Republicanism or Anarchism?

by Cork WSM Fri Feb 18, 2005 11:19

Poster for meeting

by bakunin's ma Fri Feb 18, 2005 16:08

Oh yeah! Anarchism is definitely the alternative to republicanism. Why did I never think of that before?

by up your little snotty noseys Fri Feb 18, 2005 18:23

is a political philosophy based on many principles, some of which are the lack of authoritarian leaders and the constant search for concensus through dialogue. Anarchism would work for NI where authoritiarian leaders have brought the people from accepting a document through a so called "democratic" process of only one vote with 70% participation to a stalemate between two sets of authoritarian leaderships who are neatly split on very clear sectarian grounds, who can't now search for concensus or honour an agreement voted upon over 10 years ago.
One side can't guarantee a united ireland partly because they've made a lot of enemies on both sides of the border, and the other side can't guarantee a return to stormont partly because they've made a lot of enemies on both sides of the border.
the principles of anarchism have influenced many adminstrations in europe where unusual pacts and new styles of consultative democracy are developing which have been born of the recognition, that "strong leaders" create diametrically opposed "strong leaders" and on a planet of monkeys with very serious problems at the moment, that's just plain idiotic.

But people _do_ like to turn on their telly and see a "boyo" (generally) in charge. Which is why young people still bother joining political parties whilst at university wanting to be the "boyo" or the "grrrrlie" who gets to sign the documents on the proper dates and eat the ferrero rochés and die in a car bomb or accidental carbon monoxide leak if they've been too greedy for far too long. (thats an exciting new development you might have picked up on which also owes something to XIX century anarchistic practise, the sort that alledgedly gave you WW1 and 1916 if you think about it).
But modern anarchism isn't like that at all, honestly it isn't, thats modern religious practise the fatima hand kind according to the Americans who make all the porno.
Modern anarchism is about people often in hoods meeting in dimly lit rooms, and opening the phone book and choosing people with silly names to go on telly and the "boyo" or the "grrrlie" and talk to your ma and da. When not doing that modern anarchism is about pacifism. (we invented it).

And this weekend, its about messing up Giscard d'Estang by an amazingly low turn-out which will in the Luxembourgish President of the EU Mr Junker (not many of them in the phone book) words "not mean an end to the European project".
Just that well thought out and well chat-ted criticisms will have to be taken on board.
like-
and the main parties who represent your ma and da who honestly don't take an interest in politics will have asked for a "yes" vote, whilst the clever people will have guaranteed a "no" vote.

then someone less objectionable than Giscard will get to sit in front of Constantine's statue and present a bunreacht europach with-

a right to a home.
a right to a job
a right to health care.
a right to a pension.
a right to speak Catalan in the institutions of the EU.
a right for Iosaf to vote and thus not feel the need to have to run against Bertie Ahern in his constituency in the next general election.
a right to say your local bit of monkey planet is a nation even if it doesn't have a state.
a commitment to ending world poverty rather than a vague solidarity clause.
a commitment to develop European science to assist the emergency clean-up of the "human life incompatible" planetary eco-disaster left behind by Giscard d'Estang's generation.


Now if you've any questions on any of that feel FREE to ask them. exercise your freedom.
don't get humble.

by barry Fri Feb 18, 2005 19:07

The sooner theres a republican alternative to Gerry Adams the better.

Give me an honest socialist or anarchist over a lying cheating dishonest power hungry "republican" any day.

by eeekkkk Fri Feb 18, 2005 21:51

that is one surreal fucked up mofo of a poster

by . Sat Feb 19, 2005 02:07

Why don't you focus on the State instead of others on the left? More small-minded sectarianism. Though in this instance it seems anarchists are anxious to squeeze in alongside McDowell and get in a few kicks on Sinn Fein while the party is under pressure from the State.

People are being arrested and being sent to jail and all you lot can do is join the State in the current anti-republican onslaught!! Disgusting.

by barry Sat Feb 19, 2005 07:07

"people are being arrested and sent to jail and all you lot can do is join the state in its anti -republican onslaught"

No offence big fella, but some of us have been through this before at the behest of the $inn £ein leadership. They have openly collaborated with the state against those republicans who refused to accept the British "peace-process". Before they start to throw accusations of collaboraton about, remember the statements made by both Mo Mowlam and PD minister Liz O'Donnell on the steps of Stormont ,1998, when both of them thanked the provisional leadership for the assistance given against "dissident republicans". That is touting, full stop.

$inn £ein have not refuted either of these ministers claims to date, and have even echoed such warnings. ed note: contested claim removed for review

$inn £ein underlined this point by expelling councillor Martin Cunningham for supporting rep. prisoners who had been on dirty protest for recognition as political prisoners.

Apparently this "assistance" even went as far as helping provide the state with psychological profiles of the people involved in the Army convention split of 1998 who rejected the surrender process.

No offense personally to "nonsense" but when it comes to helping the state in its crackdown of true republicans, Adams etc are past masters in the art of collaboration. And they dont even deny it, but justify it on behalf of the "peace-process".

by hi Sat Feb 19, 2005 11:35

MR J MC B IS A MEMBER OF WSM so you are going to here 2 wsm speakers no real deate their

by . Sat Feb 19, 2005 13:45

What Adams, McGuinness and their flunkeys do is not relevant to my point because my membership of the Republican Movement has nothing to do with such individuals. The RM is what it is because people were no longer willing to put up with the nature of the British occupation. Repression breeds resistance and so on.

I'm not talking about Adams and current republican strategy (which could change) but about the onslaught against republicans as a whole and against the communities that support and vote for Sinn Fein. The Dublin and Brit governments are in crackdown mode and people ARE being arrested and jailed. Michael McDowell is in full flight.

So what do the anarchists do? They engage in a republican-bashing exercise! Don Bullman of County Cork has just been charged and might get years in jail. Is this how the Cork members of the WSM are offering support to this fellow activist?

They don't have to support his - or others - politics or actions, but when they State is cracking down they could at least not join in the kicking. Some left solidarity!!

by Joe Sat Feb 19, 2005 19:18

Well the advertisement for this meeting was posted here Tuesday, Feb 8 2005 but the Cork raids happened over a week later. This makes the accusation that the meeting is a reaction to the raids more than a little silly. Care to withdraw it.?

The apoliticism of the SF responses here are weird, the first based on 'who cares what you say', the later on the opposite 'this is an outrage'.

by badman Sat Feb 19, 2005 20:33

"the advertisement for this meeting was posted here Tuesday, Feb 8 2005 but the Cork raids happened over a week later."

Did anarchist securocrats set the whole thing up? Was it a cunning ploy to discredit republicanism in the eyes of law abiding folk?

by . Sat Feb 19, 2005 20:52

The crackdown didn't begin with the arrests. It's been underway since Christmas.

by Joe Sat Feb 19, 2005 22:29

Scroll up a little to where '.' writes "Don Bullman of County Cork has just been charged and might get years in jail. Is this how the Cork members of the WSM are offering support to this fellow activist?"

Scroll down a little to where he writes "What are you on about Joe ...The crackdown didn't begin with the arrests. It's been underway since Christmas"

Scratch your head and wonder at how dumb '.' thinks you are.

by Observer Sun Feb 20, 2005 00:13

Well, I must be really dumb too, Joseph, because I don't know what your point is.

The anti-republican thing has been ongoing since the DUP photograph demand fucked up the decommissioning prior to Christmas. As the other contributor has pointed out, the crack-down did not start this week. In fact, let's be honest, the meeting is about 'republicanism in crisis' so the WSM is DIRECTLY addressing the difficulties facing Sinn Fein. In other words, you've already implicitly acknowledged the crack-down/attack/whatever on Sinn Fein has been underway for some time.

So, please elaborate on your point.

by Joe Sun Feb 20, 2005 12:44

'.' claimed the meeting was a reaction to the raids this week. When pointed out this couldn't be the case he tried to claim that he 'meant' the bank raid fuss (which we actually see as irrelevant).

The crisis as we'd see it is not the media hype about the bank raid but the shift in SF positions and the pre christmas collapse of the process. There is nothing new in the bank raid story really.

Above all else though I was annoyed at the playing of the old 'better men then you have died' card to suggest that it was illegtimate to even discuss the crisis in republicanism. I'd suggest reading Ramor Ryans piece on what has happened to the national liberation movement in central America to see where that logic ends up. That is the crisis.

by . Sun Feb 20, 2005 14:20

And I repeat - with people facing a savage crackdown - this meeting is disgusting timing. You are just joining the State in stomping on republicans. Why don't you do a meeting on 'State Repression'?? Don't you think - under the circumstances - that such a meeting would be more apt to the current situation?

Or are you just interested in point scoring against fellow activists?

by Joe Sun Feb 20, 2005 14:28

So what bit about the meeting actually being advertised here well over a week before this 'savage crackdown' don't you understand?

by . Sun Feb 20, 2005 15:08

I've aleady said this crackdown -as you know - has been underway since Christmas. I've made my point anyway, so I'm not going to add to this any longer. You people need to sort out your political priorities.

by Joe Sun Feb 20, 2005 15:43

So '.' .You now seem willing to accept that the meeting is not a response to the recent arrests but you also still seem to feel that it is wrong to have a discussion of republicanism at any time when republicans are accused of crimes. Which would pretty much rule out any discussion any time in the last 35 years would it not?

I think this attitude is in itself a pretty good demonstration of the crisis of republicanism. A crisis that has nothing to do with bank robberys - since when are republicans going to get upset at the idea that the 'RA might engage in a little fundraising. The 'robbery' crisis might be described as a crisis for the 'peace process' but it is hardly a crisis for the republican movement. I doubt events of recent weeks have led to anyone walking away from SF .

by Aldo Sun Feb 20, 2005 16:52

As someone who will miss out on the meeting due to work, will we have a report on it or maybe the text of the speakers themselves?

Aren't they BOTH members of the WSM anyhow?

Aldo

by Gregor Kerr - WSM - 1st May branch - pers. cap. Sun Feb 20, 2005 17:33 kerrgregor at yahoo dot co dot uk

Yea both speakers at the meeting are members of the WSM. It's a meeting organised by the Cork branch of the WSM to outline our ideas and to critique the ideas of republicanism. It's not billed as a debate!! Hopefully people who are interested in either republicanism or anarchism will come along to the meeting and we can have a lively discussion/debate. Anarchists never claim to have all the answers and welcome contributions from all political currents.
For Aldo and others who might be interested, I'll certainly put the notes from my talk up here after the meeting (can't do it yet as it's not finalised). Looking forward to a fraternal and healthy political discussion

by CC Sun Feb 20, 2005 19:32

A discussion of 'crimes' sez Joe. Indeed. Some revvvvv-o-lutionary!

Crimes me arse! And they've being committing them over a 35-year period sez you. So the IRA is a criminal organistion not a national liberation movement. Interesting. And have WSM members ever broken de law boy? Like what about direct action at Shannon or during the bin charges campaign? Were they 'crimes' too? WSM advocates such 'crime' so is the WSM a criminal organisation.

Jeez, the possibilities abound.

by Observer Sun Feb 20, 2005 19:37

I wasn't previously aware of this law and order tendency within the WSM. Joe sounds genuinely outraged by crime, bank robberies, etc. It a strange view for an anarchist to hold.

Personally, I couldn't give a fuck about the money stolen from the Northern Bank.

by Joe Sun Feb 20, 2005 20:15

I don't feel the need to talk in multiple sub clauses to avoid such silly misreadings. Rather obviously if I say 'when republicans are accused of crimes' I'm neither assuming guilt nor that what McDowell might call a 'crime' I would. Likewise when I describe the bank raid as 'a little fundraising' its is weird in the extreme to see that as an expression of 'outrage'.

It's pretty shit politics that relies on such misinterpretation again and again. Finna Fail is waiting for you boys.

by Tom Mon Feb 21, 2005 19:32

If your interested...
SWP Socialist Forum North Dublin
Topic: "Socialism and republicanism"
Monday 21st Feb 8.30pm
Location: Red Parrot, Dorset Street North, Dublin

by anarchist, sort of. Mon Feb 21, 2005 21:11

talk sounds interesting but not much of a debate or possible interesting exchange/conflict of ideas if its two people from the same side? same way i'd be a bit sceptical of going to a 'debate' on socialism vs. anarchism if it was 2 people from the SWP talking about it...

by Gregor Kerr - WSM - 1st May - pers. cap. Mon Feb 21, 2005 23:41 kerrgregor at yahoo dot co dot uk

You'd be right to be sceptical of going to a debate where both speakers were from the same side. This meeting is however billed not as a debate but as a meeting in which we (WSM) will attempt to outline our views of republicanism and - more importantly - of the type of society we would like to see. The meeting will of course be open and democratic, any and all views welcome from contributors. And of course if anyone does want to organise a 'debate' between ourselves and republicans or indeed socialists we'd love to take part, it is by the exchange of ideas that we all learn.

by James McBarron - WSM Cork Tue Feb 22, 2005 20:28

I spent 14 years in Sinn Fein and was subject to plently of garda attention in that time and since. I debated the merits of republicanism many times during that period. And during that period of my life friends and comrades in the party went to jail. This did not stop us working, campaigning, debating or criticising others.

Republicanism is in crisis and has been for some time. The alternative anarchism poses is worth exploring. I was a republican now I am an anarchist precisely because I was open to discussing ideas and was convinced by the arguments and example of anarchists. I hope more people will follow that path.

by Barry Tue Feb 22, 2005 20:52

It would be virtually impossible for any $inn £ein member to debate their position any way. At present they are undergoing a policy revamp. Mr Phil Flynn, former Bank of Scotland chief, moneylender, property speculator and close friend of Bertie "socialist" Ahern has just finished work as an internal consultant for $inn £ein.

His brief was to draft a new party constitution and put forward guidelines for party restructuring. $inn £ein members will therefore have to wait untill what the leadership tells them their new position is, before they can realistically hope to debate it with anyone.

The new $inn £ein constitution will be put to the membership to rubberstamp in a few months time. After the elections of course.

by Joe Thu Feb 24, 2005 19:52

I've just noticed that '.' is actually an SWP member. So it appears that after expressing his outrage he went off to organise an SWP meeting on almost the same topic "Socialism and republicanism".

Wow!

by Gregor Kerr - WSM - 1st May - pers. cap. Mon Feb 28, 2005 20:57 kerrgregor at yahoo dot co dot uk

Republicanism in Crisis – Is There An anarchist alternative?
Text of talk given to Cork WSM public meeting, Thursday 24th February by Gregor Kerr

Since the beginning of December and the collapse of the latest attempt at the creation of a power-sharing devolved government in the North, and more particularly since the Northern Bank robbery, the political establishment - from Enda Kenny to Michael McDowell through Bertie Ahern to Pat Rabbitte - has been striving to outdo each other in the stridency of their condemnation of the Republican Movement. Over the last week to ten days, that stridency has turned in some circles to a barely concealed glee as sections of the media and some politicians have joined in the political equivalent of jumping up and down and shouting “Ha! Ha! Caught you out!!”

I think it was in the 1920s or the early 1930s that Sean Lemass described Fianna Fail as a ‘slightly constitutional’ party. To listen to what has passed for political discourse over the past couple of months, everyone seems to be pretending to be surprised that Sinn Fein has inherited that ‘slightly constitutional’ mantle. As an anarchist, I have no interest in joining in the frenzy of condemnation. It is not whether or not Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness or Martin Ferris are or aren’t members of the IRA army council that is important. Nor does it matter whether or not – in the words of Bertie Ahern – Sinn Fein and the IRA are two sides of the same coin. I certainly amn’t too concerned about anyone relieving any bank of a few pound. Northern Bank is owned by National Australia Bank whose overall profits for last year were US$2.68billion. Towards the end of last year National Australia Bank agreed the sale of both Northern Bank and National Irish Bank in the South for stg.£967million. These sorts of figures put the money taken in the pre-Christmas robbery into context. Banks are the bedrock of the capitalist system, and they’re hardly likely to receive any sympathy from anarchists.

Michael McDowell and I have very different views of what constitutes a crime. When the government takes money that they’re not entitled to take from the pensions of residents of nursing homes – one of the most vulnerable groups in society, I call that a crime. When the same government rushes legislation through the Dail to attempt to retrospectively make it legal to do what they’ve been caught out doing, that to my mind compounds the crime. When a mushroom factory in Mayo pays migrant workers a mere €2.20 - €2.50 per hour, that to me is a crime. When McDowell’s Department of Justice proceeds to deport an asylum seeker despite the fact that the appeal supposedly prepared for him by the Refugee Legal Service has been proven by independent expertise to have been wholly inadequate, that’s a crime in my book. These are just 3 instances taken from Tuesday’s newspaper, I could go on and on.

So I’m not interested in all the hypocritical crap about ‘criminality’, although I think there is a debate to be had about crime, especially anti-social crime, and punishment – and I think republicans have questions to answer about the authoritarian methods by which they deal with anti-social crime but that’s not something I want to get into now. If anyone wants to come back to it later, I’ll gladly do so.

What concerns me, what should concern all progressive forces and all people who describe themselves as either socialist or republican is that apparently Adams, McGuinness etc. see as progressive, or at least a move in the right direction, the establishment of a so-called ‘power-sharing’ government in the North which would see Ian Paisley as First Minister. And – until the recent anti-Sinn Fein frenzy took hold – there was serious talk of Sinn Fein entering coalition government with Fianna Fail in the South, talk encouraged by the Sinn Fein leadership. Surely this is the real crisis facing the republican movement. How have things come to such a pass that republicans came within a photograph of voting the likes of the two Ian Paisleys, Nigel Dodds and Arlene Foster into ministerial positions???

As an anarchist, as someone who wants to see a new society being built, who wants to see the current corrupt establishment swept away and replaced by a truly free and democratic society this is the nub of my criticism of Sinn Fein and the Republican project. Despite the stated aim of a Socialist republic, the realpolitick of where they are headed will not bring about anything remotely approaching socialism. How can the prospect of putting the DUP into power be justified in the context of a declared aim of a socialist Ireland?

How indeed can anything done by the republican movement for the past decades – indeed throughout its existence – be said to have advanced the cause of socialism? Mind you, the Sinn Fein leadership no longer even bothers to spout the socialist rhetoric. All of their energies throughout the past decade and more of the ‘peace process’ have been aimed at consolidating a ‘Pan – Nationalist Alliance’ with the SDLP, the Dublin government and ‘Irish America’. The ditching of all sorts of policies, and supping with any type of devil has been justified in the name of ‘furthering the peace process’. Thus when the warmonger George Bush came to Ireland in April 2003, just a couple of weeks after the bloody invasion of Iraq, Gerry Adams had no problems with meeting him while at the same time the streets of Dublin (and probably Cork and other places as well) were postered by Ogra Sinn Fein with posters which called on Bertie Ahern to tell Bush of the Irish people’s opposition to the war.

Not alone was Adams unwilling to take a principled stand of refusing to meet him (in the cause of ‘furthering the peace process’ of course) but apparently at the meetinghe was unable to bring himself to raise the invasion of Iraq with Bush. Maybe it would have been considered impolite.

Some might claim that Adams and McGuinness have sold out on the original republican project, that their acceptance of the Good Friday agreement, agreement to changing Articles 2 & 3 of the south’s constitution, their taking of their seats in the Dail and their acceptance of partition and the ‘British presence’ by virtue of participating in the ‘Northern assembly’ and in ‘devolved government’ combine to prove that the current SF leadership have swapped revolutionary ideals for respectability – the armalite for the Armani.

But the truth is that where the republican movement finds itself now politically is exactly where it was always headed. Their socialism has never been more than rhetoric and their political project has always been about the building of what has been referred to variously as an ‘Irish Ireland movement’ or ‘Pan Nationalist Alliance’. In the early 1990s, the ‘Peace process’ as it was to become known, was underway. The British government had effectively conceded that the IRA could not be defeated militarily. On the other hand republican strategists were well aware that ‘war weariness’ was setting in and that a new strategy was needed. At the Sinn Fein Wolfe Tone commemoration in June 1991, Gerry Adams outlined Republican thinking
“While Dublin and the SDLP refuse to stand up to the British government it will continue to think it can do exactly what it wants in Ireland…” stated Adams, going on to put the onus firmly on the Irish government to take up the cause of Irish unity “…Dublin should seek a change in Britain’s current policy of maintaining the union to one of ending it and handing over sovereignty to an all-Ireland government, democratically elected and accountable to the Irish nation”. According to Adams, the Dublin government should take on the task of “persuading the unionists that their future lies in this context [ie in the context of an all-Ireland government] and to persuade the British to accept that they have a responsibility to influence the unionist position. To secure a national and international consensus on this the Dublin government needs a strategy for unity and independence. Such a strategy would involve winning international support for the demand for Irish independence and would require the full use of Irish diplomatic skills and resources.”

So basically the strategy as being outlined by Adams was that the Irish government was basically going to ‘persuade’ the unionists that their future lay in a united Ireland. The government that was going to do this persuasion, mind you, was led by none other than Charles Haughey and was at the time presiding over massive unemployment and poverty. Over the previous 5 years, severe restrictions on the living standards of workers and the unemployed had been implemented through ‘national programmes’. The series of employer/union/government deals which has continued to this day had begun and workers’ living standards were under huge attack. This was the bright prospect that unionists were supposed to warm to being persuaded by. Instead of looking to a strategy which might unite working class people north and south of the border in a common fight against what was the beginnings of the neo-liberal economic agenda, looking for a strategy which would aim to smash both states and replace them with a truly socialist Ireland, the game of playing footsie with Haughey and his cronies was well underway.

Now, it might seem ridiculously obvious, but it is impossible to go anywhere without first knowing where exactly you are headed for. And while Sinn Fein might in theory have the objective of a socialist Ireland, the lack of any real definition of what is meant by that phrase has meant that the road to socialism has had some very strange twists and turns.

But maybe there is a grand master plan. Maybe Adams, McGuinness and Gerry Kelly have a brilliant secret plan which will eventually lead us to the promised land of a socialist Ireland. Maybe we should just stop all the begrudging and trust them to get on with the job. Sure when we arrive at the glorious socialist republic, won’t it all have been worth it.

Or maybe not. You see we anarchists are a contrary lot. We believe in a concept called democracy – more particularly we believe in direct democracy which allows every individual an input into every decision that effects his/her life. We are also sticklers for a concept much loved by republicans too – freedom, not the type of ‘national freedom’ pursued by republicans though but individual freedom – the freedom of each individual to live his/her life to its fullest potential. And - what makes things worse for the ‘leave it to the lads, trust them, they know what they’re doing’ argument – we believe that the means leads to the end. What I mean by that is that if you want to create a free, open and democratic society then the organisations which you build on the way towards that new society, the paths which you follow, the political tactics which you use must also be free, open and democratic – the complete opposite in fact to the political tactics of the republican movement whereby the general membership’s role in past times was basically to act as cheerleaders for ‘the lads with the guns’, and more recently the role of the general membership has become one of being expected to accept without question the leadership’s pronouncements from on high. Acceptance of political dissension within the ranks has never been something for which the republican movement has been known.

I want to look briefly at each of the three topics that I just referred to – democracy, freedom and how we organise – because I believe they clarify quite effectively some of the principal differences between anarchists and republicans, indeed between anarchists and other socialists.

But first I want to go back to something I referred to earlier – the importance of having a clear goal, of knowing where it is we’re going. The anarchist society that I want to live in, the only goal that I believe is worth working towards, is one where the division between leaders and led is abolished. It will be a society in which everybody will be able to realise his/her full potential, one in which everybody’s contribution will be valued and which will put into action that old catchcry of “from each according to ability, to each according to needs”. There will be full equality for all – an end to poverty, exploitation and discrimination, it will be a socialist society built from below - non-exploitative, non-hierarchical and run collectively, based on direct democracy and direct management of production. I’m not interested in wasting my energy fighting to overthrow the current set-up merely to end up replacing one set of bosses for another, to have to end up listening to someone else telling me what to do. Neither am I interested – and this certainly marks out anarchists as being completely different to every other political current – neither am I interested in ending up in a position of power, in being the one who runs things, who tells others what to do. And ultimately republicans – and socialists – will, if they are successful, end up in just that position. Of course they will tell us that they would run society in all our interests but, because they ultimately see the role of the general working class as being supportive rather than central involvement, they eventually end up running things in an authoritarian way. For a successful anarchist revolution to take place, the democratic structures must be put in place which will allow no-one authority over anyone else.

That’s the picture of where we want to end up. But how do we propose to get there? Well that brings me back to the three concepts I mentioned earlier – democracy, freedom and methods of organisation. When anarchists refer to democracy we mean real democracy – or as it is sometimes referred to direct democracy or participative democracy. It has little or nothing in common with what currently passes for democracy, the parliamentary democracy that allows us to every 4 or 5 years put a mark or a number on a piece of paper beside a name of our choice but gives us no input into the actual decisions made or allows us no mechanism to un-vote for that person if he/she doesn’t do what they said they would.

Direct democracy is not about choosing who will rule over us. It is instead about discussing the issues that affect our daily lives, about debating the pros and cons of any proposed course of action and about everyone having an equal say in determining what course of action is to be taken. It about coming up with new ideas, not just giving the nod to a set of proposals already worked out by some group of leaders.

Direct democracy is also about delegation. Popular local assemblies elect delegates to carry out particular tasks or fulfil particular mandates, if they fail to do this they are immediately recalled and someone else is appointed in their place. Power remains in the hands of the assembly, not the delegate. This delegation can happen on a local, regional, national and even international level. By retaining power in the hands of the assemblies, and by rotating the delegates often, it is possible to ensure that no informal ‘elite’ or leadership emerges.

Direct democracy is ultimately about - as the Russian anarchist Michael Bakunin stated – “the government of industry administered on behalf of the whole community”. It could, I suppose, be described as government of the people by the people and for the people but not government over the people.

Freedom is another concept which is absolutely central to anarchism. Anarchists want to create a society in which – as I’ve already said – people can realise their full potential as free individuals. This is ultimately THE most basic premise of anarchist thought. That said, there is no such thing as absolute freedom. As I’ve heard someone else put it, my freedom to swing a frying pan ends where your nose begins. Or to put it another way the only limits on one person’s freedom would be that it doesn’t impinge on the freedom of someone else. Maximum personal freedom cannot be realised at the expense of others.

It is only in a truly socialist society in which the artificial divisions between us now based on religion, colour, nationality etc. no longer matter that this sense of freedom can be attained. It is only if we manage to build a non-hierarchical society without leaders or bosses that that concept of maximum personal freedom can possibly be attained. Freedom needs a particular social environment in which to blossom and grow – that environment must be based on direct democracy and the direct management of production by ordinary people for the good of all.

Which brings me neatly to the road to socialism. I passionately believe that the means leads to the ends. By this I mean that if we want to get to a free, open and democratic society then we need to put such concepts into practice in our day-to-day lives and political activity. In every campaign in which anarchists are involved, you’ll hear us arguing for maximum participation and maximum democracy. In unions, in community groups, in campaigns we want to see people organise in a democratic way, setting their own agenda, deciding what they are fighting for and how they want to get there. We don’t sell people false shortcuts or sow illusions in blind alleys either such as “armed struggle” or electoralism. Reliance on the tactic of armed struggle ultimately leads to the vast majority being mere spectators, providing support – in what has to be an unquestioning way – for what has to be a secret army. Electioneering, we argue, is not only a waste of time given that no parliament will ever be allowed to bring about any meaningful change. But worse than being a waste of time, electioneering actually damages the fight for socialism by creating a clientist mentality whereby people sit at home and wait for someone else to sort out their problems rather than taking action themselves. And no matter how many times a political party or organisation tells us that their participation in elections is merely tactical, it inevitably becomes the dominant tactic – again reducing the role of the general mass of people to that of supporters rather than participants.

People will only learn to be free by exercising their freedom. People learn about their own power to change society by participating directly in campaigns which effect their own lives. Direct action transforms those who use it, it is a means of self-liberation because it gives people a glimpse of what is possible, a glimpse of their potential power and when all that power is eventually harnessed we’ll be on the road to a truly free society. The German anarchist, Rudolf Rocker in his book ‘Anarcho Syndicalism’ said “Socialism will be free or it will not be at all.”

That’s the only socialism that’s worth fighting for, it’s the only freedom worth fighting for.

by bakunin Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:04

You got the last part right anyway!

The above lecture is the equivalent of somebody delivering a critique of Christianity and tehn offering as a solution, the teachings of L Ron Hubbard.

Anarchism is an infantile fantasy (pardon the misquote of that old butcher Vladimir Illych), based on an ignorance of human history and of human nature. Indeed the only times anarchists have ever gotten anywhere near to power they proved just as nasty and bloodthirsty as the adherents of any other totalitarian ideology - Spain being the most obvious answer although some of them aslo excelled themselves during the Russian Civil War.

by jack white - wsm Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:53

". Indeed the only times anarchists have ever gotten anywhere near to power they proved just as nasty and bloodthirsty as the adherents of any other totalitarian ideology - Spain being the most obvious answer although some of them aslo excelled themselves during the Russian Civil War."

Any actual examples or incidents you'd like to point to here?

by Questioner Tue Mar 01, 2005 14:58

Reading Gregor's talk, I see a certain ambivalence about crime. I want to ask about that.

From my point of view it is obvious stealing is bad.

I guess you regard it as who as being robbed that makes the difference?

So I should not rob off my neighbour? Perhaps we both agree there.

Is it ok to rob from rich people? If so how do you define rich? What's the cut off? To me differentiating between who to rob on some arbitrary financial cut off is not a good basis to base a belief system on.

You think it's ok to rob from banks I gather, that's clear anyway. But who pays for the robbery - the bank claims on insurance and the insurance company ups its premiums next year. It's people who pay insurance who pay for bank robberies.

We all pay insurance. I therefore do not see any moral difference between robbing a bank and robbing a person. It's the people who pay. When Sinn Fein/IRA robbed they Northern Bank they robbed me and you.

I think in summary your position is not morally consistent. It's not a very nice position either.

by Chekov Tue Mar 01, 2005 16:44

'Bakunin's' contribution is a wildly inaccurate lie. Although anarchists are in general very critical of the decisions of the CNT during the Spanish revolution, they do not, nor does any other honest person, claim that this is anything to do with them being bloodthirsty. There is simply no evidence for the suggestion that anarchists in Spain or Russia were "just as nasty and bloodthirsty as the adherents of any other totalitarian ideology". In fact, I don't think that I have ever even heard anybody claim this before - with or without evidence.

Where were the gulags, or concentration camps? Where were the mass graves? Where were the clamp downs on freedom of expression? Where were the torture chambers? where were the bans?

In fact most criticisms of the anarchists in Spain and Russia include an element of them being 'too soft' on their political enemies and spending too much time on worrying about how to ensure that they allowed space for dissent and alternative viewpoints. For example, at the CNT congress of Zaragozza in 1936, just before the revolution at a time when it was clear that the crunch was coming, much of the time was spent trying to figure out how vegetarian and back-to-nature communes could be given space within a libertarian society.


Questioner: I think that your logic is all wrong and you are blaming the wrong person. If a person robbing a bank causes the bank to recoup the gains by robbing people, then the bank is guilty of robbing them, not the original robber. Similarly, if a shop assistant is sacked due to a failure to stop shoplifting, then I blame the manager/owner for the sacking, not the robber. Similarly, if you hit me and I turn around and hit somebody else, I am responsible for the second assault, even if you knew that it was a likely consequence.

Aside from this point, I don't think that any anarchists have advocated robbery as a political strategy since the 1890's, we just don't see it as an injustice or something that we're going to get upset about. We generally think that the bank has no right to such an enormous accumulation of wealth and don't give a shit when some of it is appropriated, whether it is by another capitalist or by a robber.

by Gregor Kerr - WSM - 1st May - pers. cap. Tue Mar 01, 2005 19:32 kerrgregor at yahoo dot co dot uk

Hi Questioner
The point I was making in relation to 'not being too concerned about anyone relieving a bank of a few pound' was to question the definition of what is constituted a crime in capitalist society. In the context of the talk I was giving I wasn't in a position to go into great detail about the nature of crime etc. But I'm sure you'll agree that when our rulers talk of crime and criminality they have very limited definitions. For example, in relation to taxes - the wealthy can avail of various tax avoidance loopholes and schemes to _legally_ avoid paying their share of the taxes necessary to fund public services. These range from investment in racehorses to building holiday homes or 'property investment' schemes. Those who make the laws have decided also that it is 'legal' for multinational companies to minimise the taxes they pay by availing of grants and tax incentive schemes. Throughout the 1980s & 1990s - not content with all the legal ways of avoiding paying tax - a lot of wealthy people availed of offshore accounts and other scams to ensure they paid even less. How many people have appeared in court or done prison sentences for tax evasion? Very, very few. Even worse than that, the Fine Gael-Labour coalition introduced a tax amnesty which basically allowed these tax dodgers to legally 'launder' their money and make it legit.
To me it is a crime that billions of Euros are spent on the armaments industry every year while millions of people starve. To me it is a crime that AIB can make something like €1.4m in profits a day while the number of people in this country expected to survive on or below the official poverty line continues to increase. Neither of these crimes are however illegal, in fact both are encourgaed by the system.
So I was not advocating robbery as a political tactic, merely pointing out that there is more to crime and criminality than McDowell and his cronies might like to talk about.

by Anthony G Tue Mar 08, 2005 03:17

I was just doing some late night reading and I came across this article from an issue of Workers Solidarity published back in 1992. It's a short but decent analysis of the latest episode of the 200+ year old struggle that is Republicanism. It outlines the anarchist position similar to that outlined by Gregor above but it's fairly clear in that the Provisional movement is a response to the problem rather than being the source of the problem - as one could be forgiven for believing if (like me) you grew up in the eighties and had only ever heard (in the mainstream media) about the atrocities of the (P)IRA and how bloodthirsty and criminal they were.

by Joe Tue Mar 08, 2005 11:00

That article has a hell of a typo in it!

Apart from that those interested can find every article we have written on the north since 1986 on our web site. They are in two sections

Imperialism and northern Ireland
http://struggle.ws/wsm/north.html
covers everything up to the period of the 1994 ceasefire

The Irish 'Peace Process'
http://struggle.ws/wsm/peaceprocess.html
covers everything from then to the present day

by South Down Republican Sun Jun 05, 2005 13:45

Ah yes, the true courage of those who would remain nameless and faceless, who would have others fight their war and are thus reduced to the sniping of libel at their little keyboards - Viva la Revelution!

by Chekov Sun Jun 05, 2005 15:21

South Down Republican, you are criticising named people for their anonymous sniping, in an anonymous snipe. Either your response to criticism runs on auto-pilot and has no relationship to reality or you've been smoking something.