|
|
Blog Feeds
Anti-Empire
The SakerA bird's eye view of the vineyard
Public InquiryInterested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Voltaire NetworkVoltaire, international edition
|
The Case for Anarchism national |
anti-capitalism |
other press
 Saturday April 05, 2008 17:04 by Cael - Sinn Féin Poblachtach
 An invitation to Anarchists to join a debate with Republicans. A discussion has been started on the Irish Republican Bulletin Board (IRBB) titled The Case for Anarchism. A few papers have been posted to give readers an overall view of the basics of Anarchist political philosophy and Im hoping that some Anarchists would take part in the debate. There is good moderation on the site and no personal abuse or disrespect of other posters is tolerated, so be assured your contributions will be read with interest and respect. Although the Republican Movement has traditionally favoured a model approximating to state socialism, Eire Nua and its federalist proposals certainly aim at closing the massive gap that now exists between the rulers and the ruled. One thing that Anarchists and Republicans can certainly agree on is that Leinster House and Stormont Castle are the problem - and can have no part in the solution. However, there is no point in replacing two undemocratic impositions with a single undemocratic one. |
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (38 of 38)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38Needless to say, everyone else is more than welcome to join in too.
So we can now say there is an anarcho-republican tendency?
How can they pay homage to the Provisional Government proclaimed in the 1916 Proclamation?
Good to see that republicans are at last looking to the genuinely human centred values of anarchism , Cael , and away from all the old divisive rhetoric . While we may still have disagreements I'm certainly in agreement when you write:
"One thing that Anarchists and Republicans can certainly agree on is that Leinster House and Stormont Castle are the problem "
Anarchists should certainly not fear to seek a positive engagement with representatives of what was once called " the terrorist community " if such is the current analysis of the republican movement . It is a position that in many ways accords with our own attitude to nations . For far too long republicans have been wedded to the simplistic notion that so-called British imperialism was responsible for what Cael has correctly identified as "the problem".
It is now surely time to move on to a more equitable and balanced appraisal of that problem . Anarchists I am sure will be happy to facilitate such a radical appraisal and ,dare I hope ,reappraisal in any way we can.
will you be joining the debate then then, moderate anarchist? I enjoy reading the IRBB and hope some anarchists take Cael up on this could make for great reading!
Maybe you should post the invitation on the forums at www.libcom.org ? You might get a response there.
If you want a real debate and not a slagging match avoid Libcom
For a debate you need an opinion to debate and right now the only think to engage with on that thread are some very long and very old copy and pastes from Lenin and other social democrats.
There are a number of modern Irish anarchist writings on republicanism that would probably better represent a better starting point, some from republican who became anarchists like the text at http://www.indymedia.ie/article/68536 (scroll down, the text is posted as a comment towards the end of that thread) and others that are based on a historical study of the republican movement like http://www.indymedia.ie/article/82828
I'm on the road right now (Gainsville, Florida to be exact) but if someone wants to start a thread based on a personal reply rather than a long cut and paste from Lenin etc to these I'd be happy to participate when I've time. That probably applies to other anarchists as well.
Hi Andrew, a chara, thanks for you suggestions - that just the sort of think I was hoping for. Its probably inevitable that we start off with getting a historical overview - even if the texts are a bit long. Many people have a very false idea of what Anarchism is really about.
The first text is very recent, though, and talks about recent anti-globalization protests.
Andrew, a chara, Im not able to download your PDF file for some reason. If you have time would you post it on the IRBB. Go raibh maith agat.
I have asked a question on the thread as to how "policing" would be organised if the state ceases to exist in its present format (or ceases to exist entirely.) I havnt been able to find an answer to this in the reading I have done on the subject of Anarchism. Perhaps someone would post a reply on the IRBB:
As far as I know the idea is that if you get rid of all private property there will be no need for crime and no need of police.
??
The article at http://www.wsm.ie/story/1679 looks at crime in some detail
In this article Gregor Kerr takes a look at the issue of community policing - what it is and more importantly what it isn't. The question of what levels of real community policing would actually be possible or allowed under capitalism is looked at, and the debate about crime, anti-social behaviour and reactions to it in an anarchist society is touched on.
That's quite a good article - but a bit short for such a big question. The Republican Movement has never felt punishment to be particularly useful, but, unfortunately often just did what seemed expediant at the time. I dont think there is any excuse for this in the future (if there ever was). Revolutionaries falling into the bad habits of the old society dosnt make much sense. The whole idea of a police force is to admit that society is set up as a conflict between the propriators and the disposessed. The Gardaí and PSNI still keep the colonial type military uniform, which is clearly designed to intimidate. In a society were the freedom of the citizen was paramount - and not the protection of privilege and private property - there would be no question of having a paramilitary style police like the Gardaí. Indeed, most functions that are now given to the police would be better delt with by professionals such as community workers and psychologists. Gaols have no place in a civilised society. Anyone who really has to be incarcerated really needs to be in a mental hospital - not a prison.
''Crime, prison and punishment : An Anarchist view.''
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/wsm/crime.html
Dozens of archived Articles here.
Caol, its very interesting to see that you've taken such an interest into Anarchism and its ideas. Especially to go as far as start a number of threads on the IRBB forum on the topic.
Ive always thought that in many ways rsf has an anarchist current what with their emphasis on decentralisation etc just glance rsf is a very intresting political entity as their policies are also more green than any green party i know that they are neither text book marxists or anarchists (and that isnt a bad thing imo) but that many of the ideas found within rsf thought overlap with these.
I think Eire Nua and Saol Nua certainly tend in the same direction as a lot of Anarchists. Direct Democracy is used on all policy decisions in RSF and federalism is, of course, a central policy. Motions at the Ard Fheis are generated organically from the whole membership and not just imposed by the leadership and simply rubber stamped by a meaningless vote of the party hacks. I have to admit that I had a rather ignorant view of what Anarchism actually is. Unfortunately the name has been so misused by ruling class propaganda that people think its all about running riot with no law or order. Of course this attitude is based on the same belief that leads us to have such ridiculous laws about when you can and when you cant buy a drink (the idea being that the Irish working class are such a lot of hopelessly drunken sots that if they were allowed to make these kind of decisions themselves they would never be sober enough to go to work and make some money for the Landlord class - who have so much of our money that they really can stay drunk all day.) So, I am really just starting to study Anarchist texts.
"As far as I know the idea is that if you get rid of all private property there will be no need for crime and no need of police. "
Surely the only manner in which private property could be abolished would be by making some sort of binding decree , a law in other words . Anyone hoarding private wealth would therefore be commiting a criminal act in some manner . Presumably there would also need to be a body of individuals prepared to enforce the no private property decree . Cant see that one working tbh .
Someone: "As far as I know the idea is that if you get rid of all private property there will be no need for crime and no need of
Barry: "Surely the only manner in which private property could be abolished would be by making some sort of binding decree , a law in other words . Anyone hoarding private wealth would therefore be commiting a criminal act in some manner . Presumably there would also need to be a body of individuals prepared to enforce the no private property decree . Cant see that one working tbh ."
1. It depends on what you mean by private wealth. Anarchists, when discussing private property, are referring to things like factories, roads, hospitals etc being collectively owned and run by the people as a whole. We’re not talking about you guys saving up for a few extra sets of underpants. We are against the exploitation of other folks, so if your wealth derives from that it won’t be recognised as yours.
2. . Presumably there would also need to be a body of individuals prepared to enforce the no private property decree . Cant see that one working tbh .
Anarchists advocate particular structures (e.g. directly democratic workers and community councils) with which people can run society, so there will be institutions for making and enforcing laws. Murder, rape, theft etc will obviously be illegal in a libertarian socialist society. While it is true that the ending of class society will remove much of the basis for crime, and therefore the levels of crime should be greatly reduced, it would be suicidal to not have measures in place to deal with situations where basic norms are being flouted.
If there are no such measures, then either the most ruthless will elbow their way back to domination through sheer violence or else charismatic leaders will be able to convince the population to give them the power to impose some order. Either way, a self-managed society goes out the window.
The important question for anarchists is how laws are made and how they are enforced; is it done by a police force of one element of society, i.e. one which enforces class rule of a tiny minority of wealthy capitalists or a party leadership, i.e. through a state. Or is it done under the control of workers’ councils? There aren’t any working crystal balls lying around, but recognising the usefulness of democratic structures that facilitate ordinary people running society is a necessary first step.
Some ideas on a future society
I think there will always be an anti-social element who want to profit off the labour of others, hoard capital and commit other crimes against society. You would certain need some effective measures against these criminals. If the community members were strong enough themselves, I doubt if they would actually need a paramilitary style police like the Gardaí to deal with them.
Of course, there is the fact that if any genuine democracy emerged it would come under immediate attack form the neo-liberal powers of the
US and the EU. They may not overtly send in the gunboats, but they would certainly fund terrorist campaigns against democracy. There would be a need for a strong army to protect the people from such attacks - again pushing us further towards a state set up. Such an army, under constant foreign attack would tend to develop into a very powerful vested interest. Its difficult to see how this could be avoided.
Don't forget that James Larkin and James Connolly were influenced by
syndicalist (near-anarchist) ideas, and one of their associates was Captain Jack White,
who became a full-blown anarchist.
A very good point, a chara.
One think that strikes me is that with the great complexity of some modern production processes, is the idea of democratic workers councils ruling the factory floor really practical?
One think that strikes me is that with the great complexity of some modern production processes, is the idea of democratic workers councils ruling the factory floor really practical?
I think, in fact, that this is an argument for greater democracy in the workplace. There is more information than a few managers can possibly assimilate. In any place where I have worked, managers tend to get in the way. Mostly they spend their time manouvering at office politics and know surprisingly little about how the place is actually run.
Participatory Economics outlines a very well thought out approach to a libertarian work place organising.
One of the best examples of working people organising on a mass democratic basis stems from the Spanish Revolution, where millions of people ran public transport, factories etc in war time conditions. See Deirdre Hogan's Industrialisation in the Spanish Revolution for an overview.
Also worth checking out is the WSM's page on the Spanish Revolution
Go raibh mile maith agat, a chara, some really good sources there.
cael, i been keeping an eye on the irbb hoping to see something come from your invites but so far looks like theyre not accepting unfortunately. some good reading and learning could come from it.
Do anarchists recognise the existance of the people labelled by Marx as the Lumpenproletariat?
Marx's definition has influenced contemporary sociologists, who are concerned with many of the marginalized elements of society characterized by Marx under this label. Marxian and even some non-Marxist sociologists now use the term to refer to those they see as the victims of modern society, who exist outside the wage-labor system, such as beggars, or people who make their living through disreputable means: police informants, prostitutes and pimps, swindlers, drug dealers, bootleggers, and operators of illegal gambling enterprises), but depend on the formal economy for their day-to-day existence.
If so what is the Anarchist way of dealing with these capitalists who make life a misery for workers?
Many years ago I met a militant Irish marxist street agitator. She told me that in her opinion the lumpenproletariat were crypto-fascist. Why? Because they prey on their own in the slum ghettos, especially the most vulnerable and recognise blunt power as the only source of moral behaviour. A university trotskyist activist, now a college lecturer of some international standing, told me also many years ago that Trotsky's attitude to the lumpenproletariat was that they should be put down ruthlessly. My informant seemed to share this view.
Do you agree with the view that the lumpen are socially unredeemable? A certain Jesuit living in Ballymun doesn't seem to think so.
Well, yes, irbb reader, I was a bit disappointed at the response, though I wasnt overly surprised either. Sadly, there is a certainly jealously between left wing groups and a certain lack of openness that, I believe, is quite detrimental to our cause. There is a tendency to see other left wing groups as worse enemies than the capitalists. That said, on this Indymedia thread there has been a generous response and I have learned a lot from reading the posts and links. I have posted up most of these links on the IRBB.
"Marxian and even some non-Marxist sociologists now use the term to refer to those they see as the victims of modern society, who exist outside the wage-labor system, such as beggars, or people who make their living through disreputable means: police informants, prostitutes and pimps, swindlers, drug dealers, bootleggers, and operators of illegal gambling enterprises), but depend on the formal economy for their day-to-day existence."
If we are counting people who make their living through crime then you would have to include the wealthy Landlords who extort billions from the ordinary people and cause far more social misery than the drug dealers do. Its equally true that the police live off crime. Or put another way, the police live off the social injustice that creates most crime - they are hired to perpetuate it. In short, the drug dealers etc. are capitalists, no more and no less. They see a market and they supply it. It is almost random that their particular market is "illegal" as it is no more evil and no more destructive than most other parts of the capitalist system. Indeed, drug dealing is far from illegal - as long as you get regime approval for it and pay the regime taxes. How many people are addicted to alcohol and tranquilizers? The regime is not against you buying drugs - they just want you to buy their drugs. Now, when young people in deprived areas (and not so deprived areas) see their co-evils driving around in daddy's merc or jeep, wearing the latest designer gear, knowing well that daddy didnt get this loot through being a nice guy, they would be fools to just lie down and accept that they get a bus ticket and cloths from Dunnes Stores, while someone their own age, who has done no more in life than they have, wears Gucci and drives a merc.
glad to see it has finally started between anarchists and republicans looking forward to reading more!
http://admin2.7.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=8721&start=15
Yes, I think Republicans and Anarchists have quite a lot in common.
One question I would like to ask is what is the policy of organisations like SWP on armed struggle. Considering that Landlord privilege is protected by the guns of the free state army and police, is it reasonable to expect the people to be able to recover their wealth by completely non-military means?
cael, 2 things, both audios regarding republicanism and anarchism
1 - 'Building a Popular Anarchism'
2 - Voices Of Republicanism: An indyradio documentary
'Building a Popular Anarchism'
Andrew has been talking delivering his views in North Eastern USA and Eastern Canada in his 'Building a Popular Anarchism' speaking tour, which James linked to above. From that hes being making very interesting audios with groups he has met enroute, Andrews audios found
'Building a Popular Anarchism' - audios
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=8456
The Other USA - Olympia
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire?author_name=Andrew
ie,
The other USA - Boston Irish, foreclosures and NEFAC
The other America 2 - Boston interviews 3.14 Mb
http://www.indymedia.ie/attachments/feb2008/bostonnefac.mp3
2 - Voices Of Republicanism: An indyradio documentary
especially of interest:
James McBaron Interview (WSM)
audio 2.63 Mb - : http://www.indymedia.ie/attachments/may2007/baron1.mp3
from
Voices Of Republicanism: An indyradio documentary
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/82713
podcast link: http://www.podcastdirectory.com/podshows/1528421
related IMC-ie thread:
After Nationalism (James on why he left SF) - http://www.wsm.ie/story/1800
more audio related at
IMC-RADIO back online
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87224
Lots of interesting material there a chara, will take me a while to get through it. But, could you or someone else give me a brief idea of the Anarchist position on Armed Struggle?
It sorta depends on what you mean by armed struggle. After all, Anarchists, like every other shade of political opinion, have taken up arms in different situations and at different times.
'Armed struggle' might sound like a simple idea but theres a big difference between an armed popular movement resisting a right wing coup and trying to achieve a popular revolution (Spain 1936 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_revolution) or an armed super minority trying to spark a revolution through robbing banks and kidnapping millionaires ( Symbionese Liberation Army http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbionese_Liberation_Army).
In fact whether or not a group engages in armed struggle or not actually tells you very little about their politics.
Then there's Orwell's account of the fighting in Barcelona during that civil war and his observations of the P.O.U.M. anarchists who he fought alongside. Read Homage to Catalonia, much derided on publication by the marxist-labour establishment in Britain.