I have to ask anarchists this one question

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Tue Oct 29, 2002 11:44 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

Any chance of some-one setting up a FAQ for dealing with the monthly 'Why don't Anarchists contest elections?' 'Why the SWP are a shower of wankers?' 'Why Sinn Féin is full of mad sectarian bastards bent on privatisation?' 'Who did what to who at some mad protest attended by five people?' I know there's an Anarchist FAQ but soemtimes the same old arguments and questions keep popping up.

by hopespringseternal Tue Oct 29, 2002 12:25

here is info on some of the tenets of Anarchists thinking fyi:

http://struggle.ws/once/pd_intro.html

Anarchism, elections and power>

Anarchists have always opposed participation in the sham of parliamentary elections (choosing rulers rather than ending the division into rulers and ruled) and this time around it will be no different.

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/wsm/anarchism.html

hope this helps.

by Andrew Tue Oct 29, 2002 12:25

Anyone else thinks it odd that 'Inquizative Onlooker' asks almost the same questions in the same way as 'Puzzled Activist' asked last week, and the week before, and the week before. Two points

1. The Water Charges were essentially defeated by mass non payment by the time Joe lost the by election by the time he was actually elected they had been abolished. See http://struggle.ws/wsm/water.html

2. If you want to know the anarchist view on elections then please read our web site at http://struggle.ws/election.html rather then asking the same 'questions' using different names week after week.

by Brian - Anarchist Federation Tue Oct 29, 2002 12:43 contact at afireland dot cjb dot net

... this has been answered several times on the indymedia, the fact that the post is exactly the same as previous postings with the same content makes me suspicious, but...

... if you really are wondering why anarchists dont take part in elections there is a wealth of information on the web on why we dont partake in elections, for example the AF opinion can be read at

http://flag.blackened.net/af/ace/ap_index.html

and im sure the wsm have loads of stuff as well at

http://www.struggle.ws/wsm.html

the first edition of wildcat has some criticism of government as well

available at

http://flag.blackened.net/af/ireland/misc/index.html

there you go!

by funny Tue Oct 29, 2002 12:57

why is it that any question about Anarchism boils down to RTFM?

by silo Tue Oct 29, 2002 13:58

the standard rationale is that liberal western parliamentary democracy is not only a division of people into leaders and led, but also a papering-over-the-cracks attempt to justify authoritarianism and hypocrisy by placing them within partly democratic structures.

this doesn't mean that all anarchists regard electoral parliamentary democracy with contempt; the system is more democratic than that in, say, iraq or china. however, the fact that it is "least worst" is not really a valid argument for its maintenance, though this is one often advanced.

many anarchists also believe that you cannot hope to change things if you operate within the structures of the world you want to change: for example, if you were an abolitionist in the american south in the time of (official) slavery, you could have worked to reform slavery or to abolish it. reform would improve slaves' lives, but would be more likely in the long run to actually maintain slavery (in "regulated" form). operating outside "reformist" structures allows the possibility of uncompromised action, which is always more likely to bring about real and significant change quicker and more effectively.

by ¨*^C¿?$%&/()=! - anarchists are anti-parliamentary system of social oppression. Tue Oct 29, 2002 14:23 neither left nor right= neither Bush nor Saddam from those who are affected by those decisions.

Ahem...
Neither the international Green movement represented in Ireland by Comhaontas Glas,
or the international Anarchist movement
are "leftwing".
They traditionally are described as being "lefty" because you regularly find them in the company of bolsheviks and such types. They most certainly aren´t fascists or rightwingers, and since the "lefties" are always protesting against the "right" it´s easy to presume that Anarchists and Greens are lefties too.
This is a political syllogism.
Anarchists are fond of collectives and communal decision making by small groups. This makes them "democrats", but in todays world the "democrats" are in the centre right to the right.
hmmmm.
Q. Where did these "wings" come from?
A. A Tennis court in pre-revolutionary France.
Q. To what do "wings" refer?
A. To the position where various parties sit in parliaments or other assemblies.
Q. Is it a universally applicable parliamentary device?
A. No. For example the assembly of Soviet deputies was one big block without wings (since all the deputies were considered bolsheviks).
Q. Do Anarchists take part in "mass actions"?
A. No, they never articulate any opinions or offer any solutions, they smell bad and don´t even have leaders.
Q. Is there a future for anarchists?
A. Maybe, as soon as they realise that what everyone really really wants is strong leadership, secure streets, friendly police officers, efficient armies, and the cream of human intelligence subverted by a natty new line in "cancer cures", "cloned babies" and of course banner headline advertising on every internet site.
Q. Do Anarchists have any major problems with the left?
A. Yes....they post silly articles on "national indymedia newswires" (which almost all were initiated by "anarchists") challenging anarchists to play their proper role in the "left".
Q. Do they do this often?
A. Yes on average once a week.
Q. Do anarchists have any solution in the offing?
A. Why yes, the fifth international of loved up crusty hippy muppets plans to make a big list of all offending bolsheviks and send them to the US state department and ask for "affirmative action".

by So So bored Tue Oct 29, 2002 14:45

I think anarchists plant these questions so they can come in say how good they are. Nobody outside themselves take them or their opinion seriously enough to post these boring questions.

by OK - SP Tue Oct 29, 2002 15:10

"1. The Water Charges were essentially defeated by mass non payment by the time Joe lost the by election by the time he was actually elected they had been abolished." - Andrew in earlier posting.

I agree that mass non-payment was the central reason for the defeat of the water charges. However I'm sick and tired of anarchists simply ignoring facts just because it does not fit into their theory.

The anti-water charges campaign made the Water Tax an issue in the by-election and put pressure on the politicians to have it abolished.

The Campaign used the election to apply more political pressure on the establishemnt. Running for election, mass non-payment, defiance of the courts were all part of the Campaign against the Water tax.

Non-payment was key, but to deny that elections played their part is simply wrong.

Yes, Joe Higgins did not win the by-election. However it was realised by the main establishment parties that if the charges were not abolished there would be the real prospect of 3 or 4 Anti-Water Charges TDs in the next general election.

Like it or not Andrew, that was a factor in the abolition of the water charges.

by Andrew Tue Oct 29, 2002 15:30

I can admit that there could be a version of the history of the water charges struggle in which the claim that Joe Higgin's loss in the bye election helped defeat the water charges makes sense. That is if the bye election happened some time before the charges were obviously on their way out. In that version of history the close defeat of Higgins would have been followed by a retreat by the council. However this reading doesn't make sense from what actually happened for two reasons.

1. The council greeted Higgin's defeat by attempting to step up the pressure by taking Civil Process cases.

2. Before Higgins defeat the council had been defeated in trying to cut people off and the court cases had also been a complete failure with only 22 or so disconnection orders delivered in 6 months (and no actual disconnections of members).

In fact mass resistance defeated the tax not the non election of Higgins. You can if you wish argue that the non election was a boost for moral but I think its pretty clear that by that stage the charges were defeated in any case. And trying to exaggerate the importance of the bye election is a good example of the problems with electoralism.

That the issue of the water charges got Joe Higgins elected at the next general election is certainly true. That his election was popular with the vast majority of campaign activists is also true. That it had any significant role in defeating the charges is simply without evidence.

by OK - SP Tue Oct 29, 2002 15:45

I fully acknowledge that the council were primarily defeated by non-payment. The threat of disconnection did not work becasue of the activity of the Campaign activists, the courts were also defied successfully due to the work of the campaign.

What I am saying is that the by-election did create political pressure to abolish the charges. The politican suddenly got the 'political will' to abolish the water tax.

Without the non-payment and civil diobedience no amount of votes would get the water tax abolished! As Lenin said an ounce of struggle is worth a ton of votes! (Andrew dont go mad with the Lenin quote)

by iosaf - reclaim the streets & genome Tue Oct 29, 2002 17:50

this regular recycled post appears to draw attention to Joe Higgins performance vis a vis
water and bin charges.
I agree they are very very boring.
But perhaps my earlier comment on the "non-leftwing" nature of anarchist, anarcho-syndicalist and anarcho-ecologist political movements might inspire someone to write a good newsworthy article.

by LeftWingLoony Tue Oct 29, 2002 18:05

Iosaif suggests SP people.
Some poster above suggests anarchists.
I myself suggest SWP.

Think about it. One moment they're all over the shop telling everyone about how they (Globalise Resistance) organised Reclaim The Streets, reproducing huge tracts from their rag on the newswire. Then they (Nora Geraghty specifically) promise to get "Joe Trotsky" to explain what was going on "when he gets back from Barcelona). So far, no explanations. So far, very few posts except from "ISTsupporter" which argue the SWP line outright.

Logical conclusion: SWP wreckers are busy trying to stir up shit.

Whatever/whoever, the post that started this thread is a comment, not a news story. It contains no factual information and does nothing except stir shit. Please, someone with editorial privileges: remove it.

by Malatesta Tue Oct 29, 2002 23:42

HAHA,i find it hilarious that some stalinist is so provoked and feels so threatened by anarchists that he/she goes through such trouble as this!

"Rose",it that you?;)

by Rose Wed Oct 30, 2002 16:13

It wan't me! I have been on holidays thank you!

by Anonymous - The only organisation that really knows what is going on Wed Oct 30, 2002 18:22

The ORTRKWIGO (Organisation that really knows what is going on) calls on Geraldine to immediately state what organisation/tendency she belongs to so that we can slag her off on the past misdemeanors of her organisation/tendency.

Failure to do so will mean an immediate insertion of her personlly in our database of sectarian orgainsations/tendencies which are destroying the movement by trying to take it over, making nasty comments about everybody else, occasionally talking to Labour party politicians, or other means.

Be warned.