Reasons to hate Anarchism and Anarchists

by Ruairi Mon Dec 16, 2002 16:12

this sort of moaning and bitching seeks to divide and stir up the shit. It is a deliberate tactic of those who seek to destroy progressive forums such as Indymedia. Then again, it could be just an idiot with time on their hands.

by Jmayler - IMC Mon Dec 16, 2002 16:12

Dont rise to the bait- this is a troll post to provoke an arguement- dont bother- write somthing positive instead.
(yes i realise that this post is self contradictory, and i dont care)

by Not worth responding to - take it elsewhere trot troll Mon Dec 16, 2002 16:19

Anarchists are often mentioned in the newspaper and TV coverage of globalisation protests. We are often portrayed as violent criminals. Almost never are the ideas of anarchism explained. Read on and find out what anarchists stand for.

Anarchists believe in a revolution by the working class which will overthrow the bosses and their governments, and create a society run and controlled by those who actually produce the wealth of the world. We believe that it is possible to live without government and to put in its place councils and assemblies where the "ordinary people" can decide what happens to this wealth. We believe in the equality of all and that maximum solidarity is needed between workers and other oppressed groups if we are to defeat those who live off our sweat.

When you hear about anarchists you are led to believe that we are mad bombers. The myth is created that we believe in violence for the sake of it. The other myth is that anarchism is chaos. It is claimed by politicians, bosses and their hacks in the media that if there was no government there would be chaos. But did you ever wonder about society today and come to the conclusion that perhaps we are already living in chaos?

You might ask why is this so? We say that there is one big reason - PROFIT! At the moment we live in a society in which there are two major classes - the bosses and the workers. The bosses own the factories, banks, shops, etc. Workers don't. All we have is our labour, which we use to make a living. Workers are compelled to sell their Labour to the boss for a wage. The boss is interested in squeezing as much work out of the worker for as little wages as possible so that he/she can maintain high profits. Thus the more wages workers get the less profits the bosses make. Their interests are in total opposition to each other.

Production is not based on the needs of ordinary people. Production is for profit. Therefore although there is enough food in the world to feed everyone, people starve because profits come first. This is capitalism.
What is the State?

For workers needs to be fully met we must get rid of the bosses. But this is no easy task. The bosses are organised. They have the media on their side. They also have the State and the force of the army and police that go with it. The state (i.e. governments, armies, courts, police, etc.) is a direct result of the fact that we live in a class society. A world where the 225 richest people have a combined wealth equal to the combined annual income of the world's 2.5 billion poorest people.

The state is there to protect the interests of this minority, if not by persuasion then by force. Laws are made not to protect us but to protect those who own the property.
Elections

We are led to believe that the state is run in our interests. Don't we have elections to ensure that any government not behaving itself can be brought to task? Their democracy is about ticking boxes. We are given a choice all right but between parties who all agree with the system of a tiny minority ruling the country.

Electioneering inevitably leads to revolutionaries forsaking their revolutionary principles. They go for whatever is popular and will ensure that they get elected. This becomes more important to them than educating people about the meaning of socialism. It also means that they look on the mass of voters as mere spectators. People are seen as voters, not as people who can be actually involved in politics and bringing socialism about.

Socialism cannot come through the Parliament. If we look at a country like Chile we can see why. In 1973 the people elected a moderate socialist government led by President Allende. This democratically elected government was toppled by a CIA backed military coup. Repression followed in which the workers movement was smashed and thousands of militants lost their lives.

Central to our politics is the belief that ordinary people must make the revolution. Every member of the working class (workers, unemployed, housewives, etc.) has a role to play. Only by this participation can we ensure that anarchism is made real. We believe in a revolution that comes from the bottom up and is based on factory and community councils. Freedom cannot be given, it has to be taken.

This is where we disagree with what is called the "revolutionary left". While they say that they agree with all that we've said so far, they still hold to a belief that a party is necessary to make the revolution for the people. Most of them base their ideas on Lenin who believed that workers were only capable of achieving what he called "trade union consciousness". According to him they needed a party of professional revolutionaries to make the revolution for them. What we saw in Russia was nothing to do with socialism. Power rested in the hands of a tiny party elite. The state was the boss and the workers were still exploited and told what to do.

So we say it is up to ordinary people. Some ask: "Is this possible? Would it not be chaotic?" Of course not. At the moment capitalism would collapse without the support of the working class. We make everything, we produce all the wealth. It is possible to organise production so that the needs of all are met. It is also possible to create structures that allow everyone to participate in making the decisions that affect them.

Society would be based on factory and community councils. These would federate with each other so that decisions could be made covering large areas. Delegates could be sent from each area and workplace. They would be recallable, i.e. if those who voted them in are not happy with their behaviour they can immediately replace them with someone else. With the new technology it will be much easier to involve lots of people in making quick decisions.

Within this society there would be genuine individual freedom. Individuals would have to contribute to society but would be free to the extent that they do not interfere with the freedom of others. Fundamentally we believe that people are good and if they won freedom would not easily give it up or destroy it.
Anarchism in Action.

Like most people who hear about Anarchism you probably believe that "it is a good set of ideas but unfortunately it would never work. People are naturally greedy and selfish, if there was no government to look after our interests there would be complete chaos".

But there are historical examples of anarchism working. The greatest of these happened in 1936 during the Spanish Civil War. It started with an attempted fascist coup. In response to the coup the workers mobilised to defeat fascism. Popular militias were formed by the unions and workers seized factories. Peasants took over land that had been abandoned by the landlords. This marked the beginning of the revolution for the Anarchists. They believed that the Civil War had to be not just a fight against fascism but also against the capitalist system that had spawned fascism in the first place.

In the zones controlled by the Anarchists, workers self-management became a reality. In Catalonia there were at least 2,000 industrial and commercial collectives. At least 60% of "republican" Spain's agriculture was collectivised.

In the workplaces councils or "comite" elected by assemblies of workers and representing all sectors of the enterprise, were given the task of administering the collectivised factory. Collectivised enterprises in each sector of industry were represented in an Economic Federation. This in turn was topped by a General Industrial Council that would closely control the whole industry.

Here is a description of the organisation of gas, electricity and water in Barcelona.

"Each type of job (e.g. fitters) set up a section consisting of at least fifteen workers. Where there were not the numbers to do this workers from different trades got together to constitute a general section. Each section nominates two delegates that are chosen by assemblies of the workers. One of the delegates will be of a technical calibre and will participate in the 'comite' of the workplace. The other will be entrusted with the management of work in the section.

The 'comite' of the building or plant comes next. It is nominated by the delegates of the sections and consists of a technician, a manual worker and an administrator. The manual worker has to solve difficulties that might arise between different sections. He or she receives suggestions from workers in the different trades and the sections give him or her daily reports on the progress of work. Periodically the delegate calls the sections to general meetings. At these proposals and initiatives which are likely to improve production and productivity are studied as well as ones to improve the workers' situation. A copy of the deliberation is sent to the Council for Industry.

The delegates with administrative functions supervises the arrival and warehousing of materials, records requirements details with book-keeping for supplies and reserves, and keeps an eye on the state of income and expenditure. S/He also deals with correspondence and it is his/her responsibility to see that balance sheets and reports addressed to the Council for Industry are prepared.

The delegate with technical functions supervises the activities of his section, and uses every endeavour to increase productivity. To lighten the workers' burden by introducing new methods. S/He checks on production at the power stations, the state of the network, prepares statistics and charts indicating how production is developing. At the summit there are the Councils of Industry. One each for gas, electricity and water, Each is composed of eight delegates, four from the U. G. T. (the socialist trade union) and four from the C.N.T. These are capped by the General Council of the three industries, which is also made up by eight delegates drawn equally from the two unions.

This Council co-ordinates activities of the three industries; attunes the production and distribution of raw materials from a regional, national and international point of view; modifies prices; organises general administration; indeed takes and uses all initiatives useful to production and the workers' needs. Meanwhile it is obliged at all times to submit its' activities to the scrutiny of local and regional union assemblies"
On the Trams

Five days after the fighting stopped 700 tramcars, instead of the usual 600, all painted in the black and red colours of the CNT, were operating on the streets of Barcelona. With the profit motive gone safety became more important and the number of accidents was reduced. Fares were lowered and services improved. In 1936, 183,543,516 passengers were carried. In 1937 this had gone up by 50 million. The trams were running so efficiently that the workers were able to give money to other sections of urban transport. Wages were equalised for all workers and increased over the previous rates. For the first time, free medical care was provided for the workforce.
On the Land

The countryside also saw collectivisation. In Aragon, near the front-line during the war, collectivisation took root and spread like wildfire. In February 1937 there were 275 collectives totalling 80,000 members. Three months later there were 450 collectives with 180,000 members. Often the peasants and farm labourers went further than their counterparts in the towns and cities. Not only was production collectivised but in rural areas consumption too. In many of these areas money was abolished.

Large estates were taken over by landless labourers, small holders put their land together so that it could be worked more efficiently by the use of machinery. Collectives were based around the villages and federated on a regional basis.

Usually the decision to collectivise was made at an assembly (a meeting of the entire village). It meant handing over land, livestock, tools, seed, stocks of wheat and other produce. The land was then divided into sectors, each of which was assigned to a work group of about a dozen who elected their own delegate. Produce went into the "pile" for communal consumption. Each would produce according to their ability, each would consume according to their needs.

Collectivisation did not only apply to the land. In the villages, workshops were set up where all the local trades people would produce tools, furniture, etc. for the village and also carry out repairs to the collectivists houses. Bakers, butchers, barbers and so on were also collectivised.

The lot of rural workers and peasants was improved by the introduction of machinery. Living standards rose, in the words of one collectivist "those who had less now ate more and better - no one went short". Education became a central concern and young children who had never been to school were given the education denied to them by the landlords and their system.
Women's Action

Gains were also made by women. They were present everywhere - on committees, in the militias, in the front line. In the early battles of the war, women fought alongside men as a matter of course. It was not merely a case of women filling in for men who were away at the front. They were in the militias and fought alongside the men as equals. They were organising the collectives and taking up the fight against the sexist attitudes of the past, which have no place in any real revolution. During the war abortion was legalised in the "republican zone". Centres were opened for women, including unmarried mothers and prostitutes.

From all accounts there truly were changes in attitudes towards women. One female participant in the Civil War has said: "It was like being brothers and sisters. It had always annoyed me that men in this country didn't consider women as beings with full human rights. But now there was this big change. I believe it arose spontaneously out of the revolutionary movement"
The Lessons

History is not neutral. What we learn in school is the necessity for government, rulers and capitalism. What we do not learn is that many times it has been shown that this government is not necessary. People are not inherently bad. Given the right conditions a spirit of mutual aid and co-operation can grow.

History shows us that Anarchist ideas can work. A new society can be created with the workers in control. But it won't happen spontaneously - We must organise for it.

That is why we need revolutionary organisation. An organisation that draws together all those fighting for workers control. An organisation that gives us the chance to exchange ideas, experiences, and to learn from the lessons of history. An organisation that facilitates our struggle together for a new society.

We do not need a group of leaders and their passive followers. We do need an organisation working towards mobilising the masses of ordinary people in the process of making the revolution. Find out about the anarchist organisations where you live or if there are none then consider starting one.

by Rory Mon Dec 16, 2002 17:46

I actually lost interest and fell asleep once I read: "Anarchists believe in a revolution by the working class..."

by troll v. jedi Mon Dec 16, 2002 18:19

but it is improving.
they now say "most anarchists" before it was "all".
they are have expanded their thoughts on accountablity.
they now say anarchists aren´t accountable to their membership. fucked up thinking there, which means I don´t get upset, nor do I feel I should list the fifty names of those anarchists under detention, house arrest or awaiting trial in Italy, Spain and Denmark.
Coz they´re being accountable and this troll is boring.
what´s next? 10 reasons to hate IMC
10 reasons to hate SP
10 reasons to hate SF
10 reasons to hate SWM
10 reasons to hate WSM
10 reasons to hate IRPS
10 reasons to hate the whole left.
10 reasons to hate transantionalists
10 reasons to hate FG
lots of reasons to hassle YFG....don´t forget.
http://ireland.indymedia.org/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=21561
King mob got invovled you know.
and
ireland.indymedia.org/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=21662
they troll posted all over the anarchist inspired indymedia thing.[it is ours you know]

10 reasons to hate FF
been a while
10 reasons to hate PD
10 reasons to hate myself beginning with why I always mispell Burloskoni, Colombia and Marcos.
and write dense cryptic stuff on Sunday when I really should spend more time with my beloved smoking spliffs and calming myself down.
oh and there´s no news anymore is there?
no it´s all gone down the tubes, no future in this indymedia thing, the FBI were right just slap an injunction on them, and forget them.

10 reasons to hate trolls.
10 reasons to hate christmas
10 reasons to hate the CIA
10 reasons to hate the Guards
10 reasons to hate the British (I saw Gandhi the movie on TVespaña last night)
10 reasons to hate Al Qaeda

yep that´s it.
10 reason to hate Al Qaeda
enough of my who is this Marcos lad.
my new space user upper silly questions are....
¿where is Osama?
¿who is marcos?
¿Why is Bush still in the White House?
and how much do the average FG deputies get paid?
RTE discussed that important issues this morning, thank you Aungus and pals.
9.TDs' pay called into question
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aengus Ó Snodaigh, Sinn Féin TD, Seán Ardagh, Fianna Fáil TD and
Kathleen
Lynch, Labour TD, discuss whether TDs are overpaid
28k - http://www.rte.ie/news/2002/1216/morningireland/morningireland9a.ram

work your freedom.

by anarcho Mon Dec 16, 2002 19:58 anarcho at geocities dot com

I know its a troll, but here we go!

"I've grown to develop a hatred of anarchism and here is why...."

From the list, I would have to say that the person has made a list
with not much relevance to actual anarchism. What a surprise!

"10 reasons to hate Anarchism"

Actually, I think this should be "1 reason to hate Anarchism"
and that reason is that anarchism, unlike ideologies like Marxism
and Leninism, has been proven to be correct!

"1. They are all stuck in books, not in touch with the real world"

Ah, the evils of education! In the old days, anarchists used to be
called ignorant and told to read some books. How things have changed :)

2. Most anarchists are not active in the workers' movement

Most workers are not active in the workers' movement...

Anyway, we have a broad generalisation here which I'm sure
would be disproved if a poll of anarchists was done...

"3. Many anarchists are hostile to the working class"

Again, broad generalisation. But let us not forget Lenin and
Trotsky, whom created a dictatorship *over* the working class
and repressed its freedom, rights, organisation and strikes.
That, apparently, does not make Marxists "hostile to the working
class"! Its a funny old world :)

Here is a link which may be of interest:

H.6.10 Did the Makhnovists hate the city and city workers?
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH6.html#sech610

"4. They have regressive ideas and want to "turn back the clock" on capitalism"

Quite untrue. And here is a link to prove it:

H.2.3 Does anarchism "yearn for what has gone before"?
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH2.html#sech23

"5. The world's problems wont be solved by shopping in the "local village market" where you can buy off
smaller capitalists"

No revolutionary anarchist says it would. Even reformists anarchists
don't think that -- they favour co-operatives!

"6. Thier 'democracy' means nothing gets done as they are all too obsessed with not offending their
ideology of "no leaders""

Bloody hell, so actually getting the people to make its own decisions
does not work? So much for socialism then! Better get voting for those
leaders who can make all the hard decisions for us!

"7. Their 'democracy' is really unaccountable and unelected. Their leaders are unaccountable to the
membership. that's not democracy!"

Bloody hell, so when people make their own decisions, it is non-democratic? So what
*is* "democracy"? Well, it seems to involve giving power to a few leaders who make all
our decisions for us! That was what Tony Blair argued for after the Gothenberg demo.

"8. They are always going on about Krondstadt"

I'm sure Stalinists complain that people are always going on about
the gulag and KGB! And the Nazi's complain that people are always going
on about killing 6 million jews...

But, then again, our poster obviously things its a bad idea to learn
the lessons of history (see point one). After all, if we see how Lenin
and Trotsky implemented "democracy" then we may be less inclinded to
consider giving power to a few leaders as a good idea and think that
it is "democracy"

On why Kronstadt is important:

H.5.1 Why is the Kronstadt rebellion important?
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH5.html#sech51

H.5.15 What does Kronstadt tell us about Bolshevism?
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH5.html#sech515

"9. I hate the way Anarchists try to impose their "non-party" ideology on everyone else. They say
parties impose ideas, but it's really anarchists that are!"

Sorry for having an opinion! From now on we will only think what
the leadership has approved us to think. How dare we think for
ourselves and want to make our own decisions ourselves!

"10. Why should we live in trees and not eat in McDonalds and shop in Tesco?"

Indeed. And who argues that? No revolutionary anarchist.

Its a shame that our poster could not come up with some real
reasons rather than a load of crap...

by k moran - SWSS Mon Dec 16, 2002 20:02

Spain 1936 was the ultimate example of how anarchism doesn't work. Collective organisation of society is the goal of socialists and anarchists alike. That does work,spain proves that maybe, however spain disproves anarchism because it proved completely useless at maintaining that power. CNT handed over power because anarchist ideology sees any type of cemtralised organisation as wrong even when it is to defend the gains of a revolution. it is not a practical answer to defending a workers revolution against the hordes of angry capitalists who will do their upmost to crush it. What was the result of their reluctance ...Fascism

by Phuq Hedd Mon Dec 16, 2002 20:40

Shows that Leninist authoritarians are willing to repeat massacres of other leftists again and again. It also shows that the CNT-FAI betrayed their principles by entering a coalition government, yes that's right, a government with republicans and other leftists.

That's when they made the mistake. They squandered the self-organization and militancy of the people and entered a government.

That mistake (and the Kronstadt debacle) led to the adoption of the Platform of Libertarian Communism that our friends the WSM are so keen on.

If the previous post really is from the SWSS then I suggest that you read the Spain'36 materials at the WSM website or the infoshop links.

Another problem with "anarchists" historically has been their problem to work with authoritarians like the SWP. The WSM are travelling down this road again, not realizing that there are some people that you CAN'T work with because they'll stab you in the back.

That's why I don't support the WSM. They're too willing to work with the SWP. Most of the rest of their analysis is good though. AFI has a more realistic approach to the SWP.

by King Mob Mon Dec 16, 2002 21:46

....or another one of his cronies trying to attack us Anarchists just because we literally have their failed marxist/leninist/stalinist/totskyite/communist/Libertarian Communism/Anarcho-communism ideolgy on the run. Agree totally with Phuq Hedd with his views on the WSM re their adoption of the failed Platform of Libertarian Communism in the previous comment and their going into the bed with those SWP scum bags and low lifers.

by Phuq Hedd Mon Dec 16, 2002 21:55

Didn't the rebecca rioters burn straw men?

I agree with the WSM adoption of the non-failed Platform. I think it's a very useful document and I agree with its central points.

I don't agree with their willingness to work with the SWP though.

You must have "misunderstood" me King Mob. Hope that's all cleared up now dearie.

by Pat C Mon Dec 16, 2002 22:00

The other King Mob is some looney that stole my name and is trying to make me look like a fool. If he's not careful I'll be after him with my machete

by k moran - SWSS Mon Dec 16, 2002 22:07

if you go to our website you can see how we argue that the anarchists are bourgeois collaborators with the reactionaries of the SR and the White Russians. This has all been explained time and again.

by iosaf Mon Dec 16, 2002 22:21

the Left, Catalan and Basque nationalists and anarchists.
It was not any of their faults that a Fascist army with support from Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany won the war.
And it was onot their fault that afterwards those volunteers who came together to protect a deomcratic government went to camps.

In Spain we now see the opening of the Franco archives. In the words of an Irish volunteer Bob Doyle of 1936, "spain is now re-awakening", and that allliance has re-activated.
It is a sifn of our pragmatism and real-politik that we leave these silly fatous arguments where they belong in places like craggy island.

If the SWM or anyone else really think that the past not only shows nobility of spirit and the futility of mistakes that we can not learn from then they really don´t read the current news.

When we see hundreds of thousands demonstrating every month in Spain and it´´s autonomous possesions under most restrictive laws (agaisnt support for HB, against criticism of the King, etc,etc) then we know here, that the Nunca Mais never again is more than just oil.

The final phase of the Spanish civil war saw five anarchists accepting ministries.
They were and are admired martyrs to the cause of freedom of expression and association.
Do I need say that they were executed?
well my first post to ireland.indymedia described the circumstances of their execution, against the walls of the CAthedral of Barcelona.
I opened my letters to you with that post card for a reason, because every time I visit that quiet little sqaure I note the bullet holes high in the walls that show that at some moment the soldiers whose firing postitions we have marked upon the ground took false aim, they shot 5 metres up, thus to me demonstrating that even they could not take part in the tyranny and bloodshed.
I have met, known and shared wine, tapas, food and table with veterans of that war, and with children of the victims, heros and heroines of conscience. And I will not allow any idiot in Ireland to dismiss these peoples contribution to freedom.
They represented and still represent a living and effective political tradition.
And I am proud to count mylself in that tradition, one that sees no reason for surrendering decision making to careerist politicians.

by iosaf Mon Dec 16, 2002 22:25

IT is easy now to say oh they abandoned purism.
THey were being killed, raped, and dive-bombed.
The most inspiring vote I think they took whilst in government was that to resist the militarisation of the volunteer militias.

Now to discuss the pros and cons of Spain 36 is to discuss more than just ideological history, it is also to discuss military history.
And as the archives are argued over here in Spain I for one do not think it is time yet to judge the actions of those men and women.

by anarcho Mon Dec 16, 2002 23:42 anarcho at geocities dot com

"If you go to our website you can see how we
argue that the anarchists are bourgeois
collaborators with the reactionaries of the
SR and the White Russians. This has all been
explained time and again."

really, please less of the lying. The anarchists did not
"collaborate" with the Whites. They has been proven time
and again -- its a shame Leninist keep lying time and
again about it.

But I suppose lying is easier than addressing the
anarchist critique of Marxism -- particularly as it
has been proven right time and again!

by Queen Mob Tue Dec 17, 2002 00:00

who cares? yawn yawn yawn yawn zzz...

by anarcho Tue Dec 17, 2002 00:06 anarcho at geocities dot com

"Spain 1936 was the ultimate example of how
anarchism doesn't work."

Actually, quite the reverse as the successes and
failures of the Spanish Revolution actually proved
anarchism right.

Self-management of the workplace, the militias and
so on (i.e. the sort of thing Lenin and Trotsky got
rid of) worked pretty well. As far as the decision
*not* to apply anarchist ideas and collaborate with
rather than destroy the state proved that everything
anarchists like Bakunin had warned about.

"Collective organisation
of society is the goal of socialists and anarchists alike. That does work,spain proves that maybe,
however spain disproves anarchism because it proved completely useless at maintaining that power."

If we look at Russia, it shows that Marxism cannot create a free
society -- it was hardly a successful revolution.

But looking at Spain we are struck by the simple fact
that the CNT did *not* apply basic anarchist ideas (such
as smashing the state). Why? Because of the objective
circumstances they faced. Yes, they made the wrong
decision but ignoring the objective conditions which
influenced the decision is superficial.

For a fuller discussion:

H.2.16 Does the Spanish Revolution show the failure of anarchism?
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH2.html#sech216

and

20. Does the experience of the Spanish Revolution indicate the failure of anarchism or the
failure of anarchists?
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append32.html#app20

"CNT
handed over power because anarchist ideology sees any type of cemtralised
organisation as wrong even when it is to defend
the gains of a revolution."

What crap. Notice no mention of the objective
circumstances the decision was made. Rather we
are subjected to the most simplistic idealism.

As for "centralised organisation," we saw how that
worked out in Russia -- power was centralised into
the hands of the 19 members of the Bolshevik Central
Committee, who used all the power of that "centralised
organisation" to keep power in its own hands and out
of the hands of the working class. In the words of
Trotsky (from 1939!):

"The very same masses are at different times inspired by different moods and objectives. It is just for this
reason that a centralised organisation of the vanguard is indispensable. Only a party, wielding the
authority it has won, is capable of overcoming the vacillation of the masses themselves."

Hence the need for "centralised" organisation, so the
vanguard party can exercise its dictatorship *over* the
proletariat. To again quote Trotsky:

"The revolutionary dictatorship of a proletarian party is for me . . . an objective necessity
. . .The dictatorship of a party belongs to the barbarian prehistory as does the state itself,
but we can not jump over this chapter . . . The revolutionary party (vanguard) which renounces
its own dictatorship surrenders the masses to the counter-revolution . . . "

for a fuller discussion see:

H.3.8 What is wrong with the Leninist theory of the state?
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH3.html#sech38

Needless to say, anarchists do not confuse co-ordination with
"centralisation." That is why stress a *federation* of workers
councils as the basis of the revolution.

"it is not a practical answer to defending a workers
revolution against the hordes of angry capitalists
who will do their upmost to crush it."

Funny, but every Leninist account of the rise of
Stalinism blames the civil war -- so Leninism would be
fine if the inevitable had not happened! How ironic!

So how do anarchists see a revolution being defended?
Simply by the destruction of the state by a federation
of workers' communes and voluntary militias. The CNT
only did the second in Catalonia (it did both in Aragon,
which explains why Leninists never mention it!)

For details:

H.2.1 Do anarchists reject defending a revolution?
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH2.html#sech21

and

I.5.14 How could an anarchist society defend itself?
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI5.html#seci514

"What was the result of their reluctance ...Fascism"

So what was the result of the Leninist desire to seize
centralised power? Well, party dictatorship and, eventually,
Stalinism....

So, just to stress the point, Leninists argue that Spain
proves anarchism will not work yet the example they use
is one when the anarchists did not apply anarchist ideas!
And why did they not apply their ideas? Well, the Leninists
are strangely silent on that.

To quote from one of the webpages I link to above:

"rather than see the failure of anarchism, the Spanish Revolution showed the failure of anarchists to apply their
politics due to exceptionally difficult objective circumstances, a mistake which almost all anarchists acknowledge and have
learned from. This does not justify the decision, rather it helps to explain it. Moreover, the Spanish Revolution also has a clear
example of anarchism being applied in the Council of Aragon. As such, it is hard to blame anarchism for the failure of the CNT
when the same organisation applied its ideas successfully there. Simply put, Marxist claims that the Spanish Revolution shows
the failure of anarchist ideas are not only wrong, they are extremely superficial and not rooted in the objective circumstances of
the time. "

Then, of course, there are the counter-examples. The Makhnovists who
fought for (and implemented) working class soviet and workplace self-management
against both White and Red dictatorship (and if any Leninists feel like spreading
lies about the Makhnovists, please read this first -- http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH6.html
-- where the usual lies are refuted). Then there is the Council of Aragon, during the
Spanish revolution -- when the state was abolished and replaced by a federation of workers'
councils (as recommened by anarchism from Bakunin onwards).

by Jobseeker Bill Lowry Tue Dec 17, 2002 00:50

more from the wankers with no imagination that brought us, the dreary 10 reasons to hate series, 10 reasons to hate people that hate Johnny Adair, 10 reasons to hate socialists, 10 reasons to hate working class people, 10 reasons to hate the SWP, 10 reasons to hate Sinn Fein and the unforgetable 10 reasons to hate people that dont like John Reid, where is he now? looks like that was a waste of time and energy etc. The list go ons, notice that there's no 10 reasons to hate Bill Lowry and special branch, or 10 reasons to hate the PSNI and rich binky old boy trousers down lyndsay brown bigots.

by Intransigent Tue Dec 17, 2002 02:21

Get a life. Get a life. Get a life. Fuck off. Fuck off. Fuck off. Make some sense. Make some sense. Make some sense. Stop pissing me off. Oh and did i say fuck off. We don't need to start this whole stupid 10 things shit again do we?

by Gardai - FBI troll Tue Dec 17, 2002 11:05

You lefty shits are soooo easy to distract. No wonder you don't get anywhere - too busy rising to the bait and bitching with each other!!!

by iosaf (oracle duty jedi) Tue Dec 17, 2002 12:54

indeed most of what passes for news in any media which pretends it function to be a conduit for truth and discussion is little more than bait.

Kites flown. Distracting thoughts.
No-one has sole rights to satire.

check out http://www.chiapas.indymedia.org
or
http://www.irlgov.ie
and i´ve got a russian ´flu in my cómputér today.
so I´ll just have to link to an old article won´t I?¿? especially when we speak of bait.

Any readers have thoughts on fly-fishing?

http://ireland.indymedia.org/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=16106

by Mr Red Tue Dec 17, 2002 15:14

Anarchists assisted the fascists and crushed the Astrurias commune by allowing the fascist counter revolutionaries travel on the railways that they controlled.

This is a fact.

by Ray Tue Dec 17, 2002 15:50

So while the CNT was preventing the fascist coup from taking Barcelona, and sending militias off to fight on the front lines, they were also running a railway service for the fascists?

Where are your references?
Show me your citations.
Don't think you can make shit up without being called on it.

by Andrew Tue Dec 17, 2002 16:11

Actually I suspect Red above has got the 1934 uprising in Austurias (see http://struggle.ws/spain/asturian_mine_strikes.html) mixed up with the 1936 revolution. Under the threat of being shot (I think maybe some were) CNT and UGT railworkers caved in and transported the troops that were used to put down the 1934 rising (of other CNT and UGT workers). Hardly a glorious chapter but with the lack of a national rising having a go at individual workers who backed down in the fact of the firing squad is easy to do from the safety of Ireland in 2002.

by Frustrated with Flood Tue Dec 17, 2002 16:29

you anarchists really piss me off. It really pisses me off that you are involved in the anti-capitalist movement when you offer no viable alternative. You are all for people doing their own thing (fair enough), but then what's your problem with laizze-faire capitalism? Isn't it all about people doing their own thing?

You are against the state, you are against the idea of society. Just like capitalists! you have more in common with Maggie Thatcher than any proper anti-capitalist!

You are also very undemocratic. You are all selfish and are out for yourself. From what I can see the WSM is a one-man-show run by and for Andrew Flood. He runs the WSM like a dictator, he has no problem with having to be accoutable as there is no elections, no accountability, everyone does their own thing and allows power to be centralised in Flood's hands.

by Andrew Tue Dec 17, 2002 17:19

We actually get some amusement from the 'leader spotting' that elements of the left like 'Frustrated' sometimes get into. Of course they are actually revealing quite a bit about themselves when they indulge in it. They are so brain washed by the divisions into leaders and led that class society has always needed that they are incapable of imagining even a tiny organisation that can function without such divisions. Tells you quite a bit about how they imagine a socialist society might actually look like, does it not!

Some specifics
"It really pisses me off that you are involved in the anti-capitalist movement when you offer no viable alternative."

A beautiful echo of the Irish Times or the Economist but this time coming from the 'left'. Do 5 seconds of research and you will discover the anarchist alternative spelt out in detail all over the web - the only ones who cannot find it are those so set in their ideas that they imagine it cannot exist. One minor example at http://struggle.ws/talks/global00.html

"You are all for people doing their own thing (fair enough), but then what's your problem with laizze-faire capitalism? Isn't it all about people doing their own thing?"

And this is the true beauty of the leninist left. When the capitalists say 'free market = freedom' they agree but say the equation "socialism = dictatorship' is somehow better. What a choice! Both sides get very annoyeed (as here) when anarchists insist that freedom is meaningless without socialism and that socialism is meaningless without freedom.

Back in the days when the anarchists were actually organising the (revolutionary) end of the anti-capitalist movement (ie long before Seattle gave the leninists a hard on) one of the things we built on was destroying the 'free market = freedom' argument. Seeing as you have yet to catch up I recommend you read section B.4 of the Anarchist FAQ 'How does capitalism affect liberty?' which is at http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB4.html

"You are against the state, you are against the idea of society. Just like capitalists! you have more in common with Maggie Thatcher than any proper anti-capitalist!"

Again this is beautiful, our leninist cannot even imagine the idea of human co-operation (aka society) without some big brother (aka the state) telling everyone what to do. Maggie Thatcher like Ronald Reagan actually BUILT up the state while talking of reducing it. Under these chancers state spending soared in areas like policing and defence.

Really cop yourself on, the whole reason why the popularity of anarchism is soaring is because we don't force people to choose between socialism and freedom. We insist on both.

by Ois Tue Dec 17, 2002 18:07

my oh my i haven't posted to this site for ages and ages.

Anyway, I'm an unaffiliated anarchist, but I do do some stuff with the WSM. So I can tell you that it is most certainly not a one person dictatorship. I should probably let Andrew answer this but if i get this wrong he can correct me.

Anyway, what i find terribly funny about these posts attacking WSM is this. . .some say oh these WSM folk why they do nothing but post on the internet, they're not involved in the labour movement at all at all. (What they base this on is the fact some anarchists (andrew included) do use the internet a lot.) No anyone active in the labour movement knows thats nonsense (or at least the labour movement in Dublin and cork).

Where as some other people say. . . .the WSM in an andrew Flood dictatorship. (What they base this on is the fact that some andrew uses the internet alot.) Again this shows that whoever these anti-WSM trolls are, they most certainly aren't activists because if they were they would meet other members of the WSM through their activism and they would then know that all members of the WSM are on an equal setting. They might also understand how people who don't do anything left wing apart form reading indymedia posts could think that andrew the WSMer who posts on indymedia more thatn any other member could be construed as being the all the WSM . I believe the word is ignorance.

Anyway, this is silly because the only people who are posting to this are anarchists and goons so whats the point in writing anything else?

Ah here i'll just end by saying that anarchos and trots should co-operate cos there are a lot of people who call themselves trots who are really anarchists in denial. (For those of you with out any sense of humour; I am being fantastic). And as the old union slogan says; 'Our Unity is our strength'.

by Ois Tue Dec 17, 2002 18:11

Ah shucks, he replied to the silliness before me! And now i look silly. Ah Shucks.

by Wake up Tue Dec 17, 2002 18:44

Lads, the internet is not going to go away you know. Oh no, it's here to stay, and it's a pretty powerful tool, so you'd better learn how to use it. Posting messages on a website saying that you hate that website (so why you spend so much time reading it?) or going on and on about anarchist conspiracies (well, if anarchists are so effective, good on them) is not going to get you anywhere.

by anarcho watcher Wed Dec 18, 2002 16:13

Anarchists went into government in Spain with the capitalist 'liberal' republican bourgeois. why didn't the anarchists advocate an independent class line?? Instead they buckled under the pressure, capitulated to the fascists and the counter revolutionary stalinists.

by Andrew Wed Dec 18, 2002 16:34

Actually the only large scale organisations in Spain that advocated an independant class line during the Spanish revolution were anarchist organisations. These included the FIJL (Libertarian Youth) with about 100,000 members and the Friends of Durruti who had about 5,000. More details at http://struggle.ws/spaindx.html on these organisations.

Most anarchist organisations today view the decisions of the CNT to enter into the republican government as a mistake and would thus identify with one of the organisations above or with other opposition elements within the CNT of the time. This includes all the organisations currently active in Ireland.

For the WSM take on the Spanish revolution see our pamphlet 'Anarchism in Action: the Spanish Civil War'. This is also a very good introduction to the events of the revolution. It is online at http://struggle.ws/spain/pam_ch1.html and can be downloaded as a PDF file from http://struggle.ws/wsm/pamphlets/spain.html

by I hate right wingers Wed Dec 18, 2002 17:20

Anarchism is a right wing ideology. It puts the individual forward as the most important thing. Anarchists denie that society exists, those that do acknowledge that society exists believe that it should be smashed.

The growth in anarchy is a characteristic of the 1990s. Because of the ideological attack of capitalists on socialism there was a set-back in socialist ideas. Anarchists joined in with the capitalists and attacked the ideas of socialism. Anarchists join in with capitalists as they share much in common with capitalists in terms of ideology.

Anarchism is a nice idea but it will not work (actually its not a nice idea, I think society exists- i dont want to return to the state of nature!) I want to see a betterment of society, I want to see economic progress and imporovment in living standards. Anarchy will not bring about a better life, under anarchy living standards will fall and it will be a regression back to an earlier stage of capitalism.

by Andrew Wed Dec 18, 2002 17:27

It appears 'I hate right wingers' should change his name to 'I hate reading' as he obviously has not read any of the material in the thread he is 'replying' to. I guess this is what Gobbels called the 'big lie' technique - don't bother making up a sophesticated lie, just make it big and repeat it a lot!

by iosaf = o as if - reclaim the streets. Wed Dec 18, 2002 17:29 barcelona

You anarchists as involved in the anti-capitalist movement without showing viable alternatives.

it pisses me off because.
I as an anarchist have been involved in the follwing anti-capitalist assemblies.

Reclaim the Streets 1995-2000 was an anarchist green collective.
Reclaim the Genome 1999-today
is an anarchist green colective.
Indymedia 1998-today
is an anarchist collective
Barcelona Assembly of Okupa
since the transition period from Fascism has occupied farms, houses, and social centres in Barcelona.
see
http://barcelona.indymedia.org
look at ecology and occupation and speculation sections.
goto
http://canamsdeu.net
to see a farm that works and has been praised by locals for opening up eco-friendly alternative fuel methodology which is now used in Africa.

goto The Cambridge University Architect graduate magazine to read this year´s special on Urban planning with input from myself and other Reclaim the Streets activist anti-capitalists.
Our suggestions are now being used in South America and Africa for urban life.

goto http://www.nodo50.org to see some rant.
It´s the rant you don´t like isn´t it?
It´s the honest "we are the enemies of Capitalism becuase we are the friends of the poor" thinking you don´t like, it´s the unity across class backgrounds and educations that has brought anarchists together to live and work for the future in true co-operation that you don´t like isn´t it? You prefer orthodoxy, ideology or safe right wing economic indicator based tinkering with present legal systems.

So read http://economist.com/surveys this years survey which proved that Capital has only now returned to the "freedom" allowed by imperialist regimes in 1985. [to be exact].
So you see the "hard figures" return your possibility of "class awakening" and "global revolution" just as most people shudder to remember the tyranny given to Russians, central europeans and Asians by your ML orthodoxy.

In Europe today and last year 7 million people took direct action to end their homelessness and squatted homes.
No Marxist Leninist alternatives were available, so those poor people took direct action for themselves, "parasites"? "petty bourgoise"?

Maybe = O as if.
I am classical musician, harpsichordist and organist, I am also a writer filmmaker and artist, I broadcast on FM free radio, I have held various appointments for the Church of England and Church of Ireland, I have begged for food at bins and sold Big Issue, I have squatted buildings to rave, I have taught others how to squat buildings for a home, I have crossed multiple borders without permission granted to prove that borders are unreal.
I am an anarchist, maybe petty bourgois but an anarchist.
I have joined with other anarchists to clean Oil off the beaches of Brittany. I met no rightwing apologists or Marxist Leninists whilst there.

watch some TV at http://www.sherwood.it
anarchist collective
listen to some radio throughout Europe between 88.7FM and 106.4 FM
anarchist collectives.
go to http://www.infoshop.org
and read more rant.
examine the exact breaking of news and truth on http://www.indymedia.org [anarchist collective] over the last four years, and see that time and time again we anarchists at no small risk have given you the truth, stories that you have then applied ML or apologist rightwing analysis to.

Consider the work of Anarchist collectives in all of South America, it´s the relationship to Liberation Theology you don´t like is´nt it?
That poor people actually come together to work together on their own without "direction" that scares you.
doesn´t it scare you?

well it delights us.
The 21st century will be anarchy´s century because if the global population achieve sustainable growth, sustainable fecundity and sustainable life they shall do so with local control, consent and notions of what "property" means.
They shall do so against a global legal framework that addresses the idea of property in "intellectual" and "bio-tech" products.

To date no Right-wing apologist or Marxist Leninist has offered any solutions.

Doesn´t that scare you?

We are still here.
Did a Marxist Leninist start the First World War?

by iosaf Wed Dec 18, 2002 17:36

the freedom of Capital and Global trade returned this year 2002 to the levels of 1895.
i wrote in haste 1985.
and yes the First World War was a disaster started by the assasination of a morganate aristocrat by an anarchist, thus laying the essential conditions for the Marxist Leninist tyrannies that to date have caused more deaths than any other.
We anarchists learn everytime
and in the words of "Evading Standards"
Reclaim the Streets newspaper June 18 1998
"we do it better next time."

it was a much better read than any copy of the Irish independent or Marxist trotter worker.
if we were as orthodox and ideological pure as ye we would probably throw up another Serbian assasasin, but we, that is we anarchists who are numbered more than 22 million in this emergent superstate learn from our mistakes.

by I hate Right-wingers Wed Dec 18, 2002 18:38

Anarchy is not a viable alternative. Squatting in a building and calling it a collective is not an alternative to capitalism. Although I think that the actions of RTS and squatting is a good form of protest, it is not an alternative system.

Anarchists do not offer an alternative that will make our lives materially better. Sitting in a squat with your mates and calling yourselves a collective mates is great fun and is a great form of protest. But it is NOT an alternative to capitalism.

by anarcho Wed Dec 18, 2002 20:11 anarcho at geocities dot com

"Mr Red" writes:

"Anarchists assisted the fascists and crushed the Astrurias commune by allowing the fascist counter
revolutionaries travel on the railways that they controlled."

"This is a fact."

What rubbish. As Andrew says, this is probably to do
with the Asturias revolt of 1934. The claim that the
anarchists "controlled" the railways is simply nonsense.
In fact, the railways were still capitalist institutions,
controlled by the bosses. I suppose what he meant to say
that the railway workers were not on strike at the time.
I also suppose that he got his "fact" from Felix Morrow's
book on Spain. Here is what Morrow said:

"backbone of the struggle was broken . . . when the refusal
of the CNT railroad workers to strike enabled the government
to transport goods and troops."

This can be questioned on a few levels.

Firstly, in Asturias (the only area where major troop transportation
was needed) the main government attack was from a sea borne landing of
Foreign Legion and Moroccan troops - against the port and CNT stronghold
(15 000 affiliates) of Gijon (and, we must stress, the Socialists
and Communists refused to provide the anarchists of these ports with
weapons to resist the troop landings). Hence his claim
seems somewhat at odds with the actual events of the
October uprising.

Secondly, Morrow seems alone in this claim. No other historian (for example,
Hugh Thomas in The Spanish Civil War, Raymond Carr in Spain: 1808-1975, Paul
Preston in The Coming of the Spanish Civil War, Gerald Brenan, The Spanish
Labyrinth, Gabriel Jackson, The Spanish Republic and the Civil War:
1931-1939) makes this claim. But, of course, these are not Trotskyists
and so can be ignored. However, for objective readers such an omission might
be significant.

Thirdly, one historian refutes the idea of train movements by stating
Richard A. H. Robinson argues that it "was soon decided that the [Asturias]
rebellion could only be crushed by experienced, professional troops. The
other areas of Spain could not be denuded of their garrisons in case there
were other revolutionary outbreaks. Franco therefore called upon Colonel
Yague to lead a force of Moorish regulars to help re-conquer the province
from the rebels." [The Origins of Franco's Spain, pp. 190-1]

Fourthly, outside of Catalonia, the majority of the railway workers belonged
to the UGT. Asturias does not border Catalonia -- apparently the army managed
to cross Spain on a rail network manned by a minority of its workers.

This is discussed in more detail at:

6. Was the October 1934 revolt sabotaged by the CNT?
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append32.html#app6

And let us not forget that the Socialist Party and its
trade union worked closely with the quasi-fascist Primo
de Rivera dictatorship of 1923-30. The CNT was repressed.

I suppose this shows the lack of knowledge Leninists have
about the Spanish anarchists.

by anarcho Wed Dec 18, 2002 20:24 anarcho at geocities dot com

"Anarchism is a right wing ideology."

Rubbish. Anarchism has always been socialist.
That's a fact, deal with it!

"It puts the individual forward
as the most important thing."

Please read some anarchist theory of this matter
but making such silly comments.

"Anarchists denie that society exists, those that do
acknowledge that society exists believe that it
should be smashed."

This just gets worse. Anarchists do *not* deny that
society exists!

"The growth in anarchy is a characteristic of the 1990s."

Anarchism has been around for a long time and has been
growing since the end of the second world war.

"Because of the ideological attack of capitalists on
socialism there was a set-back in socialist ideas."

Obviously nothing to do with how terrible Stalinism and
reformist social democracy actually were, then?

"Anarchists joined in with the capitalists and
attacked the ideas of socialism."

ROFL! We only attack the ideas of Marxism when they
conflict with the ideals of socialism...

"Anarchists join in with capitalists as they share
much in common with capitalists in terms of ideology."

Sounds like Stalinists on Trotskyism! Lets say it all
together "Trosky-Fascist"!

"Anarchism is a nice idea but it will not work
(actually its not a nice idea, I think
society exists- i dont want to return to the state of nature!)"

As if anarchists argue that!

"I want to see a betterment of society,
I want to see economic progress and
imporovment in living standards."

At the expensive to, say, working class freedom?
After all, Stalinism saw "economic progress" -- but
at a terrible human cost. But, then again, what are
mere individuals when compared to increasing the output
of pig iron?

"Anarchy will not bring about a better life,
under anarchy living standards will fall and
it will be a regression back to an earlier
stage of capitalism."

Actually, earily stages of capitalism have had
higher levels of economic progress (compare, say,
Keynesianism to today)!

But if we look at the facts of, say, workers'
self-management we see that it is *more*
efficient and productive than capitalism. And
the example of Spain, with extensive workers
self-management, shows that anarchism can bring
a better life -- one which increases freedom as
well as living standards!

Read about what anarchism is actually about at:

An Anarchist FAQ -- http://www.anarchistfaq.org

by anarcho Wed Dec 18, 2002 20:46 anarcho at geocities dot com

"I hate Right-wingers" should change their name
to "I hate finding out the facts about anarchism"!

Anyways, they state:

"Anarchy is not a viable alternative."

If you visit "An anarchist FAQ" you will
discover that anarchists aim for a society
based on workers' self-management and
socialisation of production organised by a
federation of directly democratic communes.

Which part of that is not "viable"? Is it workers
self-management? Are workers incapable of organising
their own productive activity? DO they really need
bosses to tell them what to do? What about socialisation?
Is only state or private property possible? Are we to
remain wage slaves to private bosses or the state? Can
we not form free associations of producers? Or is it
direct democracy? Are working class people incapable of
making their own decisions? Are we fit simply to follow
the orders of a handful of individuals at the top of
society?

So what part of the anarchist alternative is not "valid"?

"Squatting in a building and calling it a
collective is not an alternative
to capitalism. Although I think that the
actions of RTS and squatting is a good form
of protest, it is not an alternative system."

Its a start, a step towards the expropriation of
all capital and property by the working class. As
you would know, if you knew anything about anarchism!

"Anarchists do not offer an alternative that will make
our lives materially better."

Actually, its a proven fact that workers' self-management
is more efficient and productive than wage slavery. And
the workers' self-management in Spain increased both
freedom and living standards. Again, a fact.

"Sitting in a squat with
your mates and calling yourselves a collective mates is
great fun and is a great form of protest."

If you are interested in what anarchists actually
advocate doing visit:

Section J - What do anarchists do?
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secJcon.html

There you will discover discussion on anarchist
ideas on direct action, labour organising, and so
on. You will discover that anarchists aim for a
mass working class revolution which expropriates
capital and smashes the state by working class
self-management and self-organisation of society.

"But it
is NOT an alternative to capitalism."

If you are interested in what anarchists actually
hold up as an alternative to capitalism, visit:

Section I - What would an anarchist society look like?
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html

But I doubt that our poster will bother to look --
they seem happy in their ignorance!

by iosaf Wed Dec 18, 2002 22:41

yep squatting a building with your mates is not an alternative to capitalism as in it only effects speculation and keeps proerty prices down it does also draw off pressure on housing agencies, this effects key stock market indexes and so on also pension funds, yawn yawn, Reclaim the Streets was intended as beginning a globalised awareness of problems and act as catylst for debate in Europe and North America and beyond.
Now if we squat farms in Africa with our mates we se other effects on stock market indices, and pension funds, yawn yawn, if we accept that the majority of people on earth do not pay for their living space in neat monthly installments and that indeed most do not have either conceptual or linguistic terms of reference for the phenomona of the mortgage then we find yet more stock market indices and pension fund implications yawn yawn, anyway after all that you come against the linguistic problem of explaining what a future exchange is and how property which has not been properly [to use the word most carefully] reified yet can not only be accorded value but traded at multiple exchanges accross the world, indices, figures property prices roof above your head yawn yawn yawn.

Evolving Revolution means each of your groupings realising that no-one has all the answers.

Anarchists can´t solve all the problems.
so anarcho-solutions mean Marxist Leninist who often get it very right, talk to the Greens who often get it very right and talk to the anarchists who often get it very right.

Learning a little more about the majority of the planet where neither anglo-saxon or judeo-hellenic linguistic families give ontological or hermeneutic value to putting food in your childrens mouths might be a good idea too
yawn yawn yawn.
in the mean time you don´t need to pay your mortgage.
and Cars are very bad.
very very very bad.
We anarchists will be there all the way so as to make sure you don´t put loads of people up against the wall the way you did the last time.

anarcho-solutions.

we gave you the most simple ways of communicating global despair converted into hope.
I prefer the grass mohicon on Churchill´s head anyday to Lenin yawn yawn yawn routing the menshiviks in march 1917 St. Petersburgh.
a very petty bourgois painting if ever there was one.

I and anarchists accept no leaders.
we are peer resonsive.

by Jim Monaghan Thu Dec 19, 2002 16:33

The WSM is one of the best organisations around. I think that their attitude in united front work is friendly and they resist the temptation to be sectarian. In spite of my Trotskyism or maybe because of it I feel that Marxists should take heed of their criticisms. Things did go bad in Russia. The Anarchists did take part in the October revolution along with the Left SRs. The pity of it was that the Revolution did not stay a United Front. The attitude of Victor Serge is interesting in these matters. In Spain because of their ideology they did not see what Stalinism was until too late.There a United Front of the POUM and the Anarchists could have saved the revolution and won the war.
Here the anarchists play a positive role and their rivals from whatever camp could respond in a sympathetic manner rather than in a sectarian one.
I go further the bulk of the membership of the Left is composed of decent militants, diatribes and sectarian practices only benefit the common enemny. Yes to debates, enough slagging
Jim Monaghan

by pandabear - anarchista Thu Dec 19, 2002 20:49 finland

Just THINK the WSM and anarchists of Europe and the World are good people.
SO ...like us please.
and stop fighting against us.
we all have greater enemies.
We made mistakes in Spain in Russia many times before, but we created the conditions for the present revival of "the left" being experienced in EU and lesser so NAFTA at the end of the 20th century by our actions and disorganising fun and games in Seatle, London, Genoa and Barcelona.
We shall go on doing so.
and since ordinary non politicised people are turned on by our funny they listen more to all of us. Marxist Socialist Green and Anarchist.
The internet is a perfect example of anarchic funny.
And we will keep it that way.
Love to you all WSM and others of Irland.
from Finland.
neutral country with memories of the Soviet Union.
We owe our neutrality to the Soviet threat.
We buy our weapons from Israel.
We put the glow in your PC, even if you thought it came from Princton.
Down with nastys!
Down with Gates!
:-)
good work ireland! welcome to the global village.

THE CORNER STONES OF THE PRESENT GLOBAL HYPERCAPITALIST SYSTEM ARE NOTIONS OF PROPERTY.
HOUSES=PENSIONS=POVERTY=SQUAT THE WORLD!
GENES=LIFE=FOOD
INFORMATION=IDEAS=INTERNET
IDEAS ARE THE COMMON INHERITANCE OF HUMANITY
NOTHING MORE.
.........that´s the elf himself, you gave nationality to a lovely man.
happy christmas all.
you are not alone.
you will never be alone.

by The Observer Tue Dec 24, 2002 03:23

42 comments and nobody could refutate the argument. No wonder more than the half were only child insults.

in 45 Nazis falled

in 89 Commies falled

soon you will fall, LOL!

Long live democracy

Down left & rigth totalitarists