Carlo Giuliani protest.. (1 Viewer)

[broken arm]

i gave up limiting myself to one particular political persuasion. i could label myself an anarchist or a hippie a punk or a democrat or whatever but i have realised and tried to show that if you prescribe to one label your stuck to that. I have tried to point out that i agree on some principles that you would abide to but think your system (anarchism) and pretty much all other political persuasions are flawed an so worthless at the end of the day. its probably called positive cynicism or something...

I mentioned the miners because a) to me its odd to hear anarchists say they support a system that their agenda wants to do away with. Why only support the miners - how about other factory workers or IT workers or all those unemployed web-designers or do you support them because they are ememies of your enemies.If some bank let go thousands of workers would you care about them or are you basing your agenda on dated notions of what the 'worker' is. I mean if you say you support the workers how can you then say that you want to end the capitalist system of profit etc. Surely if you got your way tomorrow million upon millions of people worldwide would lose their livelyhood and income etc.

b) its odd for me to hear somebody say they are an anarchist and be on the internet. your typing on a computer using telecommunications networks that are there because, maintained by and funding those you say you hate. How the hell can you say you dont support those who are working to help others around the world and at the same time use computers etc. (products of the capitalist system)It seems flawed and hypocritical to me.

To me your agenda is confused on what it wants to do away with, what it wants to support and what it is willing to tolerate.

You still didnt address my point about how your system would deal with real-life situations that are happening now. if you think what the ngo's and other organisation is go build a few wells etc youve got to pull your head out of your ass.

If you think that war, hunger, homelessness, lack of education, etc etc would disappear in an anarchist society you have to show me practical and considered reasons why. not being facetious but that to me that dream is complete bullshit. You seem fixated on the concept of a constant political power struggle. I think youll find that most wars are rooted in resource control. Whether its the diamond trade in sierra leone or oil in Iraq. In relation to the war in Iraq its not as basic as the theft of oil from saddam(it would be cheaper to buy it on the world market) but about the control of the flow of the oil.

you agreed that your system couldnt solve that one off-hand example i gave of a real-life situation so will you then please tell me if you would turn your back on the people needing help because you dont see eye to eye with the structures that are at hand to help. It seems to me while you are fumbling with your principles somebody else will be organising food, shelter, medicines, security and political persuasion(albeit stunted) to help deal with the problem.

 

[broken arm]

also could you explain to me the anarchist doctrine on legal issues. e.g. would/could it facilitate the foundation of something like the international criminal court.

 

[D0njo]

dfg

"If some bank let go thousands of workers would you care about them"

bit of a shit point.. these bankers aren't all from the same town (bankville) and something like that wouldn't destroy a whole community...

"How the hell can you say you dont support those who are working to help others around the world and at the same time use computers etc. (products of the capitalist system)"

hypocritical? naa, the internet's a pretty dandy tool, we probably wouldn't be discussing all this otherwise

 

[broken arm]

ok, i used the bank as an analogy because I think the concept of the 'worker' has changed dramatically. i dont think the thousands of workers need to be from tha same area for the issue of 'downsizing' to be a problem. the impact/problem of dependence on one industry is the same as dependence on cash crops. my issue with that was if you support the workers, you support the industry and then you have to think about the products of that industry and how they impact and connect with other parts of the greater 'system'.

i agree the internet can be empowering (but you must remember how few people worldwide even have access to telephones) but i find it hypocritical to claim to be an anarchist and then use and benefit from the tools of another 'system'. dont forget the fact the internet was developed by the US military...

 

[nooleen]

the internet's a pretty dandy tool, we probably wouldn't be discussing all this otherwise

and wouldn't that be a fucking tragedy, jeez we could be looking at like, YEARS until the revolution if it wasn't for this thread. a meeting of minds so to speak. i'm a bit cranky because i can't have any more morphine.

 

[D0njo]

tt

i don't care anyway
that is all

 

[Shorty]

The acronym NGO is often used in conjunction with the phrase "civil society", to evoke non-profit organizations that mediate the public interest with governments.

Many of the key NGOs are organized like traditional hierarchies. They are run by charismatic leaders and executive boards, while their members send them money and cheer from the sidelines.

I think you're point earlier was about using violence to create a different world and that you have to act now the way you want it to be in the future. If something is built on violence, how can you suddenly get rid of it. Right? Well then, if something is to be built on/using these structures, how can you then suddenly change to radical democracy.


The EZLN aren't anarchist, but they are a grassroots peasent army. And while not adhering to an anarchist "ideology" they do espouse some anarchist decision making processes. The Zapatista army is run by twenty thre commandantes who make up the "Clandestine Revolutionary Committee". All of them are Indians and they are elected by, and take their orders from, the autonomous communities they come from. The decision to go to war in 1994, for example, was not made by the commandantes - they do not have the authority to make such significant decisions without the go-ahead from the Zapatistas in every autonomous village. Only after an exhaustive, months-long process of consultation and voting across Chiapas did the EZlN get the go-ahead for war, and only then did they act.

"It seems to me while you are fumbling with your principles somebody else will be organising food, shelter, medicines, security and political persuasion(albeit stunted) to help deal with the problem."

"Since 1994, the autonomous zones, against all the odds, have survived. They have run their own services and train teachers and doctors. ... They refuse to accept any resources or help from central government until the San Andres Accords become law."

Although they do receive some support from charities and solidarity groups, here is a case of people organising and doing things for themselves. Instead of relying on someone else to do it for them as you seem to think is so necessary.

One other point, I don't exactly consider myself "anarchist" though I do believe in radical democracy. You seem to have a lot of criticisms about anarchists/anarchism for someone who thought it was about "seizing power". Zapatismo has been built on two crucial ideas ( ideas which anarchists would associate with ) - First, that power is not something to be concentrated at government level, changing hands between political elites every few years : it is something to be devolved down to community level, to be used by and for the people it affects. And secondly, that anyone that wants this to happen should not waste their time waiting for the government to hand it down to them, but should rise up and take it themselves.

 

[Shorty]

"its odd for me to hear somebody say they are an anarchist and be on the internet. your typing on a computer using telecommunications networks that are there because, maintained by and funding those you say you hate. How the hell can you say you dont support those who are working to help others around the world and at the same time use computers etc. (products of the capitalist system)It seems flawed and hypocritical to me."

By that reasoning we shouldn't even be using electricity (since 2 billion people in the world don' even have it and it's provided by corporations) or eating any food that we don't grow ourselves. Does that mean when water becomes privatised we should stop drinking it. Come on, be realisteic. I'm sick of this specious argument I hear all the time. So what you're saying is that we can't criticise anything unless we are living completely ethical lives, albeit living those lives within an unethical system. If we were able to live ethical lives within this system what would we be "protesting" about? The best we can do is to try to live as ethically as possible while at the same time trying to change it.

And although the internet was created by the US military, it has since then changed into something with entirely different intent. It is decentralised and democratic (to a certain extent). And if it weren't for the internet "the (insert whatever) movement" might not even exist or be in it's present form today.

Here's another long qoute : " This approach is part of what has made this movement so effective. Broad based, local and national networks, run by communities and linked internationally, more often than not, by the Internet, have proved themselves capable of bringing together very large groups of people in very short spaces of time. This way of organising has been called 'swarming' ... Like the Zapatista rebellion, networks like PGA have been defined in many ways by the Internet. That was how Genoa was organised (mobile phones help too), that was how the Zapatistas came to the world's attention, and that is how, to a large extent, PGA runs ... Internet activism, unlike more traditional forms of mobilising cannot easily be crushed. It is democratic, non-hierarchical and entirely in keeping with the global nature and principles of the movement. It also gives birth to new forms of protest - 'cyber squatting' ... Or the so called 'Dracula strategy' - using the internet and e-mail to expose to the light which it's creators would rather keep hidden. This was used to it's best effect so far in 1998, when the text of a global treaty being quietly drawn up by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development - the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) - was leaked to a group of Canadian activists. The agreement, which would have given multinational investors the power to sue national governments and gut democratic control over foreign investment, was sent around the world to websites and e-mail lists in a matter of minutes. A rapid mobilisation began, and before even many government ministers knew wht was in the treaty, a worldwide campaign was in progress against it. Exposed to the light, the MAI shrivelled and died, when politicians who would previously have waved it through pulled out of negotiations in the light of public glare. ... The 'swarm' had it's first scalp. Within twelve months, at Seattle it would have another. Ironically, the Internet, engine of financial and corporate globalisation, had become the engine, too, of the globalisation of resistance; a vital tool for the creation of a global network of dissent that could probably not have been created without it."

 

[broken arm]

couldnt agree with you more reg. the zapatistas. my problem was ive met many anarchists who seem to think they have something in common with them but the processes are totally different. when i first came across them years ago i was struck by their values of autonomous and equitable control i.e. not want to 'seize' power as such more spread the control amongst the people.

i like the fact you mentioned 'radical democracy' because as i said I cant class myself as anything but that inicates an always changing and adaptive ideology.

i know the analogy of the computer and anarchists not being 'allowed' to use them is stupid. I said it because of the crazy situation of people saying they wouldnt support structures such as charities etc on grounds of some short-sighted ethical standpoint and so turning their backs on people who need help. We all know the process of throwing money at the poor does not help but in times of crisis its the only thing that can be done - when the dust settles many of these NGO's work on sustainable development projects giving people the means to support themselves. the old 'give a man a fish and feed him for a day teach him how to fish and feed him for life' analogy. We really only hear from the NGO's in time of crisis and they a begging for money but they dont harp on about their work between the crisis - maybe they are too busy.

i think its as important to question yourself and those you stand with as well as those you oppose. Personally I dont see a global revolution happening the way it did in Belgrade, Prague etc. because a revolution needs a system to fill the gap and I see to many people dependant on the sytem that will suffer too much in the process of change.

I have also tried to show that I dont think the alternative many are proposing is capable or possible on a massive scale. Ive probably said it already but sustainable development is the only 'revloution' i see working in a way that will accomodate the needs and wants of the planet. And yes that works within the current system I hate as much as you but it works to change that system from within by pushing practical and positive alternatives to current processes and not by trying to smash it from the outside.

Now this is my prescribed solution it doesnt belong to any political movement I havent seen it written down etc but I have a million reasons that I can see myself supporting this process. I have to be open to change of myself, my beliefs and my understanding and not be bogged down by some label or group.

Another quick(not fully thought out) point to think about: how would you explain to some poor south american farmer that we're not going to buy his coffee crop because we dont agree with the structures that facilitate the export and selling of his crop. Is it right to put livelyhoods in jeopardy by a process of doing nothing?

 

[Malarky]

Hmm, that holiday didn't last long enough. Well, Broken arm, its very hard to reply to your posts as you misinterpret or, more often, mistake what I've previously said and then base your replys on it. Just to clear up a few things before I continue - I never said I would be against aid being sent to Liberia by any group I didn't agree with on some "purist" anarchist principle; look back over my posts and quote where you think I said that. I'll reiterate - to just sit back and let your precious NGOs act as a kind of pressure valve for governments' worst excesses without acvtively trying to change the circumstances and the system that let the situation happen is both short-sighted and ignorant. By all means let them send aid, but if you think that's the end of the story then you're part of the problem. Another thing, you keep banging on about how the theory of anarchism can't solve Liberia's problems overnight. It's idiotic; you're trying to bang a square peg into a round hole. Who in their right mind would argue that a way of organising, living and thinking that is totally different to the current system could rescue a country on the brink of collapse overnight? Why do you persist on bringing it up as if its the winning argument against anarchism? It shows a lack of understanding on every level. I believe anarchism (and don't take what I say as what all anarchists think - as with any branch of ism there's a multitude of offshoots) is a much better system of organising for any country IN THE LONG RUN. I'm not going round saying it'll turn the world into a big, smily utopia overnight.
You also try to state that my 'agenda' is confused on what it wants to do away with, what it wants to support. On the contrary, it is you who are confused about what anarchism consists of, and anarchist methods of organisation and practise. Just because we have a vision of what we would one day like society to be, doesn't mean we stand back and refuse to join in struggles that don't exactly match what we want the end result to be. For example, the struggle for the 8 hour day. The present notion of work (slave labour) is obviously abhorrent to anarchists, but it doesn't stop us from fighting for anything that will make existance a little more bearable. And again for the miners. Obviously in the long run we don't want an unsustainable and polluting fuel to provide energy in our society, but that in no way means we can't fight in the here and now for people getting fucked over by the government. You are mixing up what we want in the long run and what we can do now, not us.
Also, you make a big deal about how you're not stuck to one label as I supposedly am, and how it creates rigid thinking that can't be changed. What you're describing is ideology, which is something anarchism is most certainly not. Anarchism is a socio-economic and political theory, but not an ideology. The difference is very important. Basically, theory means you have ideas; an ideology means ideas have you. Anarchism is a body of ideas, but they are flexible, in a constant state of evolution and flux, and open to modification in light of new data. As society changes and develops, so does anarchism. An ideology, in contrast, is a set of "fixed" ideas which people believe dogmatically, usually ignoring reality or "changing" it so as to fit with the ideology, which is (by definition) correct. I've laid my politics on the line for criticism, but you keep dodging definition, preferring instead to have a strange mixture of thought which I'm going to call "broken-armism" that seems to accept NGOs as the be-all and end-all of humanity, sees the only way to exist is to have a government structure, doesn't think people can act of their own free will, and believes the idea of protest is to "remind" those in power of our "agenda and purpose". Well, woopty fucking doo. Obviously a well thought out theory. Is that going to solve the worlds ills then?
You want to know how war, hunger, homelessness, etc would disappear in an anarchist society? By removing the power from the hands of the corrupt, by doing away with capitalism and its social structures that needs things like war to keep the economy thriving, by removing class structures and consumerism and wage-slavery, by producing for need not greed. As Bakunin says : "Until now all human history has been only a perpetual and bloody immolation of millions of poor human beings in honour of some pitiless abstraction -- God, country, power of state, national honour, historical rights, judicial rights, political liberty, public welfare." What exactly is wrong with wanting something better? Why can it not be achieved if it has been achieved before? Why do you need to be ruled over?
I'm not even going to address some of your other points like "you're not an anarchist if you use the internet", "what's the anarchist doctrine on legal issues" and your "poor south american farmer" routine. It just serves to highlight your naivety and misunderstanding of anarchism - which is shocking seeing as you're so ready to criticise it.
You say your espousal of NGOs and sustainable development within the system doesn't belong to any political movement - it does, it's called liberalism, and it stinks.

 

[pete]

You want to know how war, hunger, homelessness, etc would disappear in an anarchist society? By removing the power from the hands of the corrupt, by doing away with capitalism and its social structures that needs things like war to keep the economy thriving, by removing class structures and consumerism and wage-slavery, by producing for need not greed.

But... how?

 

[taubstumm]

But... how?

through, like, mass revolutionary direct action by the opressed classes of the world, dude.

 

[pete]

Ahh right.

Grand so.

 

[taubstumm]

Didn't Nelson Mandela kill two policemen?

did he?

links for this?

 

[Malarky]

But... how?

You want me to give you a blueprint for insurrection?! Who can do that? The whole point of the anarchist movement is there are no leaders to tell you how to do things. But, I can give you a vague hypothesis - it'll either come about from spontaeneous mass uprising, or, more likely in our countries that have become so distracted by consumerism, through constant agitation and the spreading of anarchist ideas; working within communities - like all the anarchist social & community centres that are springing up throughout England (don't know what's happening your end), also the setting up of alternatives so that when revolution does come, we already have some kind of strucure in place. To give an example that's relevant to this board, look what the DIY punk scene has achieved in relatively little time? Now think bigger.

 

[pete]

And what about those who oppose change?

 

[Malarky]

And what about those who oppose change?

What do you mean? Those who have vested interests in the system staying as it is? Mass uprising is just that - by the masses. It's when the present system has become so repugnant people seek change.
No-ones trying to impose an anarchist system on anyone - by its nature it wouldn't work.

 

[billygannon]

Why are you trying to convince us to be anarchic? Surely if I disagree with you and then you "win" the argument, then I have to fall in line with your beliefs.. therefore making you a leader and imposing your beliefs on me.

I'm just winding you up here
I don't really care too much about this. Grand ideologies have always been and always will be irrelevant. Life should just be about putting smiles on other people's feces... sorry, faces.

actually, I've just realised I'm talking to no-one here... except my computer. Hello Computer...

 

[Malarky]

Why are you trying to convince us to be anarchic? Surely if I disagree with you and then you "win" the argument, then I have to fall in line with your beliefs.. therefore making you a leader and imposing your beliefs on me.

I only joined in this thread to counter some of what Broken Arm was saying - I'm not trying to preach anything, all of my responses were a debate with Broken Arm. However, I don't see anything wrong with discussing issues such as this; politics should always have a place in punk.

I don't really care too much about this. Grand ideologies have always been and always will be irrelevant. Life should just be about putting smiles on other people's feces... sorry, faces.

That's a good enough way to go about things...as long as you can afford to live that carefree and don't face any of the problems normally associated with everyday life.

 

[pete]

What do you mean? Those who have vested interests in the system staying as it is? Mass uprising is just that - by the masses. It's when the present system has become so repugnant people seek change.
No-ones trying to impose an anarchist system on anyone - by its nature it wouldn't work.

So if you're not going to impose it.... how's it going to happen?