I'm arguing an anarchist position here, albeit it take more explanation than a simple give and take allows.
> 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.
I never said that I was against marches and speeches. There are perfect times and places for these things. I enjoy a good speaker as much as the next comrade, but I think history has shown that a program of social change that consists ONLY of approved marches and speakers and permitted protest is not going to be one that makes any changes. This was the nature of the American Left in the years leading up to Seattle. Even the simple of idea of "civil disobedience' had been bastardized by activists who got PERMITS to do CD.
Let me include an extended quote from "Lefty" Hooligan which I pretty much agree with:
"If you read this column at all, you know I don't put much faith in the protest-politics-as-usual of marches and rallies. For me, protest needs to be civilly disobedient at the very least, and I really don't see anything changing without massive, sustained direct action in the streets of this country. I don't have a whole lot good to say about either the Leninoid Workers World Party dominated ANSWER coalition or the liberal/reformist National Coalition for Peace and Justice, though the latter is at least enthusiastic about civil disobedience. I'm willing to concede that, at the moment, strategic diversity will be needed to create effective grassroots opposition to a war on Iraq, although I think we should avoid expending time and energy on building national organizations and events, instead focusing on creating an anti-war presence at the local community level. National organizing will come out of community organizing."
"Liberal reformists can do what they're good at; letter writing campaigns, teach-ins, petitition drives, pressure on elected representatives, holding candidates' feet to the fire in the upcoming November elections, etc. This is the time for candlelight vigils at post offices or Federal buildings, and campaigns to send toys to Congress to dramatize the death of Iraqi children. CD-oriented pacifists should concentrate on local targets-offices of military recruiters and warmongering politicians, ROTC buildings and military bases, defense contractors and pro-war media-with sit-ins, blockades and peaceful occupations intended to illuminate a growing anti-war opposition to the public. It would be nice to foster a movement among American military reservists to refuse to fight in Iraq, much like the movement among Israeli reservests to refuse service in the West Bank. Those dedicated to direct action have plenty of locks to glue shut, computers to hack, secret plans to expose, supplies to damage, operations to sabotage and troops to subvert. For obvious reasons, further suggestions along these lines should not be committed to paper."
"The idea here is to build popular opposition to US war plans against Iraq in the next eight months through escalating protest events, actions and demonstrations in thousands of communities across the country, with the goal of heading off an actual shooting war. If US military aggression can't be averted, then the mass student strikes, mass union actions, mass rallies and demonstrations, and mass attempts to shut down Washington DC following the war's start can stand on and draw from this broad oppositional base."
WHAT'S LEFT? "Lefty" Hooligan http://www.huahuacoyotl.com/july02.html
> 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.
I don't know where Paul lives or what anarchist scene the is describing, but anarchists certainly support other forms of opposition to the state apparatus, the most significant being the decentralized "Net War" strategy being used by anarchists and libertarian leftists for the past 7 years. Paul maybe describing strategies that are common among anarchists in Europe or Australia, but these strategies are a minority tendency among American anarchists. At this time, the first strategy is being promoted by NEFAC in the U.S. The second strategy is represented by anarchists who work with the IWW and within less radical labor unions.
>> 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.
Thank you. My intention has never been to posit myself as being the most radical. Shit, if you knew anything about me, you'd understand that personally I'm not very radical. However, I think that we've learned alot in recent years about what works. Why are the anti-globalization movements growing? It's not because of any of the standard tactics being used, like marches or rallies. It's not because we're all trying to build one radical party.
> 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.
In most cases, I fail to see the difference. We understand what happens when these movements succeed. They replicate the old structure and frequently make life worse for those under their control.
> 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].
Agreed.
> 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?".
Yes, it's a matter of figuring out what works, especially when we don't have enough experiential knowledge to decide. But another thing to keep in mind is that what works in one part of the world may not work somewhere else. If we can learn anything from the century of authoritarian communism, it's that models aren't applicable and exportable to every situation. The Zapatistas will choose a path that is different than working people in the U.S. or Canada.
> 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.
I think most anarchists would disagree with that last statement, because we understand that there is a political angle to scientific progress and technology. These institutions imply certain relationships and systems. It doesn't take a wild-eyed primitivist to point this out.
I also think that the dismissal of "going back to the land" is an easy way to dismiss much of what anarchists have been arguing for over a century. We understand from ecology and other sciences that cities are unsustainable. If you doubt this, I invite you to experience Washington, DC on a Code Red day. Personally, I like cities, but I think that if our planet is to survive into the next century, we're going to have to change the ways that we live, especially in the Global North.
Chuck0
------------------------------------------------------------ Personal homepage -> http://chuck.mahost.org/ Infoshop.org -> http://www.infoshop.org/ MutualAid.org -> http://www.mutualaid.org/ Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/ Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/ Anarchy: AJODA -> http://www.anarchymag.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)