Report on Spring 2007 WSM conference

by G TImony Sun Aug 19, 2007 14:09

Quote: 'New contacts were made in Venezuela'

What are these contacts? Know this is unlikely, but I hope these aren't in anyway associated with the allegedly stone-throwing (ex-Maoist according to a contact of mine) 'Bandera Roja' nuts who were protesting in favour of the coup supporting RCTV back in May (using the usual twisted stalinist logic-ie allying with the right against the false communist Chavez.etc or whatever)
http://www.aporrea.org/medios/n95624.html (coverage at Aporrea.org, a site supposedly maintained by 'grassroots groups' in Venezuela)
More at: http://www.rnv.gov.ve/galeria/thumbnails.php?album=70 ((coverage at RNV - Venezuela state radio/tv)
Sorry my spanish is practically non-existant so I have no ability to judge these 2 objectively.

Some coverage in English: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=2064 (pro 'Bolivarian' site related to Aporrea.org)

However I think anyone can objectively agree that anyone associated with these people are neither libertarian or socialist in any meaningful sense . Also the same applies in my opinion to anyone supporting RCTV. (think Fox network, Rupert Murdock, etc) . If these contacts of yours were supporting RCTV then dump them quick.

by Aragon Sat Jun 30, 2007 16:42

The EU produced a position paper on anarchists and other leftwing groups post 9/11. Anarchists in particular are defined either as 'terrorist' or 'pre-terrorist' - that last term is a bit worrying. A lot of those people in Guantanamo might be there on this sort of pretext. It fits in with the new international concept of preventative or pre-emptive war.

Probably many of you have already aware of this but in case not:

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2002/feb/10anarch.htm

by O Thu May 31, 2007 13:56

Okay point taken I withdraw the remarks.

by Padraic - WSM Thu May 31, 2007 13:41

Oliver said:

"Did one of your leading members not recently depart, issuing a damning report of the organisations internal hierarchies and its lack of a relationship with working class struggles?"

No, but a member who was never very active (I don't think he'd object to me saying that) did recently leave - and yes he gave a list of reasons why he was leaving. I wouldn't agree with much of what he said.

I do think though that its important that people can leave political organisations with everyone remaining on good terms. Are you just trying to stir shit? I'm guessing you must know the chap in question, even vaguely. He's well able to speak for himself - if I was you I wouldn't go putting words in his mouth.

by John - WSM (pers cap) Thu May 31, 2007 13:34

Ho ho Oliver, very good.

A member left becuase he disagreed with the politics and pratice of the organistation. It happens.
His criticism weren't shared by the vast majority of the membership.

As for giving the state more resources i know its a major break from anarchist tradition. As i am sure we all know Anarchist have always campaigned for privitisation in order to weaken the state.....

by Oliver Thu May 31, 2007 12:08

Did one of your leading members not recently depart, issuing a damning report of the organisations internal hierarchies and its lack of a relationship with working class struggles?

Have you not made a huge leap on your approach towards the state? Once you wanted to smash it, now you want to give it more resources.

Your sacsatic response Sean does not alter this much.

by Sean Mallory - WSM (pers cap) Thu May 31, 2007 11:08

Here oliver I was in rossport there for a while so I'm out of the wsm loop, what internal difficulties are we havin..........which side am I on........ oh how excitin.........are the knives out........

I think both of us should get a life, instead of talking political fantasy world.

by Oliver - Independent Anarchist Thu May 31, 2007 10:49

The WSM now wants to make stronger the state it wants to smash?

I understand they are having some internal difficulties, but this is a sommersault to far.

by Mark - WSM Wed May 30, 2007 11:39

id echo ois point about lending too much weight in terms of WSM's overall position on nationalisation generally. This motion, like all WSM motions and positions papers and policies, is not just static one, but one that reflects the flow of discussion and also of specific tactical demands within particular campaigns.

From my perspective, as an anarchist, the real challenge is in exploring what lies beyond nationalisation, what are the structures, mechanisms etc that will be the functioning socialisation of resources. sure it may be easier to make demands that the wealth created from corrib is spent on health education etc if corrib field was (re)nationalised but there is no guarentee that that would be the case at all.

just to muddy the waters, or to reflect more realistically the process of democratic and participatory discussion that lead to motions and postions, several WSM members have serious reservation whether this gas in corrib and dunquin should be extracted at all, or to what extent etc and no doubt this will be part of the conversations, debates and dialogues that form the external position of the organisation in future.

yeah so i think that the aforementioned motion needs to be seen in perhaps a much broader context than what this thread currently throws up. think its all useful though!!

by Antonio Trotsky - SP (Pers Cap) Wed May 30, 2007 09:18

I think there is too much nit picking and sniping on this thread. The WSM's call for nationalisation is a welcome one. We have our differences but I feel one of the benefits of debating with the comrades of the WSM is that you can do so in an open way without the bickering that you get from debating other left groups.

by Ois Tue May 29, 2007 19:46

I think there's a danger of Andrew over stating what the motion said. It was a motion on the nationalisation of Ireland's natural resources in the context of the Shell to Sea campaign and a natural resources campaign which we hope to develop with other socialists and working class activists. It was not a blanket call for nationalisation, nor did it raise nationalisation as a general demand. In the context of issues realting to natural resources and shell to sea I think this strategy makes some sense, as a general demand I don't think anarchists calling for nationalisation makes sense. Although not everyone in the WSM would agree with me on this. I think its important that the limited nature of the motion is noted.

by Pat R Onising - upity trot faction no.3 Tue May 29, 2007 18:29

"There IS a danger that people slide towards watering down the programme" would this be similar the slide that happens to organisations as they contest elections..............like say......... a certain organisation that avoided race in the local elections during the citizenship referendum.

by Joe Tue May 29, 2007 16:17

Err but thanks we already know what the 'transitional approach' is. It amounts to lying to the working class to get it to fight for things that the party knows capitalism will not conceed in order to provoke revolution. It's not really an approach that is open to anarchists for obvious reasons.

Our approach is to tell the truth as we see it and urge workers to fight for what we think they can actually win. It is our analysis that the act of winning even small victories encourages further struggle and self organisation. Defeats - especially defeats based on tricking people into fighting for what can not be won are just demoralising and while they might build your party in the short term they won't build a revolution.

Anarchism is around longer than the debate between the leninist, trotskyist and labour wings of social democracy about how best to advance struggles so your terminology and who sounds like what is not all that relevant to anarchism.

by SY member - SY Tue May 29, 2007 16:02

The fact that the de facto cricism of the SP&SY for caling for democratic public ownership is now replaced by a certain mirroring of the position is what I'm trying to point out. It is welcome. I'm glad ye are moving to a more transitional approac. Unfortunately from some of what you are saying it seems like you may be considering a minimum-maximum approach such as stalinists and old social democrats. At this point of change in the WSM i urge ye to read up on the transiional approach and read the trans programe too while you're at it. There IS a danger that people slide towards watering down the programme. But so far, so good.

Now, lets apply this new found transitional method to the state ;-)

by Joe Tue May 29, 2007 10:55

It still hardly translated to 'roundly attacked' though does it? I'm not arguing that out position hasn't shifted as the result of internal and external debate on this issue just that we have gone from being critical of nationalisation without really saying if we were for or against it to being critical of nationalisation and deciding we were for it as a winnable short/medium term objective. Our objective remains socialisation but that is an objective that is only possible in a revolution, we were sorting out what to look for in the meantime.

by SYer - SY Mon May 28, 2007 21:16

what abt:
"‘Nationalisation’?
While anarchists oppose the privatisation of state assets and services for the reasons discussed above, we do not call – as some on the left do - for the ‘nationalisation’ of services as a solution to problems. For example during the recent Irish Ferries dispute, the Socialist Party put forward as one of the ways in which the workers’ demands could be met (6)
- Take Irish Ferries into democratic public ownership in order to safeguard pay and conditions and to safeguard the shipping industry as a vital asset

But the taking of Irish ferries into public ownership would in no way ‘safeguard pay and conditions’. We’d be expecting the same politicians who are busily implementing the neo-liberal agenda to now take on the role of workers’ protectors. While I’m not suggesting for a moment that the Socialist Party are proposing this, it is important to point out that the ‘nationalise it’ or ‘take it into public ownership’ slogan is far too often spun out by people on the left without their taking into account that there is a massive difference between state control/ownership and workers’ control/ownership"

For one it ignores that the SP demand says democratic public ownership.

Anyway, i don't think anyone meant this as a real argument, its all perfectly understandable, just a sharpening of the WSMs position. No harm done. I think it was just raised as a funny little thing.

by Joe Mon May 28, 2007 19:58

That is a rather odd definition you have of 'roundly attacked'. From that article

What I am trying to argue is that while we don’t see nationalisation as the answer, it would of course be a significant development especially for the workers directly involved. In the Irish Ferries case, for example, presumably if the Irish government was the employer it would not have been as easy for them to pull the legal ruse of paying the workers wages lower than the Irish minimum wage. So while they might well have sought ways to drive down wages, their options would have been more limited.

Similarly many on the left have called for the re-nationalisation of the Corrib gas reserves off the coast of Mayo. While it is an absolute disgrace that the government gave these reserves away to Shell/Statoil for such a poor return (7) and that the billionaire owners of Shell, Statoil and Marathon stand to make a fortune from assets which should be rightfully owned by the Irish people, we all know that even if the revenues from the gas were still in state ownership, spending it on housing the homeless or reducing hospital waiting lists would not top the agenda of the government.

Their being in state ownership would however make more possible the type of political campaign which might force them to spend the moneys in the interests of the working class. A nurses’ strike to demand the Irish government invest the proceeds of the Corrib gasfields in healthcare would have a much greater likelihood of success than a similar action directed at the Shell management.

More like - some problems were pointed out IMHO.

But yes the policy more or less follows the line suggested above but comes down on the other side of the question in the end.

by Lim Mon May 28, 2007 17:20

See article on wsm and nationalisation in which calling for nationalisation is roundly attacked.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/77357

by Lim Mon May 28, 2007 17:13

I remember this too. WSM placed something on indymedia attacking others who talked about nationalistaion. Why the u-turn?

by sp supporter - SY Mon May 28, 2007 16:59

I think I remember reading a article y the WSM explicitly arguing AGAINST the demand of nationalisation, even criticising the SP for calling for public ownership under democratic workers control. I hope ye include that formulation, as obviously state owne companies are generally run by beaurocrats and run like private, cost-saving companies hence the need for democratic control. Also, i wonder is this change of policy down to the influx of newbies? ;-)