Organising For Anarchism In Ireland

by Mark C Tue Apr 08, 2008 16:00

You tell us that the first thing we have to do is destroy capitalism (something I agree with, or certainly replace capitalism) before we are to be told what a new society might look like. Would it not be better to tell people what a new society might look like and then tell them that in order for this society to be achieved, we will have to destroy capitalism?

If you destroy capitalism, then tell people what the new society will look like and they say they don't like the look of the new society, you are immediately left with splinter groups.

Just a thought,
Mark.

by Cael - Sinn Féin Poblachtach Tue Apr 08, 2008 22:09

I tend to agree there, a chara, you cant expect people to destroy all they really know in the hope of being able to think of something better in the ensuing vacuum. Also the concept of maximum freedom is problematic, as who is to decide the limit of freedom that represents a maximum? Who will police that limit? I say this in a friendly and sympathetic way, as I agree that the state is the root of most of our ills.

by w. - wsm (pers cap) Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:14

"If you destroy capitalism, then tell people what the new society will look like and they say they don't like the look of the new society, you are immediately left with splinter groups."

I agree, we can't begin to overthrow capitalism until we know how we will fight it and what we will put in its place. I think the above piece was unfortunately phrased.

by gg Thu Apr 10, 2008 18:24

"If you destroy capitalism, then tell people what the new society will look like. If they don't like the look of the new society, you are immediately left with splinter groups."

by Mark C Fri Apr 11, 2008 21:15

I don't think there is anything wrong with my phraseology above. It makes a very clear statement: namely: people may not want to support the system (anarchism, for example) that is set up in the place of capitalism, and if this happens then those who overthrew the capitalist system(s) will be left with splinter groups.

The re-written version of it by "gg" is much worse than my original. Looking at it, it starts off with the word "if" but does not put any additonal condition into the clause, so it is incomplete. The second part is a full sentence but makes no sense because of the lack of an unconditional clause in the first. Perhaps gg, you could have changed it to: "You could destroy the capitalist system and then tell people what the new system will be like. If they don't like the new..." or just left alone.

Mark.

by Anthony - WSM (personal capacity) Mon Apr 21, 2008 18:57

I interpreted W’s comment as saying that the “However, to achieve this we must first of all destroy capitalism” sentence in the original article was the poor phrasing and that as it stands, it probably wouldn't be a fair reflection of the organisation’s position (it's too simplified and reductionist). The following two paragraphs would be a better representation:

Like most socialists we share a fundamental belief that capitalism is the problem. We believe that as a system it must be ended, that the wealth of society should be commonly owned and that its resources should be used to serve the needs of humanity as a whole and not those of a small greedy minority. But, just as importantly, we see this struggle against capitalism as also being a struggle for freedom. We believe that socialism and freedom must go together, that we cannot have one without the other. As Mikhail Bakunin, the Russian anarchist said, “Socialism without freedom is tyranny and brutality.”

Anarchism has always stood for individual freedom. But it also stands for democracy. We believe in democratising the workplace and in workers taking control of all industry. We believe that this is the only real alternative to capitalism with its on going reliance on hierarchy and oppression and its depletion of the world’s resources.