|
|  |
For the attention of all Anarchists
nn(A) - 04.06.2009 13:22
"We compromise our own politics in the 'kraakers paradijs' we run around obeying ever law we come into contact with, even submitting to consesus with practitioners of reform, meanwhile dreaming and fantasizing of our 'Freedom'. We cannot continue to befoul ourselves in this manner. This can quickly become the sum of our existence."
Anarchism in the netherlands is sleeping. anarchists are comatosed, lost in feelings of indifference, self pity and insignificance. Reports from the december uprising in greece were lapped up in a masturbatory frenzy, however it is a distant dream and to many an impossibility. It is different in greece; there is a strong history of anarchism. In this age their strength lies in a very real form of solidarity. Solidarity for anarchists in that part of the world is real, it is a method of communication, a solid show of empathy and mutual respect visible for all to see. True comradeship..
Imagine an anarchist were to be murdered by the dutch state, regarded as a far off juncture but by no means an impossibility, it is not likely that the state would feel threatened. Legal roads would be the most likely course of action taken by the movement in a forlorn attempt to lobby the state, a tangent from our ideals, instead of a real manifestation of solidarity, passion and concerted effort for the materialisation of struggle against our enemies. December's battles were a reaction but they were a reaction waiting to happen. Direct action in greece is an ever-present and solidarity is brought to the fore when comrades are attacked. We are led to believe that we enact solidarity on many an occasion in the netherlands but this simply is not true. Time and thought must be taken to make it real. The solidarity we are used to is solidarity without substance.
An attack by the state should warrant a return attack, and to be honest to ourselves we must begin to generate this. This does not happen enough, we must form struggle. We must make challenges. We must take confidence from our comrades across the globe, another world is possible but not if we do not create it. The system will not collapse in on itself and prepare for us our new world. Insurrection must be everywhere if our dreams are to be realised, there is much to be done both internally and externally.
We compromise our own politics in the 'kraakers paradijs' we run around obeying ever law we come into contact with, even submitting to consesus with practitioners of reform, meanwhile dreaming and fantasizing of our 'Freedom'. We cannot continue to befoul ourselves in this manner. This can quickly become the sum of our existences and as the new dawn breaks we will find ourselves in a new era of law, in a new era of social democracy and we can find ourselves counting down the seconds till there exists a new class system.
Laws are made to control and adhering to these monstrosities limits our capabilities. Change is possible and we know this, how to engage remains simple and obvious but the stumbling block is fear. Fear of what, state prosecution? Scare tactics are simply working without being challenged. This is the monopoly of control, their power is our belief that they have this total control, we are led to believe that they will find us and they will reap their justice upon us. We are subdued before there is anything to subdue, our voices have faded into silence. This is the very system we oppose and so we must substantiate our opposition. The possibilities outweigh the risks. If we do not live out our feelings, our beliefs, our yearnings we will remain dead, knowing that we never even attempted to exact the change we desire.
There are ceaseless calls about and against our repression. We must see that the repression is first and foremost in our minds. Currently we are more repressed by those in our surroundings than those in the blue and those in court rooms and those in the suits. The boergoisie are all around. We must denounce them. We do not wish to succumb to the pretentiality of lifestyle anarchism, we do not want to live as the pseudo-political elite. We must neutralise this poison and amputate the infected limbs. Without them we are stronger and the cancer can no longer spread. We need quality not quantity.
|
| Lees meer over: vrijheid, repressie & mensenrechten | | aanvullingen | | uit dit artikel zijn aanvullingen verplaatst naar de ruispagina | | | tegenstelling | nn - 04.06.2009 13:34
echte solidariteit en een hechte radicalere beweging zijn een mooi doel maar ga je dat bereiken door de interne solidariteit te verbreken ?
let op dat je geen karikatuur van jezelf wordt : "some animals are more equal than others " . Je kritiek is terecht maar geef mensen kansen in plaats van te praten over geïnfecteerde lichaamsdelen die geamputeerd moeten worden . Je spreekt van een politieke-elite maar door jezelf boven mede-kameraden ( ook al zijn ze dat maar in woord en niet in daad) te plaatsen roep je op tot het vormen van een nieuwe morele elite ...
| | what? | nn2 - 04.06.2009 14:59
Non-Dutch speakers (like the author of the article, I guess) might not get the point you try to make, nn.
If you take the effort to criticize, try to take the effort to make yourself understandable as well.
| | contradiction | nn(engl) - 04.06.2009 15:32
real solidarity and a united radicalised movement are nice goals but are you going to reach them by breaking the internal solidarity ? watch out not to become a caricature(?) of yourself : "some animals are more equal than others ?" . your critique is right but give individuals a chance to change instead of talking about infected bodyparts that have to be amputated . you speak about a political elite but by claiming you are better than other comrads (even if they only support in words and not in deeds) you call out to form a moral elite yourself ...
| | analysis? conclusions? | H. Sneevliet - 04.06.2009 15:44
Although I would agree with you as far as the sorry state of dutch anarchism (and the krakersparadijs) is concerned, I guess we do not have the same reasons to come to this conclusion.
In my opinion, the krakersparadijs is indeed a floating air castle, whereby the internal discourse is detached from the surrounding social reality. The fact that real life problems are addressed , is rather a coincidence that the result of an analysis whatsoever. Infact, mostly slogans from 20 years ago are repeated, whereby it is obvious to most spectators, that thge ones screaming these slogans, are by no means capable of backing them up with social or economic analysis of any kind, nor would they be able to recreate such slogans from scratch if there was no historic examples in the archives.
The masturbational reverence to social struggle elsewhere is indeed used to satisfy rather puberal needs for collision with 'the establishment', without being able to identify the real front line of social struggle.
Unfortunately a rather vague call to solidarity will not change this. In fact, invoking the greek uprising in this context places the whole call in the same fishbowl that it is meant to criticize.
Leaving the fishbowl would not mean to act in the shadow of an iconized violent uprising abroad, but react to the social antagonism in dutch society itself.
As the fishbowl you mention is a 'krakersparadijs', most of the little insurgent fish would not have to go very far: the bad distribution of housing is a huge problem for many. Unfortunately, there is largely no connection to other members of this huge disenfranchised group: subletters, renters of small rooms for high prized, antisquatters and alikes.
Real and effective solidarity can practiced from today on with exactly this group. The real contribution that anarchists can make is to help members of this group to organize and make one front against their exploiters.
when do we start?
| | ... | nn(a) - 04.06.2009 16:12
the references to greece are merely to try and a pitch a level for people to understand what is being said.
nothing was intended to be perceived as being from an elevated perspective, however for anarchists it is highly relevant. the idelogy the text was written from was an anarchist one one and by this, is meant the complete dissolution of power and their structures. i.e. not working within them to try and come close to the ultimate goal.
an attempt was also made to try and attack the consensus culture as this just does not satisfy. There is understanding for the need to act as a coherent unit with people from other subversive units, but if if everything is based on a series of compromises no-one is happy.
The text was written to try and provoke discussion and to provoke a beginning. The perspective of the text is, is that there is no anarchist movement and the feeling is is that there is no anarchism because it is engulfed by the feeling of need for a broader participatoy group.
What is written is that you do not need a broader participatory group and every action is conducted in honesty with ones self and if other groups heed the call (the action itself) then it furthers itself. there need be no centralisation.
| | individualist kamikaze or popular uprising | A. Bennekom - 04.06.2009 16:55
How is there no need for a broad consensus and support from people in comparable situations of exploitation?
This is the logic of radical islamists (and other long bearded bombers), whereby 'honesty' (in delusion) seems to have a higher value than making sense at all.
An open debate in open society does not mean that there is centralization.
Nor does it mean that a 'subversive unit' is free to act without having to justify their thoughts and acts. In fact, rather than to a centralized entity (state and alikes), such units and their members have to justify to everybody that bother to engage them.
This is also the difference between libertarian socialists (vrije socialisten = anarchists) and authoritarian ones.
| | polderen! | cynical dutch anarchist - 04.06.2009 17:18
So what the authors are asking for is (the start of) a general insurrection? An uprising? The fact is that most 'professional' activists and squatters are too much stuck in their own privilege. This can be seen by the fact that their is absolutely no connection with the rest of society. Squatters are mostly white and of middle-class background. From an anarchist point of view the 'poldermentaliteit' of the 'movement' is irrational and stupid, but from a more subcultural perspective it makes sense.
People of the squatters movement (does it even exist?) have too much to lose. Their privilege, their nice shows, etc. Protest becomes more of a means to construct ones 'cool squatter' identity than building a revolutionary movement. under the banner of "Party and Protest" even poisoning yourself by drinking beer becomes revolutionary because your buying it in the squat bar and so you're supporting the struggle... Logically the only things seen from these squats are orgies of passiveness. Reformism has become the ultimate goal of squatting. Legalization though can never, Never, be taken as something good. It makes it easier for the state to divide between 'good' and 'bad' squatters. And these good squatters will make the long road through the institutions, until finally convinced they should settle down and find a job and 'normal' house.
So maybe the anti-squatters law will finally bring these distinctions more out in the open. Conflict can be a helpful tool for polarization between people who are ready to fight for change here and now, and the people who want to stay put in their 'scene' or activist ghetto.
A general insurrection only makes sense when it can be maintained, when it will be supported. In the Netherlands not even protest is so much supported by society. More helpful might be to attack the state where it is weak, where it has cracks and holes.
Especially with the crisis also coming to town here in Holland, these cracks will widen. It must be in these crack from where lasting communities of resistance can be build.
| | Discussie | Anoniempje - 04.06.2009 17:35
Alhoewel ik weet dat het niet de bedoeling is van Indymedia een discussie platform te maken, zou ik toch aan de moderators willen vragen deze in mijn perspectief ZEER nuttige discussie een paar dagen te laten voortduren.
| | social or political revolution | J. N. Theo - 04.06.2009 17:55
In a historic context, anarchists never went for political power, but for the pursuit of social goals, not only by some, 'pure', means, but by any means necessary, while other, more authoritarian socialists, felt the need to seize power in the state to implement such change. I believe that this difference is still crucial in modern times, especially when the sense (and nonsense) of some methods is discussed.
I believe that the seeking of a consensual way of achieving social goals, is not by any means wrong , as long as the focus are on the goals themselves. While parlamentarists (liberals and socialist ones) seem to have a cult of certain way of collective decision making and are apparently willing to sacrifice common sense for political purity, some (self appointed) anarchists seem to have the same religious narrowmindness: while the first will accept 'empty houses next to homeless camps' just because a law in parlament creates such a situation legally, the latter are unable to conceive a strong autonomous community without continuous violent clashes with a real (or often imagined) political counterparts.
Anarchism in its philosophical dimension, should not fall for such dogmatisms, but analyze the factual social situation constantly and develop suitable methods to solve factual problems. If such an independent perspective is impossible, the social goals as such will be unachievable, and the actors be doomed to be 'clowns in black masks' at the sideline of society.
A concrete example is the above affirmation that 'legalization can Never never(sic) be a good thing'. Is this true independent from what might happen in a legalized squat? Or is the squatted state of a house a guarantee for a 'good thing'? It just doesn't make sense to sacrifice
a social goal (a place for an autonomous and egalitarian community) for a religious concept (if its legal, its conformist).
Seen in this light, what is there wrong with obtaining by negotiation, what cannot (or only great loss) be achieved by direct action? And how are these approaches not complementary, rather than opposite?
| | finally, a nice discussion | nn(A) - 05.06.2009 12:14
the text is blatantly an attack on the squatters 'movement with the focus also being to try and provoke a response from anarchists entrenched within.
A.Bennekom: Ok, broad consensus cannot be reached with people or groups involved that are pushing through and viewing the world from a completely different lens. We do not feel the necessity to comprise ourselves anymore. Certain people and certain groups with sophistically produced arguments in combination with reitterating fears at selected times control open debate.
This is allignment and we do not want to allign with reformist power-seekers any more.
And the Islamist reference was a 'low-blow'. Radical anarchists actually preceeded radical Islamists to my knowledge-feel free to correct!
cynical dutch anarchist: What you wrote about the 'cool squatters' and the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are a much appreciated summary of the disappointing situation.
An uprising is, as you stated, far far away from coming to fruition. However, foundations can be laid and the beginnings of a struggle can start to form and it is truly agreed that the cracks and holes and weaknesses should be exploited. But it must also be stressed that the cracks and holes are everywhere.
j.n.theo:there was no stated will for political power within the text.
"Legilization" changes the spectre completely of a situation. A house made safe is as long as it is to continue thinking revolutionary, although this is often not the case, can be a good thing. The problem is that the state has made it ok for you to do this, now you have their golden permission. What the state cannot control is legalized thus losing the act from a revolutionary one to a capitalist one. What must be stressed is that the whole system must be destroyed in order for life to exist.
You can negotiate for yourself and your own group but do not, or feel that you are, negotiating on our behalves. Direct action changes something, negotiating as is above stated legalizes and alligns you with society.
anoniempje: you want a discussion taken off indymedia, why? this has remained political through out. Peoples kitchens and benefits are also advertised on indymedia. Discussion benefits people too!
| | Revolutionary struggle | nn36 - 05.06.2009 14:02
All this theory is great. The big problem for dutch anarchists, I would say, is there distance from the "average Joe". And it's really great to come up with quotes like: "This is allignment and we do not want to allign with reformist power-seekers any more.", but in the end this is the excuse to maintain the elitist attitude and not seek contact with more people. What most anarchists here tend to forget is that they have had many years to shape their thoughts. To do away with all other people because they're not radical enough or want "to allign" with power seekers is bullshit. Most selfstyled Anarchists I have met over here through the years are spoiled middle class kids, who are not even capable of putting their ideals before their dresscode.
I belief that if you want to change and criticise a society, you have to be part of it. No one will listen to you if you place yourself outside of the community and criticise that same community at the same time.
The biggest problem besetting the anarchists over here is their conformity. We are elitist, like society around us. We are alcoholics, like society around us. We all want to be radical martyrs, such a christian thing. We have a dresscode. We give credit to people for their "radicalism", defined by the amount of arrests, actions, broken doors, beat up fascists and bedpartners on their activist CV's.
Isn't the real radicalism in organising your street or community? And through empowering people by showing them how to take control over their own lives?
As long as we keep doing away with "compromise" as not radical, we will never be radical.
As Sun Tzu said, to win, you sometimes got to withdraw and avoid battle. The only thing some people here seem to understand is; "confrontation, confrontation and confrontation." Sometimes you have to build before you can destroy.
| | radicalism = fundamentalism? | A. de Kom - 05.06.2009 14:26
If no (broad) consensus can be reached with a social group concerned directly (or even indirectly) with social goal or circumstance that is the subject of struggle, any 'subversive unit' acting out direct action in such a context acts in a near to dictatorial way. Such action have the quality of a military coup , even if it is done 'for the peoples best will', and can hardly be called anarchist.
A concrete example in a squatters context would be forcing a campaign around a squatted house on its inhabitants (without their consent or even against their explicit intention).
The bomb laying 'anarchists' (preceding the bomb laying 'islamists') were not exactly a successful bunch as far as their political goals are concerned. In fact, this kind of methods discredited legitimate social demands as the vision of violent lunatics. Moreover, the elimination of heads of state proved to be utterly senseless , as these types are easily replaced by the next power monger on the waiting list.
Of course these military deeds had an influence as far as the fostering of social goals were concerned: it eventually brought to power more moderate forces advocating the same social goals. But I understand that its by no means a goal to replace capitalist with socialist rulers ...
The fact the groups with sophisticated arguments can actually control an open debate lies indeed in the nature of such a debate. The fact that 'honest radicals' are not capable of formulating their undoubtedly legitimate positions in a sophisticated way (and therefore have to resort to reiterating feelings like fear or anger) is solely a weakness of these radicals.
Its not anarchistic to resort to such tactics, historically (and even recently) it was always a tactic of the extreme right, to try and dismiss sophisticated argumentation as 'elitist' and appeal to underbelly feelings. Socialist always (and rightly so) rather invested in political and philosophical training of the 'illiterate' in order to be able to withstand such attacks in open debate and eventually win hearts and minds by argumentation rather than screams.
Aligning with other groups (with a different vision or approach) on certain issues has always been an anarchistic tactic though. In fact, only the authoritarian socialists try to make everybody a member of their party. Anarchist generally had the decency NOT to put their 'ideology' in front of social movements, but rather support content-wise , what the thought it worth, while opposing what the were against.
This is only possible if radical actors have reliable methods to define their own goals and place them in the complex social context of modern society. Here again, simple inherited and religiously repeated slogans are not enough. If this is the only base, a radical individual or group can rely on, the danger of being manipulated is indeed imminent and any contact to the social outside world of a homogeneous movement is dangerous.
If the above argumentation is then applied to a legalized squat, it becomes obvious under which conditions such legalization can be a successful attack of 'the system' against the community in such a place: only if such a community is in fact weak in its internal political structure an incapable of successful interaction with a heterogeneous society on its outside.
It is on the other hand obvious , how easily such weakness can be exploited by political adversaries. Such a community tends to isolate and marginalize itself, giving up, by itself, any means to actually influence and change their surroundings by limiting its possibilities to violent methods that are easily discredited as 'terrorism' in the worst case. In the best case, they are successfully portrayed as an egocentric and egoistic subculture, that hypocritically misuses social or political slogans in order to hitch a 'free ride'. In other words, the image used to portray dutch radicals in public opinion nowadays.
In order to avoid misunderstandings, I want to state that I do not want to advocate peaceful protest only. I think that even the most militant actions can actually be done in a way that is perceived as socially acceptable at least by the ones that are supposed to profit from them in the lines of social struggle, but believing that such actions can be performed without sound justification and further argumentation on all levels is delusional and dangerous to the social goals they aim at.
| | brrrr | s - 05.06.2009 14:40
Okay, there's indeed much to be said about the confused state of the movement right now and reformist life-style politics in general but I can't see how this text is actually constructive in any way. The end just scares me; your bombastic, self-righteous text seems to be the expression of a fantasy of a purified anarchist movement, where 'infected' elements are weeded out. Otherwise bluntly stating that 'how to engage remains simple and obvious' I miss the proposal of any constructive alternative whatsoever, besides vague notions of insurrection and a typical militant fetishistic construction of an anarchist soldier without fear.
| | good good | marici weu - 06.06.2009 01:54
ei indeed much open discussions and actions r needed in nl and world wide always..i mean nl is not greece like me is not u that s the beauty of it! forget about generalising thou coming from a much ectic eropean capitol i though here was like dead water but not fish bowl like i could see that ghetto was well recognised and merged(legalised) into society that was flat water too...lets face it nehterl;ands is not ur hot tempered passionated place from the outside perspective apart from mafia religious killings there s not people getting killed daily on the street thats way ur a=varage joe thats trying to cope dont feel the struggle cause its content of his little hole bread kaas and bier ..its up to people that r trying to be informed and act consquently to try to create a community spirit and one step beyond make other questioning themslves about wats up in da rest of planet..then slowly will have more free minded researchers and i dont think it make sense to talk about revolution as need evolving minds we need to use more brain really and that will make us come u p with antidodes to pepper spray and tear gas ..and we lll be neutralising extreme violence of stae instead of beaing forced to defent with similar anger and rage ..but alas at this stage they r needed to survive phisically cause we r not sharing enough knowledge effectively and yep not only in nehtelrand people seems more concerned to focus on being up to date in fashion styles liver damage and non sense elitarian self defence ..but they r still trying fair play ..they r tring to cope and survive too although many of them here do happen not to have had shortage of water food eletricity nad not ne gifted with radom family street violence ..i m glad i took the time to check indimedia today ..i hope we could have gone to the london anarchist conf ..keep up questioning cheerio
| | Anarchism and purity? | another nn - 06.06.2009 09:21
Striving for purity is an aberration as far as anarchism is concerned. The quest for purity is typical for authoritarian, teleological philosophies and ideologies. Striving for purity and rooting out dissidence are unavoidably linked with a sense of superiority justifying the exercise of absolute power in various forms, having mass murder in common. Striving for purity is in essence elitist, intolerant, racist, sexist and contradicting with the right to self determination. Striving for purity stands in the way of open minded discussion, of encouraging people to think for themselves, of allowing people to be free with respect for the freedom of others, of allowing people to take responsibility for their own lives and actions, of allowing people to learn from each other and to grow as individuals and as communities without the exercise of power, or (violently) coercing people towards the purity of the greater good. Its opposed to everything anarchism stands for.
Anarchism has, contrary to how the powers that be with their teleological philosophies and their (sometimes somewhat subdued) strive for purity try to represent it, nothing to do with survival of the fittest, its not the law of the jungle, its aim is not coming to a dog eat dog world, its not looking to terrorize people into behaving according to the purity of the ideology or the economic system its not to be confused with either fascism or raw capitalism as nn(A) seems to do.
So i suggest nn(A) goes back to his aivd office, the police station he came crawling out of or the far right group he belongs to and quits his provocations.
| | purity = death | cynical anarchist again - 06.06.2009 17:51
Claiming that nn(A) is nothing more than a police provocateur is a bit childish and not very helpful for the discussion.
I agree purity can not be reconciled with any of the principles of anarchism, because purity entails repression of the 'other' voice. In this way there can never be equals. As an anarchist I believ in all people being different and in this difference finding their equality. Differing, competing points and opinions, but still sharinf some basic assumptions as direct democracy, horizontality, non-dogmatics, utopianism, diy, solidarity, anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian and anti-hierarchal, self-sustainability, etc.
As anarchist we respect each other views and ideas on an equal level, within some borader setc of what is not to be tolerated; sexism, homophobia, fascism, nationalism, etc.
But in this set of what is not to be tolerated I would also include glorification of the self, elitism and vanguardism. Considering the Netherlands i would argue also to include to be opposed to dogmatic non-violence, but also against the ghetto-ization of the squatting movement and the contemporary self-celebrating white middle class privileged squatters who are locked up in their own subculture.
With this i agree with nn(A) the squatters movement needs a 'shake up'. Fuck the subculture, what we should build is an anticulture, not even counterculture.Because it is 'culture' which can only exist in opposition of another culture, feeling superior towards this other. In this sense culture is used as a legitimization to 'silence' and label the deviant other. Just as subcultures are nothing more than a childish sense of protest, not resistance!
Resist!
Build revolutionary autonomous communities
Against the state, never with the state!
| | ...so suggestions | disenfranchised anarchist - 06.06.2009 18:52
so suggestions anyone.
i personally rant on about all these problems constantly within my circle but it doesnt ever achieve anything. i reach no conclusion just doom and gloom.
And if people start suggesting that the scene, not movement, isnt doin enough and needs a kick up the ass you get labelled as the new PVK. somethimes i wouldnt mind a new PVK, the state of things these days!
-thats a joke for any would-be keyboard warriors trying to twist it-
but really what is to be done, i personally cannot think of anything which depresses me.
reading this discussion i agree with nn(A) on some points but then again she/he/they don't have a fully rounded political opinion, just lust.
and as for me im just stuck, not wanting to surrender but the netherlands (squatting and lack of anarchist scene) has nearly got the better of me!
| | nn | worker - 06.06.2009 21:06
wow a real discussion about 'politics' I didn't knew the p word was still possible to be uttered by qhat is called the squatting movement. I already gave up on squatting long time ago. I was (and am) disappointed by the self-righteousness of some, about how everyone in Holland were a bunch of sheeps and brainwashed. While most of them too were hanging around in bars, drinking beer till early in the morning. Day in day out. Is this a movement?
For me I'm working for an NGo these days, At least they are not pretending to be more radical than they actually are.
I hope some of you anarchist will be coming together. When I hear something about it I might even give it a try again.
| | how to do? | ClassStruggleAnarchist - 06.06.2009 21:29
Clearly, what is to be done is obvious: the overthrowal of the capitalist system and the state which protects it, to be replaced by a (con)federation of democratic communes.
Now, i'd like to thank the guy/gal starting this discussion, because it is a very necessary discussion. We have to avoid on the one hand recuperation by the system (i.e we get sucked into their institutions, laws, their reformism), but on the other we have to relate to the people around us.
The only way i see this to be possible is to be constantly on the look-out, whether in your own personal environment or in the netherlands as a whole, for signs of erupting struggle, or struggle that is already underway. It cannot be stressed enough that we, as anarchists, have to be present at these flashpoints, these moments of struggle - ESPECIALLY when this struggle is dominated by reformist groups. This does not mean we "allign" with reformists, it means that we are present at the eruptions of struggle they are also present at, and seek to put forward our views which are in opposition to theirs in many ways. We must reach out to people under reformist influences, not ignore them or declare them "idiots", "conformists" or whatever which only emphasizes yet again the elitist attitudes of some who call themselves anarchists.
So what does this mean in practice?
If there is a demonstration where people are likely to be sympathetic to anarchist ideas - WE GO
If there is a strike - WE GO and show our solidarity
If there is a conflict in our personal environment - WE CHOOSE SIDES based on our anti-authoritarian attitudes
Wherever there is struggle or the possibility to incite it - WE ACT, WE GO etc.! This can include anything from putting up posters to handing out flyers on market squares to graffitying the american embassy to whatever. Use your imagination! but ACT!
All friendship is political, but if we only engage in politics (or anti-politics, if you will) with friends we'll never get anywhere.
 E-Mail: Dylan__Paauwe__88@hotmail.com | | to dylan | cynical anarchist - 07.06.2009 14:02
I would agree with Dylan on may points. But still it sounds a bit 'passive' to 'wait' for the right moment or right moments to jump into and try to present the anarchist viewpoint.
i think its stupid to 'wait' for these moments to occur. We will have to make them ourselves, not by forcing them on people, but by creating 'ruptures'. Ruptures which can help show the true nature of the state. By confrontation, agitation and writing.
I don't belief we can overthrow the state, of if we can it will be meaningless because it will just be taken over by the same exploitative system in a new jacket (call it socialist, fascist, communist, democratic, capitalist, neoliberal, whatever you like).
One of the main points should be building what Dylan calls 'democratic communes', In these the state just cedes to exist, only as an alien powermonger trying to interfere. By extending these communes the state will become more and more meaningless in everyday life of people. This is what as happened during the Spanish civil war in the many communes (Like aragon commune in the countryside), Kibutz in Israel, or even the 'savages' fleeing the Roman Empire to start their own democratic settlements in the hillside( with the distinction between slaves and citizens non-existant) and even for a few days in New York city when there was an electricity shortcut.
In New York this meant people stopped their individualist behavior and really started supporting each other: bakeries opened their doors with bread free for everyone who needed it, transport was settled by bicycles and big neighborhood assemblies were started to see to daily 'problems'.
Then after few days power came back on for everyone to continue their individualist behavior again, but still this show it is possible to break through this hegemony of individualism and exploitation, even if for a few days. If for a few days, then it will be possible for longer periods of time.
Squatting can help to experiment in this and can halp building these structures, but only in a non-expoitative, non-hierarchical way. There is not much to make a blueprint of where we as anarchist would like society to be, because it is what will have to be built by small steps, reached though concensus-decision making 9and so impossible to know beforehands).
So what is to be done?
| | to cynical anarchist | dylan - 07.06.2009 16:54
I agree with you when you say that squats can serve as tools for people to build non-exploitative, non-hierarchical structures and ways to live. However, the construction of democratic communes be the work of, at the very least, a majority in a certain area (say, a neighborhood). Not to mention, a democratic commune will only survive if there are multiple democratic communes capable of sustaining eachother and themselves.
This points out the biggest risk in squatting for people interested in bringing about a non-hierarchical/exploitative, free world. Whereas the focus should lie in getting as much people as possible in on it (that is, if we want to win/survive), squatting creates a tendency towards entrenchment in our 'free spaces', which are only free as long as the state tolerates it. As we saw in the 1980's, even a large squatter's movement with alot of sympathisers can get smashed by the state. The only way to combat such a state reaction would be a generalization of rebellion (i.e spread rebellion everywhere), that is, a rebellion focussed on the destruction of the state and in the process of that destruction the construction of those democratic communes. If we dont smash the state (and choose to ignore it) the state will smash us (as the example of the Spanish Civil War teaches us), and if we smash the state and not build grassroots democratic structures from below we run the risk of winding up with some other bastards taking over the state. I dont think there can be any idea of "changing the world without taking power": we have to smash the system's power, and build up our 'own', i.e the power of the people as individuals part of a collective on which we depend. The CNT failed to push this to its final conclusion (i.e smashing the state) when they were in a position to do so in '36 and wound up capitulating in '37, with some of their members as PART of the state (with the friends of durruti dying on the streets of barcelona).
I do not advocate waiting for moments to occur in which we can give the anarchist viewpoint, the point is that those moments are occurring all the time and will only increase to occur as a result of (among other things) the economic crisis. So why not be there at those moments?
Ofcourse, we should be active outside those moments as well, as you say, exposing the true nature of the state through confrontation, agitation and writing. But we can only expose to those we have contact with, and if we fail to reach out to the rest of society we let the mainstream media run uncontested images of the confrontation you speak of, but exposing "the true nature of those men with the black masks". Nothing wrong with confrontation, but we have to shape its context - and we have to generalize it, spread it most of all or else its completely useless.
| | nn | nn - 07.06.2009 22:27
The '80s squatters movement was crushed by internal disputes, not by any doing of the state. yeh sure the state tries to exploit the fighting factions in the end but thats quite logical.
And as for the Spanish civil war. The problem was that the anarchist let themselves be used by the communists. At some part 2 CNT anarchist even made it to a seat in the republic government and were complete co-opted. They thought this way they could provide their anarchist militias with weapons, fighting at the front (while the commies were building up their government in the cities).
It were the commies who banned the CNT when they were powerful enough to do so and forbid women for joining in with the war against Franco (yeh they were allowed to cook and play medic) So what can be learned from here is that whatever happens someone will try to be in command. What needs to be destroyed than is this structure of command, so no one will be able to 'take over'.
| | Spanish Civil War/ 80's | dylan - 08.06.2009 00:11
Maybe you're right about the specific events leading up to the squatters movement's decline, but i think the point i was trying to make still stands (simply because its rather logical): small groups of rebels will be easily crushed, what we need to do is spread rebellion.
As for the spanish civil war, you're completely right in what you say, however the turning point was in 1936 were they could have smashed the state and replaced state power with popular power. The CNT in the end, with the narrowest of majorities, decided not to because it would amount to "taking power" (the result of this was ofcourse a restoration of the bourgeois state's power, later wielded to a large extent by the communist party). This put them on the track towards the things you describe. The spanish revolution could, most likely (one can never be sure), have been won in early 1936 - after that it all went down hill.
"what is to be done?
maybe stop theorizing and start acting?"
duh
the point is how are we to act in order to bring revolution closer?
| |
| aanvullingen | |
