
> more unemployment, too, pushing people into the informal sector. Whaddaya
> know, just like the early 20th century!!!!
You just refuse to see it, don't you?
> >I don't want to see workers have it worse. Shit, I can't even make rent
> >this month so I can understand the desire to hang on to the little that
> >you have. But I wonder what could be done to radicalize the unions from
> >within.
>
> Well, for one, there needs to be a worker's party, an entity that fights for
> workers in the political arena. These should be financially based in the
> unions. There also exists many opportunities to agitate within the unions
> themselves, to elect more progressive leadership, and mutiny in the case of
> power-grabs and purges. There is also a growing sector of non-unionized
> service workers who could potentially form radical unions.
Oh brother, not another worker's party!
> >I'm simply stating that the goal of syndicalist, socialists, and others is
> >to shepard workers into big organizations, be they parties or unions. That
> >becomes the goal and not empowering workers to fight capital.
>
> Now, this is a really broad-brushing statement, one which seems to ignore
> even the political efforts of progressive unions. Besides, workers join
> unions to better conditions for their families, not to get "shepherded"!
Yes, workers join unions to get better short term benefits for their families, which is something that is needed, but this is merely reformist unionism.
<< Chuck0 >>
Personal homepage -> http://flag.blackened.net/chuck0/home/index.html Infoshop.org -> http://www.infoshop.org/ Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/ Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/ Anarchy: AJODA -> http://www.anarchymag.org/ MutualAid.org -> http://www.mutualaid.org/ Factsheet 5 -> http://www.factsheet5.org/ AIM: AgentHelloKitty
Web publishing and services for your nonprofit: Bread and Roses Web Publishing http://www.breadandrosesweb.org/
"...ironically, perhaps, the best organised dissenters in the world today are anarchists, who are busily undermining capitalism while the rest of the left is still trying to form committees."
-- Jeremy Hardy, The Guardian (UK)