On the question of revolutionary resistance in South Africa...
>David, response:
>Not at all. Your initial reply to the critique stated quite clearly what
>you
>think "the people" should NOT do (i.e., go to prescribed marches, listen to
>speeches, organize as a disciplined political party). That's clearly a
>method
>of dictating tactics. So, I was just wondering what you'd suggest in the
>positive, since it seems rather easy to dis whatever's going on in the
>negative.
I don't think any legitimate anarchist organisation would never knock down going to proscribed marches and speeches, since such events can go eitehr way - they can either be the typical leninist platform of rhetoric, or they can develop into genuine interchanges between those involved in a sincere revoutionary movement. So please, do not equate mass marches/speaches with the organisation of a "disciplined" political party - this is not an accurate correlation, as history has very solidly shown that anarchists too organise such events to great success.
In opposition to the state apparatus, to the entire social relationships of capitalism, there are two main spearheads of anarchist theory in this realm. The first, and probably most widespread, is to organise Anarchist Federations that advance the revolutionary cause through agitation, a capable anarchist press, solidarity efforts, etc. The second is the creation of revolutionary unions that are anarchist in character, and seek to build economic resistance to the regime. Both of these approaches can work in common with each other, and obviously I am ommitting the details of this organisational work, since it would both require too much space to send an e-mail on this subject, and there are competent anarchist theorists/practioners who ahve written volumes on teh subject.
>This kind of goes without saying, but by criticizing the movements that are
>actually going on in places, it is very easy to make oneself sound like
>they
>are to the left of any political movement out there. (How easy is it, for
>example, to criticize third-world Stalinst or Maoist movements as despotic
>and "authoritarian." To me, this kind of thing seems to represent an
I don't think criticising current political movements is done to make oneself sound more "radical", but to increase the tactical effectiveness of real movements that exist in the here and now [at least it should be]. If theory isn't being tied to practice, then it is dead anyway, and there is no need to waste time discussing it here.
It is easy to critcise third-world stalinist and maoist movemetns as despotic and authoritarian because, quite simply, they exhibit some of the worst characteristics of such movements. The standard marxist reply to this charge is that "they're better than the ruling class in power now". And I have to concur, this is probably the case, and for this reason I wouldn't shed any tears for the Nepalese ruling class if they were overthrown by the CPN.
However, from an anarchist perspective, this "lesser of two evils" approach has historically not worked out. As anarchists, we strive for libertarian socialism, and not some marxist imitation of the capitalist state that rules over all in some presupposed benevolent fashion. Nor do we sympathize with the despotism of Maoist movements that sometimes borrow from anarchism's techniques of mass-organising [as the Bolsheviks did to appear more 'left' than they actually were].
So, when we criticise existing tactics, we are not saying they shouldn't engage in fierce revolutionary struggle, we are saying the opposite. We are saying that their form of struggle will, in the end, prove counter-productive to revolutionary aims. It is not a question of "organisation vs. non-organisation" or "struggle vs. non-struggle", but rather of "whose organisation and struggle will most effectively implement libertarian socialism?".
>envy of
>this type of power, rather than a bonafide mistrust...) Why not suggest
>viable alternatives, or at the very least seek a grounded explanation for
>why
>certain distasteful kinds of movements exist? But, in my opinion, a lot of
>the folks on this list who engage in that kind of rhetorical tactic seem to
>either a) ignore repeated requests for suggestions of what should be done
>in
>the positive, or b) answer those requests in a reactionary manner (i.e.,
>that
>"we" should "go back to the land", that trade unions should be broken up by
>the rank and file, etc.).
No anarchist would ever argue that anyone should "go back to the land" as a serious method of struggle. In some countries this is stupidity and commitment to a life of servile slavery, and in others it is almost suicide. Primarily, this class struggle is a struggle for control over land. There is no land to go back to, and no amount of organic vegetable gardens are going to stop the brutal, inhuman exploitation of our brothers and sisters. As anarchists, we recognize that class struggle, with the full aid of scientific progress and technology, is tantamount to the success of any revolutionary endeavour.
Red&Black Regards, Paul Finch
_________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com