Dublin no events posted in last week
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
 RTEs Sarah McInerney ? Fianna Fail supporter? Anthony
Joe Duffy is dishonest and untrustworthy Anthony
Robert Watt complaint: Time for decision by SIPO Anthony
RTE in breach of its own editorial principles Anthony
Waiting for SIPO Anthony Public Inquiry >>
Indymedia Ireland is a volunteer-run non-commercial open publishing website for local and international news, opinion & analysis, press releases and events. Its main objective is to enable the public to participate in reporting and analysis of the news and other important events and aspects of our daily lives and thereby give a voice to people.
Julian Assange is finally free ! Tue Jun 25, 2024 21:11 | indy
Stand With Palestine: Workplace Day of Action on Naksa Day Thu May 30, 2024 21:55 | indy
It is Chemtrails Month and Time to Visit this Topic Thu May 30, 2024 00:01 | indy
Hamburg 14.05. "Rote" Flora Reoccupied By Internationalists Wed May 15, 2024 15:49 | Internationalist left
Eddie Hobbs Breaks the Silence Exposing the Hidden Agenda Behind the WHO Treaty Sat May 11, 2024 22:41 | indy Human Rights in Ireland >>
Judges Told to Avoid Saying ?Asylum Seekers? and ?Immigrants? Fri Jul 26, 2024 17:00 | Toby Young
A new edition of the Equal Treatment Bench Book instructs judges to avoid terms such as 'asylum seekers', 'immigrant' and 'gays', which it says can be 'dehumanising'.
The post Judges Told to Avoid Saying ?Asylum Seekers? and ?Immigrants? appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
The Intersectional Feminist Rewriting the National Curriculum Fri Jul 26, 2024 15:00 | Toby Young
Labour has appointed Becky Francis, an intersectional feminist, to rewrite the national curriculum, which it will then force all schools to teach. Prepare for even more woke claptrap to be shoehorned into the classroom.
The post The Intersectional Feminist Rewriting the National Curriculum appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Government Has Just Declared War on Free Speech Fri Jul 26, 2024 13:03 | Toby Young
The Government has just announced it intends to block the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, effectively declaring war on free speech. It's time to join the Free Speech Union and fight back.
The post Government Has Just Declared War on Free Speech appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
I Wrote an Article for Forbes Defending J.D. Vance From Accusations of ?Climate Denialism?. Forty Ei... Fri Jul 26, 2024 11:00 | Tilak Doshi
On July 18th, Dr Tilak Doshi wrote an article for Forbes defending J.D. Vance from accusations of 'climate denialism'. 48 hours later, Forbes un-published the article. Read the article on the Daily Sceptic.
The post I Wrote an Article for Forbes Defending J.D. Vance From Accusations of ?Climate Denialism?. Forty Eight Hours Later, Forbes Un-Published the Article and Sacked Me as a Contributor appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Come and See Nick Dixon and me Recording the Weekly Sceptic at the Hippodrome on Monday Fri Jul 26, 2024 09:00 | Toby Young
Tickets are still available to a live recording of the Weekly Sceptic, Britain's only podcast to break into the top five of Apple's podcast chart. It?s at Lola's, the downstairs bar of the Hippodrome on Monday July 29th.
The post Come and See Nick Dixon and me Recording the Weekly Sceptic at the Hippodrome on Monday appeared first on The Daily Sceptic. Lockdown Skeptics >>
Voltaire, international edition
Netanyahu soon to appear before the US Congress? It will be decisive for the suc... Thu Jul 04, 2024 04:44 | en
Voltaire, International Newsletter N°93 Fri Jun 28, 2024 14:49 | en
Will Israel succeed in attacking Lebanon and pushing the United States to nuke I... Fri Jun 28, 2024 14:40 | en
Will Netanyahu launch tactical nuclear bombs (sic) against Hezbollah, with US su... Thu Jun 27, 2024 12:09 | en
Will Israel provoke a cataclysm?, by Thierry Meyssan Tue Jun 25, 2024 06:59 | en Voltaire Network >>
|
Anarchy and Organisation
 dublin |
anti-capitalism |
opinion/analysis
 Wednesday October 20, 2004 13:55 by James O'Brien - WSM (per cap)
Talk From the Irish Social Forum October 2004
This is the text of the talk I gave a couple of weeks back at the Irish Social Forum. A number of workshops were merged into that one, the SWP had requested one on the Party and the Anti-Capitalist movment, ourselves on anarchism, and somebody else on alliances, fronts and left organisations. So this talk concentrated on introducing anarchist ideas on and left it up to the discussion from the floor afterwards to see where things went. Kieran Allen of the SWP and Dermot Connelly formerly of the Socialist Party spoke from a Marxist-Leninist viewpoint.
Thanks to all the people in the ISF for putting the work in to make the weekend, at least, possible. For anarchists the starting point about any discussion on organisation is our end-goal; a free egalitarian and self-managed society. Because we see means and ends as intrinsically linked, we try to foster as much of that end-goal in the here and now as possible. That means creating organisations that are run directly by those participating and that everyone has an equal say in how things are done.
I suppose you could say a basic anarchist thesis is that if you leave the running of things up to a minority then that minority will consolidate power at the expense of majority, partially because it’s human nature, partially because they’ll have the means to do so (time, resources of organisation), but also because the majority will have become used to a few making the decisions on their behalf and so it becomes unlikely that they will attempt to take the power back. This is where we are at now. Whether that minority is a property-owning class or the top echelons of the state is irrelevant. It is still a minority managing society at the expense of the population as a whole.
Bakunin spoke of the need to create the new world in the shell of the old, which makes sense when you think about it. It would be difficult to move straight to an anarchist-communist society if one was immersed in a capitalist and hierarchical mindset all of one’s life. But if you’ve participated at some level in organising in a libertarian manner, whether that is a rank and file network in your workplace or an anti-war protest or a workers’ co-op then you’ve gained that little bit of training for the future as well as, hopefully, making things better in the here and now.
I should remark that contrary to some misconceptions anarchists on the whole favour organisation. As Chomsky pointed out, gathering together people of like minds for a common purpose, which what essentially organisation is, breaks down feelings of isolation which are common in this society. Too often people think they’re on their own with their radical opinions and that there’s not much they can too to change things. And usually they’re right, you can’t do much on your own, but by hooking up with people of similar inclination you can start to make an impact. In addition your own opinions get reinforced, you no longer seem slightly crazy for thinking Labour and Fianna fail are more or less the same. After all a lot of others are thinking along the same lines! You also get to learn a lot from those who have had different experiences.
Organisation is a necessity in the face of such strong capitalist power. But I would go further and say that life itself demands organisation, for humans are fundamentally social animals and we would never be able to survive in isolation. It is also a good thing in itself for it brings people together. Perhaps the best thing in life is to be with other people. Bakunin mentioned that we are truly free when those around are free and while that cannot fully happen in a class-ridden society there is something to be said for all the decent people you encounter in the struggle for a better world.
I don’t even feel the need to defend the statement that organisation is a necessity. But there are different types of organisation. There are very loose networks of like minded people, say something like the feminism in Ireland, there are specific groups which don’t have formal memberships like the Dublin Grassroots Network, then there are mass formal organisations like Trade Unions, and also tiny tightly organised political groups like the WSM and there are political parties like the Greens, Fianna Fail and the SWP.
I think there is a role for all these types – except for the political parties - and it isn’t necessarily the case that one is better than another. It depends on the situation and the context. As well as the spectrum of groups ranging from informal to formal there is of course the difference between hierarchical and libertarian organisation. Anarchists favour libertarian organising in all types of groups, whether loose or tight. I am sceptical that there is ever a need for hierarchy and even if there is that the burden of proof is on those who say there is. It is a proof that needs to be constantly revisited as well.
Libertarian organisation comprises a few basics; meaningful participation of all affected on decisions of policy rather than it being decided by a core leadership even if that leadership has been elected; when a few people are delegated to implement decisions (such as a media spokespeople) that position is both electable (if necessary), recallable and rotated on a regular basis. For example the DGN press spokespeople resigned after Mayday, not because they were doing an awful job, but because they were aware of the dangers of getting too cosy in their role. The other crucial feature of anti-authoritarian organisation is local autonomy matched by wider federation. This preserves the dynamism of local initiative while facilitating as big an impact as possible.
Liberty and Participation brings out the best in people. One could see at local Bin tax meetings this time last year, well at the ones in Stoneybatter, that people were getting a kick out of having meaningful participation, where their voices counted as much as the next persons. Where decisions hadn’t been pre-decided by a handful of activists and presented as a fait acompli. That was when we were at our healthiest. But once tactics began to be decided centrally, to call a blockade here, to call one off there, then attendance fell away as the feeling grew that we were pawns in the political game of others. The diminishing participation stems from the pointless of involvement rather than lack of interest.
The same goes for apathy generally which also stems from the pointlessness of participation in the current political process rather than a lack of interest. There isn’t any democracy in most workplaces and precious little in running the community. Why should people get involved in political activity? Your input will be useless and after all they will only be used as a means by which others gain power. Not a very attractive prospect.
I’ve spoken in general about anarchist attitudes to organisation and how the type of organisation that is necessary depends on the circumstances. But given the title perhaps I should say a few words about the role of the anarchist organisation. Internally, of course, we in the WSM organise in the libertarian fashion I described above. The role of a group like ours is to popularise the aims and methods of anarchism amongst working class people. This means doing simple things like producing our newsletter, pamphlets and leaflets. It means arguing for anarchist methods as much as possible in campaigns we are involved in. So for the bin tax we did a lot of arguing for a local group structure which would federate to facilitate coordination. Unfortunately the anarchist influence was very weak relatively speaking and effectively apart from the ISN I don’t think there was much interest.
We also facilitate other groups getting going like the DGN or indeed the Grassroots Gathering itself. For example, I think it’s fair to say if we hadn’t played a consistent role in the early days, doing simple things like getting the buses and posters, taking minutes then DGN (or its earlier incarnation) wouldn’t have lasted or even started. Now it’s got a bit of momentum and doesn’t need us nearly as much, which is great. A good few Grassroots Gatherings have been organised without our involvement at all and probably newer participants are unaware that it originated from a proposal from the WSM so complete is our lack of control
In terms of labour struggles, where admittedly we are weak at the moment, our function is to popularise the libertarian idea amongst workers. Without the infection of that idea it is unlikely that workers will go beyond in a sustained manner demanding improvements on ‘bread and butter issues’. One of the reasons the Spanish Labour movement was so radical prior to the 2nd World War was that the leading ideas animating it were libertarian.
Some of the basic ideas we put forward would be analysing capitalist and hierarchical society, outlining a vision of a libertarian future, and stressing how anarchism can provide a useful method of moving from capitalism to the happy land of anarchist-communism.
It is important to stress that ideas don’t fall from the sky, they are material things that hop from mind to mind, by books, tv, the internet or simply by talking to people. If someone hasn’t come across libertarian thinking before, it very possible they will never do so unless pointed in the right direction. There are, after all, lots of wrong directions. Some will certainly make it on their own. But many won’t, for whatever reasons, one being that they will be seduced by other plausible ideas, such as nationalism, religion, or too often in working class history, Marxist-Leninism.
People’s natural inclination towards libertarian practice is often stymied by the wide-spread acceptance that you do in fact need leaders to make decisions on your behalf. So, it is a useful contribution to have anarchists regularly assert the case for liberty and self-management and make some practical suggestions as to how this can be done. Once the broader group acts in a consciously directly democratic manner for a while then they are loath to give up to a few individuals the power to take decisions on their behalf.
WSM then, as an organisation, acts as a type of mid-wife from time to time. We help out in developing events, but don’t do the real work and are conscious that it’s not our baby, so we don’t think we have the right to impose our wishes. So, to take an example, we don’t do the direct organising of a large event, say like the grassroots Mayday protests, but our members are involved via a bigger, broader organisation, in this case the DGN and do things under that banner and we would follow the policy of that organisation even if it conflicted with our own ideas. The same would apply for all campaigns we are involved in. In the DGN, for example, we’ll argue a particular tactic at any one time, but we won’t be in a position to impose it as there simply isn’t a central committee that we control with which we can ram our policy through. At the end of the day a WSM member has only the same voice or vote as everybody else; sometimes our proposals are adopted, often they’re not. But I think we provide a useful function in regularly bringing ideas to the table, both for the events themselves and about internal organisation. We also bring a bit of stability in helping see that decisions are carried out.
Doing things under the broader group rather through ourselves ensures that the focus remains on achieving victory, rather than promoting our organisation. And victories are what we need right now, they would give us confidence to continue the struggle. It’s one reason why the WSM doesn’t try to constantly recruit people, particularly those who are new to politics. We’d prefer if they got involved with the broader group first and if after a while they find they are in agreement with us on anarchism, they’ll probably end up coming close to us anyway.
One feature of our anarchism is that it is essentially outward looking. Though the group itself is very coherent in terms of having agreement on basic policy, the function of the organisation is to spread awareness of the idea as much as possible and that means talking to as many people as possible. That means involving oneself in activity with those who don’t agree with you as much as those who do. We need to interact with the general population. That’s why we produce a very easy to read newsletter, it’s why we involve ourselves with organisations such as trade unions, however flawed they may be, and community groups.
One thing to remember is that we don’t see change as being brought about by a small organisation like ourselves. Sure we’ll happily take part and play our role, but the impetus and control must be exercised by the working class as a whole using organisations they consider appropriate, which probably will be some form of Workers’ and Community Councils. It would be a disaster for a small political group to take control and implement its policies over the heads of the population. It will never result in the collective self-management of society whatever else happens. And we have to take into account the very real possibility that having a leadership controlling a revolution opens the door to a totalitarian nightmare as predicted by Bakunin and the early anarchists, a prediction borne out by the development of the Bolshevik Party in Russia.
We dislike the representative system where a party claims to represent a particular segment of the population, or sometime all of it. It maintains the class system, you have a class of rulers on the one hand and a class of ruled on the other. So as anarchists that is never going to be acceptable! In any case there are major problems with that model from a democratic point of view. Particularly when it comes to implementing socialism for what is the mechanism by which the party can genuinely ascertain the will of the class? There is always a gap between the party and the class as a whole which makes it both dangerous and arrogant for any minority to assume power on the majority’s behalf. The ultimate function of a political party is to insert itself at the top of the bureaucratic machine that is the state and from there to control it and society as a whole.
We do think anarchist ideas are good, obviously, but we’re not so confident that we are in possession of all the truths necessary to run society that we should be given the task. I think that it would be a hell of a lot more efficient if the whole of society runs it rather than leave it up to a few. After all what do anarchists know about, say, the health service that those working there don’t? Apart from a few ideas on social organisation not much. Once libertarian ideas become part of the wider culture, it is utterly pointless for a minority to take power. If that happens there will be a conflict between the organisations of popular democracy, community and workers’ councils and the minority, namely the state. In the Russian and Spanish Revolutions the minority, principally Marxists for what it is worth, succeeded in suppressing these popular organs. The anarchists involved made their fair share of mistakes, but perhaps that’s a story for another day.
To sum up; the function of the anarchist organisation is to popularise through propaganda and struggle the aims and means of libertarian socialism. But there is a big difference between putting forward ideas, no matter how thoroughly one does it, and imposing them. The anarchist organisation in contrast to political parties always refuses to take power. That, as I said, is for the wider population to do and anarchists have confidence the capacity of the working class people to make a revolution and run society themselves.
The relation of anarchist organisations to what in the title of this workshop is called “the new movements” should be fairly obvious: With them, as ever, the relation of the anarchists is “be involved, but not in power”. And with the fall and discrediting of Marxist-Leninism after 1989 there is renewed interest in anti-authoritarian methods in these anti-capitalist movements and they have, therefore, proved very receptive to anarchism.
|
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (62 of 62)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62I have to agree with James although i dont consider my self an anarchist more libetarian socialist,though i havent really thought much about anarchism in the past i think it makes more sense than say swp/sp ideology, ill be looking more into anarchism in future the theory and thought behind it.
I think anarchist ideas are not that widespread so its difficult for someone to be aware of it.
Slowly slowly, loads of people are learning what anarchism is and was about. And it takes a while.
Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon, Ferrer i Guardia, Zaminov, Emma Goldman, it's a wonder so many people think they understand socialism and yet haven't read the thought of the "1st socialist international" and generally only think of "communes" that didn't survive a fascist coup d'etat and civil war.
This is an illustration I really like.
For the current issue "polemica" which is looking at anarchism versus nationalism, in spanish and was first published in BCN.
I think they'd like it if you saw it and liked it too.
Polemic. (word of the month) Since Derrida died, "polemic" has appeared in print more often than any other political adjective.
a good explanation of the wsm and how it sees itself, very informative. I would still say that boycotting the polictical process is a mistake in that it boycotts a certain amount of interaction with a mass of people. Obviously committees in the community's would be 1,000 times better but that's not happening or is likely to happen in the near future. (we could do with the odd fighting trade union first!) Also I don't think the majority of people will abandon the current political system through simple ideology and propaganda, (that would be a pretty strange thing for a society to do!) there'd have to be alot of struggle before real alternatives are seriously thought about. And I think a few alternatives would be put through the dail first,
Obviously there's always a danger of left politicians going corrupt, but then i'm sure there's lots of anarchist journalists and trade unionists that sold out along the way too. (anarchists were involved in state gov in spain in the 30's? correct me if i'm wrong)
But thanks for the article, enjoyed it.
http://www.tnimc.org/feature/display/3179/index.php
More on the topic of anarchist organisation,
makes an interesting point in how leaderships can develop inside small anarcho or autonomus orgs and they can use social exclusion as a way of getting their way, saw a bit of that in italy, especially in some social centres, no official leaders but you can figure out pretty quick who makes the decisions!!!
The 'classic' text on the dangers of informal leadership is the 'Tyranny of structurelessness' written around 1970 a part of the debate within the feminist movement of the time about organisation. Anarchists tend to either love it or hate it according to where they fall on the organisations / anti-organisational divide. It's at http://struggle.ws/hist_texts/structurelessness.html
When I thought of Anarchy & Organisation the first thing thta came to my head was THE Ailing HEALTH SERVICE in Ireland.
Any comments?
Sinead
That’s a fair enough point, I think, about anarchists missing out in interaction that running for elections can bring. The state elections do engage people at some level, if only because it’s normal to go door to door and hence meet people that way. Obviously there are down sides as well and on balance we make the judgement that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
Hs: “Also I don't think the majority of people will abandon the current political system through simple ideology and propaganda, (that would be a pretty strange thing for a society to do!) there'd have to be a lot of struggle before real alternatives are seriously thought about.”
That’s probably true as well, propaganda is a necessary but not sufficient element. Certainly we have to engage in struggle that affects people’s immediate lives and wins improvements. The question is: can this be done outside of the state-electoral process. Also can it be done in such a way as to increase momentum towards revolution rather than take the edge off it?
Anarchists obviously think it can, though with difficulty given where we are starting from. But however difficult it is, it is even harder to see a libertarian society developing if we participate in the state process. It’s not just that leaders become corrupt when a modicum of success develops, but that the system itself is structured in such a way to make it nearly impossible (in order to achieve something one must compromise one’s politics). So it’s not that anarchists are individually “more pure”, but that their refusal to engage with the state-system leaves less opportunity for ‘selling out’. As you say, the engagement of some anarchists in the 1930s shows that the virus of power is easily caught when that engagement does occur.
The (theoretical) solution is to engage in other ways than going for state-power, fighting trade unions/work-place organising would be my preferred option. There’s a certain element of ‘chicken and egg’ for the anarchists. While we’re so small it’s very hard to make a significant impact and while we’re not doing that people aren’t going to be too interested. Similar problems do apply at some level to Marxists as well. I don’t have any quick fix-it solution to make anarchism popular real soon, at the moment it’s a small-step by small-step journey. So, paradoxically, the road to revolution looks like being a long slow one. Just not as long as the parliamentary one! And surprises do happen.
In relation to informal leaderships emerging, which is indeed a possibility, it is precisely because anarchists are aware of the dangers of this happening that we try to address it both in our own groups and externally. Not that we are always successful of course, but it’s better than institutionalising those leaders.
To Anon if your really interested in anarchism check out the WSM website its a great site to access on anarchist theory/history and also has links to other groups. If you want get in touch with local groups there is also organise if your in the north of Ireland.
How would WSM organise if they had 300 members in Ireland spread throughout the country?
It seems to me that WSM can only operate the structures they currently do because they have less than 30 members
What problems do you think the WSM would run into?
Have you looked at the WSM constitution?
Good question, If wsm had 300 members spread out accross the country how would they organise? I can only answer that from my point of view, currently there is a Dublin and Cork branch so i would think that it would work in the same format, if we grew in numbers and say for example in limerick ,galway ,waterford obviously there would be a need for local branches. If or when that happens that will something the wsm would have to discuss.
Your right that what works for a small group might not work for a slightly bigger one. But in fact the way we organise is based around an anarchist model that historically has worked for organisations of hundreds of thousands and today is used by organisations with memberships in the 1000's.
In fact Ireland offers less challenges than many places because it is so small. The longest car journery from (Derry to Cork) can be done in around 9 hours. Anarchists in Chile have to deal with journeys of 40 hours or more on much less resources then we have here.
That's a good question curious. There is an internal discussion taking place in the WSM on that matter right now. We don't have all the answers but whatever decisions are arrived at will be built collectively and non exclusively.
What if you have say 300 members and a political decision needs to be taken quite quickly, how would you do that?
also if you had much more members would you employ people to work full time for the organisation, if you did how would they be accountable without being elected?
I may be mistaken (and somebody call me on it if I am) but I don't see any reason why we shouldn't have elections; for example for treasurer or branch secretary. However officers have narrow mandates and are immedeately recallable.
That is important I think immedeate recallability.
Firstly I'd always question this 'need to make a decision quickly' logic. On the left here it is often the excuse for never giving the membership a real say. In my experience a genuinly new and unexpected situation arises pretty infrequently, maybe every couple of years. Often the 'need' for such decisions is actually a product of the leadership of organistions refusing to facilitate debate until the emergancy arises.
That said is sometimes happens. We deal with it in a couple of ways
1. By having quite detailed written policy agreed at national conferences. See http://struggle.ws/wsm/positions.html
If you have a detailed position against imperialism for instance, see http://struggle.ws/wsm/positions/globalisation.html then its pretty obvious what the position is if the US suddenly invades Iran.
2. As you might expect from (1) there is also quite a degree of autonomy in terms of members and branches reacting to new situations. Again in the case of an invasion of Iran while it might take a while to put together an agreed national response I'd expect members to instantly be able to argue against it and start organising and branches to quickly get that happening on a regional level.
As anarchists we take 'from the bottom up' seriously as opposed to those on the left who use the 'socialism from below' slogan but in practise are almost incapable of acting until the word is received from the leadership. The anarchist approach may lose out a little in unity but it gains a lot in diversity - what does it matter for instance if different anti-war groups do not all call themselves 'X again the War' or the 'X anti-war movement'.
3. In other cases there is the provision for an emergancy national committee meeting to be called (see the constitution). But while this might be required to issue a national statement its not required for members and branches to move into action around an issue.
4. We also have internal email lists at local and national level where members can debate and communicate as they wish. While we've not worked out a way to use the net for decision making in which the disadvantages (because many members have limited access) do not outweigh the advantages this migh become possible in time.
----
As to full timers - larger anarchist organisation have had full timers BUT they are administrators rather than decision makers. With the old left the full timers are the leadership and make the decisions for the organisation as well. At a certain size you might well need office admins, printers, distributors etc but not full time leaders.
Missed this in the last post. If you look at our constitution you can see that all the admin posts are open to election so if two or more people wanted to be treasurer we'd have an election to decide who would do it. They would be mandated and subject to re-call.
The Dublin branch has this in place:
In the event an a emergency decision needs to be made (urgent political issue not covered by existing policy)
A Minimum of 3 members can call a meeting
B Notice by phone or post of this meeting of at least 24 hours
C For a decision to be made at least 35% of members must be present
D A regular branch meeting can over turn the decision of an emergency meeting
Also, people who are treasurer etc are rotated as well as being recallable.
In a normal political climate you can wait a few days (even a few weeks!) to make a decision. But what happens when you need to make very importnat decisions very quickly. For example in a strike or a particular action decisions often do need to be made very quickly. How can that happen if everyone is to be consulted before a decision is made.
What is wrong with having members elected to a committee that are representative of different views in the organisation and have a long and proven track record that can make these decisions. Lets face it 99.9% of the time you would agree with such a committee subsequently., and if you don't you could vote them off. How is this not democratic.
Also another question. In the heat of a battle with the ruling class such as a strike there is an absolute need for unity in action. Does Anarchism go against this principle? For example if there is a strike in a certian workplace and 20% of the workers are scabs, do the 80% not have the right to form pickets and stop the scabs in order to maintain unity in action?
we don't believe that there is an 'absolute need' what the fuck is that supposed to mean. as for scabs i suppose they'd be beaten or not depending on how the people on strike chose to react.
what if the cleaners were scabbing and one of them was your mum and they were all a bunch of fifty year old women.
would you beat them up?
1. yes there is an absolute need - march seperately strike together. Solidarity. All the things the labour movement was founded on.
2. stopping scabs or picketing is not, despite the tabloid press viewpoint you parrot, beating them up. Jeesus, what standard of members is the wsm taking in?
3. On 29th Apr. this year the guards announced on Prime Time at about 9.45pm that the assembly point for the DGN march on May 1st was inside the exclusion zone. The following morning word went out before 11am that O'Connell st. was the new assembly point. How was this decision made?
Great article by the way.
"what happens when you need to make very importnat decisions very quickly"
When was the last time the SP* made a decision that wasn't covered by existing policy, and was too urgent to be discussed?
* and why not use a real name while you're at it
On the strikes, look at it from a self-defence point of view. The 80% striking workers have got to defend themselves and so are entitled to prevent 20% scabs from being used by the boss to force them under.
Curious:” But what happens when you need to make very importnat decisions very quickly.”
If in the rare cases that decisions should be made ultra quick (not the same as efficient mind) it should be entrusted to any particular group of people. Better to include as many people as possible even if it less than perfect such as our policy which I posted above. Also if a decision needs to be so quick that no democratic consultation whatsoever is possible, then probably the decision will only be a personal one and not have organisational ramifications as, by definition, communication is impossible so how could other members of the organisation receive the news that xxx has been decided. If they can receive the news their opinion can be canvassed.
In any case why make it your normal practice to have leaders? You’ve moved from arguing that since a pre-selected minority taking decisions is (possibly) necessary in exceptional circumstances it should become the normal practice. That seems illogical and somewhat sinister.
Curious: “What is wrong with having members elected to a committee that are representative of different views in the organisation and have a long and proven track record that can make these decisions. Lets face it 99.9% of the time you would agree with such a committee subsequently., and if you don't you could vote them off. How is this not democratic.”
Well it is a form democracy, representative democracy. Anarchists prefer direct or participatory democracy. If you’re capable of voting people onto a committee to decide policy on your behalf then presumably it is on the basis of the quality of their political judgment. But then, you are making a political judgement about that and since you have opinions about the issues (99% you’d agree with remember) why not skip the middle man and participate in making the decision yourself.
The dangers are manipulation by the leadership because they will always have the time and resources to ensure the decisions go their way and remain in power for quite a while, lack of involvement in the base in running things, and basically the division into leaders and led. I reckon the onus is more on you to say why we need rulers than on anarchists to say why we don’t.
Worth reading curious, http://www.anarchism.ws/writers/anarcho/democracy.html
Organise! have members in Galway, Kildare and Dublin as well as the six counties.
Briefly on the farmleigh decision, there was a working group manadated by the DGN to organise that end of things and they discussed it themselves as well as with others over night. It would have been better to have a properly functioning delegate system encompassing all the working groups, but I think given the circumstances and the realities of DGN structures it probably was as satisfactory as could be. I don't think anybody has argued that they went outside their mandate.
that should read "should_not_ be entrusted" at the start of the second paragraph.
I am stunned at Leons responce to the points made by Curious, Leon said
"curious
by Leon (wsm) Personal capacity Thursday, Oct 21 2004, 6:59pm
we don't believe that there is an 'absolute need' what the fuck is that supposed to mean. as for scabs i suppose they'd be beaten or not depending on how the people on strike chose to react.
what if the cleaners were scabbing and one of them was your mum and they were all a bunch of fifty year old women.
would you beat them up?"
Where did that come from, so far this has been a rational discussion and I would have thought that the attitude to scabs would be straight forward, what is this about Leon????
a good point by james on ways towards changing society, (its all slow) although the sp does actual believe the social struggle is more important than the electoral, in fact that's where the votes come from (unless blanch library has had a run on marx, lenin etc!). Compromises may have to be made but so far the sp isn't excatly famous for compromising with others on the hard left let alone the right! But I do believe that a political group has to work with as many people as possible and one way is through electoral work, especially in a situation where unions are asleep and theres not much large scale struggle outside. (and we don't even have a left wing paper!) But even if there was I think it's important to offer an alternative, even if it is only a small opposition.
For making quick decisions I think technology has moved us on a little further than 1917, mobile phones, video conferencing etc. Its not such a big deal.
A leadership comes down more to political ideas, we don't see this so much in ireland because leftist groups and parties are so small, but inside a multitendency mass party you can see competing ideas about direction and positions etc and a party line coming about through different people having different ideas. In a party of 300 (not all of whom are active, you won't see too many factions) A party of 3000 or 300,000 and leadership contests can come more down to political direction and ideas.
Of course saying all that conference has to be the most important body and branch delegates need to represent their branch rather than a leadership. (but of course thats all theory)
As for institutionalising leaderships, it gives members some comeback. Wheter they use it or not is another thing of course, but i prefer it to be there than not.
For democratic centralism, I take that to be one way of keeping your politicians etc in check.
For example if someone gets elected for the sp he or she can't take the money, thats party policy and he or she knows that before they stand. It also means if the party takes a position thats the position, of course you can oppose it especially as a "rank and filer" . But the majority decision will be the official party position. Also I do believe in unity in action, to do otherwise simply makes no sense.
Some of the debates that have gone on on democratic centralism have been a little redundent and more what ifs. But one simple example is in a occupation, if you all decide to occupy a building half of you can't fuck off home and leave a door unguarded half way through, otherwise those left get battered.
i'll have a read of the "structureless" article this evening joe, thanks.
Irish Health Service: Anarchy & Organisation?
The above words can be defined as:
1. An·ar·chy n The absence of any formal system of government in a society
2. A situation in which there is a total lack of organization or control
Or·gan·i·za·tion n 1. A group of people identified by shared interests or purpose, for example, a business
2. The coordinating of separate elements into a unit or structure
3. The relationships that exist between separate elements arranged into a coherent whole
4. Efficiency in the way separate elements are arranged into a coherent whole
The above definitions help us to come to terms with theory and practice as we try to wrestle with the health service of the Republic of Ireland led by that OBESE minister Mary Harney. Gosh ye are all likely saying what next?
Before a body starts making structural changes within the agencies of our health service structure we need a good figure to set targets that will give us a system of co coordinated interdependence within all the agencies and players of the Health service for all. We have a system now which can be compared to “the blind leading the blind” as we have people wait in corridors – an Obese minister and a vastly obese populous of which I am included.
Well ye may say what the heck shall we do about it? We first need aims and objectives and that a scheme of work to show how we are going to alleviate the health service problems etc within a time scale.
Very well you may say but how are we going to achieve our goals?
The government are re structuring the system now with a new structure being put in place sometime in the spring. However there may be a great need for common sense if the government want to alleviate the hospital bed system and health service in general.
Transport costs are soaring as the price of fuel hits the roof so to speak as we are witnessing in theses recent times here in Ireland. People are travelling many miles to the centralised hospitals that are alleged to have all the latest gear for certain ailments. Medical staffs are up in arms about cuts etc whilst the populous have to suffer if not die before they get treatment. People are up in arms as either medical facilities are taken away form their local hospital or the hospital closes. Pollution is causing many health problems such as cancers as a recent survey revealed the more a population is concentrated the more likely we are to get the disease. Multi-nationals are closing as every few weeks we hear of theses firms locating to where their profit is maximized.
Yes folks there is a lack of organisation in our socio-economic structure in Ireland north and south yet we are labelled obese as a nation. What we now need is leadership if we are to overcome our anarchy, disorder, and lawlessness and avoid a rebellion, as the youth of our modern Ireland are not going to put up with organisers of our socio-economic structure.
I feel that it is past time for Arthur Morgan to lead this country as he and Gerry Adams et al have plenty of experience especially after being over in London with the Blair associates. It is only a matter of time until Gerry Adams takes over as President of the 32 county Republic of Ireland. Please God we will have that utopia sooner than later. A Nation once again. Halleluiah. Amen.
James says
Briefly on the farmleigh decision, there was a working group manadated by the DGN to organise that end of things and they discussed it themselves as well as with others over night. It would have been better to have a properly functioning delegate system encompassing all the working groups, but I think given the circumstances and the realities of DGN structures it probably was as satisfactory as could be. I don't think anybody has argued that they went outside their mandate.
but prior to that says:
If in the rare cases that decisions should be made ultra quick (not the same as efficient mind) it should not(correction added) be entrusted to any particular group of people.
Are these not contradictory positions? I don't think either the decision or the method was wrong, just that the method was different to that presented as the anarcist method. A decision was made, it was made by a small group of people and was then presented to a much larger meeting after having been revealed at press conferences. I was surprised as the opportunity was there all day Friday to consult with others who may have wanted other options.
I am bringing this up to illustrate that there are decisions that need to be made quickly and they are not as rare as being portrayed here. They are made by small groups of people but, unless there is a clear acceptance that this will happen, informal elites make the decision with no representative function. To deny this is surely as dishonest as to insist on the constant 'war footing' of other groups?
In the SP, its always the same group of people that makes the quick decisions - the national committee. In an anarchist organisation, you get groups or individuals whose job it is to make decisions in _a particular area_. In the DGN, there were a group of people whose job it was to organise the Farmleigh march. Other jobs were done by other groups. You can see the difference, right?
Plus, the group organising the march were operating *under mandate*. They were not making up a policy as they went along, they were doing what they'd been told to do. Again, do you not see the difference between this and a committee that can change policy?
Actually there is Organise if you are in the north and south of Ireland. Anyways, cheers for the plug, Emma.
what the fuck is an an 'absolute need' ?
...a good talk., James. On the question of organisation, and organisational methods, you can also check out the Organise! constitution at:
http://flag.blackened.net/infohub/organise/content.php?content.4
I don't think there are any differences on how the WSM and Organise! , as anarchists, view the basic principles of libertarian organisation. We obviously agree with the need to get involved in broader organisations and win the argument for delegation, recallable mandates, bottom-up methods etc...
The question about how WSM would organise with more members is not really relevant at this time, or in the future, since I am sure, given what James has said about DGN, the incentive is not to create more and more branches of WSM (or, in our case, more and more locals of Organise!) throughout the country, recruiting various strands of the anarchist movement and beyond to our particular politics, but to draw others outside the 'movement' into working together along libertarian lines, promoting libertarian ideas, and by doing so winning struggles in our communities and gaining confidence for further struggles.
I like the analogy with mid-wifery, and to take it to its necessary conclusion, this would obviously involve, at the time of social revolution, the complete lack of necessity of organisations like ourselves, since we would simply fade away...
'boycotting the political process is a mistake'
no anarchist boycotts political process.
voting for gentle hearts to rule us is boycotted
voting for representatives who will serve capital & property is boycotted
voting to perpetuate a state of inequality, captivity and persecution is boycotted
your 'the political process' is boycotted wether its current or distant.
we do not boycott political process
Political = Having, or conforming to, a settled system of administration
process = A series of actions, changes, or functions bringing about a result
I would see more branches of Organise! and the WSM spread around the country as complmentary to drawing people towards libertarian activity. (Wouldn't bother being a member otherwise!). It is one factor, an important one, in advancing libertarian ideas and methods and so want to see more of them. But as I said in the talk, we don't adopt an aggressive attitude in recruiting, or doing so at the expense of a campaign. We'd prefer to work with people in broader groups rather than get them to join if we don't agree on core issues. It means we maintain a degree of internal coherence which then facilitates us in putting forward coherent arguments. Anarchist organisations could play a useful role during a revolution, fading away afterwards.
'I would see more branches of Organise! and the WSM spread around the country as complmentary to drawing people towards libertarian activity.
(Wouldn't bother being a member otherwise!).'
Well, yes, obviously, we would like to see our mutual organisations grow, but we need to bear in mind that in the context of a large number of people being drawn towards our types of organisational practice, the fact may be that local libertarian groups will exist without members of either organisation (unlikely, but still possible), with members of both organisations and non-aligned folk, or with members of one organisation and non-aligned folk.
'It is one factor, an important one, in advancing libertarian ideas and methods and so want to see more of them. But as I said in the talk, we don't adopt an aggressive attitude in recruiting, or doing so at the expense of a campaign. We'd prefer to work with people in broader groups rather than get them to join if we don't agree on core issues.'
Sure, I agree with you. In the same way that future libertarian organisation at a local level across the country cannot occur if there is an insistence on agreement on 'core issues'. A different position on the national question, for example obviously should not preempt , Organise! and WSM members from working together in a future 'Leitrim Anarchist Group'.
'Anarchist organisations could play a useful role during a revolution, fading away afterwards.'
Agreed.
James, thanks for your reply.
Leon, you seem to be excusing scabs? I think that in a struggle there is a need for unity in opposition to the ruling class. If a small minority can't be convinced of a certain line of action following extensive discussion then you have to go with the majority and implement it. If this means physically stopping scabs from working well then so be it. your right to oppose the tactics or opinion of the majority does not extend to undermining the struggle. The WSM position seems to go against this principle. Am I right?
"When was the last time the SP made a decision that wasn't covered by existing policy, and was too urgent to be discussed?"
no curious you are wrong.
Ante Script
Curious I love the 70s writing style how cool and retro.
I completely agree with you about the action that strikers should take against scabs.
But I don't think it should be up to me to decide.
We believe that those directly involved in a strike (by which we mean those strikers in that place) should make the decision as to what should be done with the scabs and that decision will vary depending on who the scabs and where the strikers' heads are at are, in terms of their own awareness of the reality of class struggle.
Do scabs not have a right to disobey the democratic centralism of a trade union, I would have thought WSM would say yes?
we don't agree with the democratic centralism of trade unions, this doesn't sound like that situation.
which trade unions is democratic centralist?
any chance of an answer to Ray's question?
All union are democratic centralist. When there is a strike and a minority disagree with a strike taking place the strike still goes ahead and nobody works. Is this not democratic centralism?
Unity in action after full discussion, this is democratic centralism
Haven't I heard that somewhere before : )
union leadership often make deals when the majority don't want them.
I'm not talking about the corrupt rotten union leaderships. They are bureacratic centralism NOT democratic centralism. I am talking about genuine democratic centralism as is implemented by workers when in struggle ie. maximum democratic discussion then unity in action.
Does the WSM support a scabs right to pass a picket or not?
Well, Lenin stole the shibboloeth 'all power to the soviets' from the anarchists, so I think it's fine to use a term like 'fading away' in relation to how the revolution will not be led by any organisation, or succeeded by any organisation, or group of organisations. The point is the libertarian nature of anarchist organisation will prevent anarchists from ever assuming power for themselves. -marxist-leninist/trot parties are simply governments in waiting.
Do anarchists support a scabs 'right' to pass a picket or not? If you oppose democratic centralism then the answer must be yes. Could someone please answer?
I think the lack of a reply and the fact that my previous post asking the same question was deleted speaks volumes.
Seamus how do you propose that the working class overthrow the capitalist class, defeat it and initiate a planned socialist economy without forming organisations?
Your post was deleted because it was a repetition of a post above with no new content. Your original question is still on the thread just a few posts up.
Your later question to Seamas is strange, given that he is in an organisation. Not only that his group is actually called Organise! I don't agree with Seamas about what kind of organisation we need, but he certainly isn't against organisation in principle.
>"All union are democratic centralist. When there is a strike and a minority disagree with a strike taking place the strike still goes ahead and nobody works. Is this not democratic centralism? Unity in action after full discussion, this is democratic centralism"
No, you've left out explaining the centralism bit. That part means that a few people at the centre decide on behalf of the others. The democratic bit is that they are elected. It is a form of representative democracy. It's used by state organisations and political parties.
The WSM as I said above, pretty clearly I thought, agree that workers are entitled to prevent scabs from taking a boss's side. We think that from a perspective of self-defence workers are entitled to forecefully defend a democratic decision to strike. Obviously workers themselves should decide what to do in any particluar case. This should not be imposed from above (or from the centre if you prefer) by bureaucrats or even elected reps. So it would be direct democracy in action!
A thousand and one different organisations have described themselves or been described as "democratic centralist". The actual way in which those groups have organised has varied wildly. Because of the use of the term by a range of organisations which we would consider to be bureaucratic rather than democratic, the Socialist Party in Britain actually started using the description "democratic unity" instead.
The principle of democratic centralism is not that "a few people at the centre" make the decisions, although in many organisations which call themselves democratic centralist that is what has happened. Just as it has happened in many organisations which do not call themselves such. I think that perhaps there is a misunderstanding here of what the word "centralism" refers to. It does not refer to some "centre" of the party which makes the decisions.
The principle is that decisions are made democratically but then implemented by everyone regardless of what their personal opinions are on the subject. That notion - maximum freedom to discuss and decide, combined with maximum unity in action - is the core of democratic centralism. What's more, that principle is compatible with a wide range of actual organisational structures. The precise structures used by Russian socialists in conditions of illegality and oppression are not necessarily those which are appropriate to Irish socialists a century later. The principle underlying those structures, however, remains the same - an attempt to marry democratic decision making with disciplined action.
It is that disciplined, unified action which has enabled even what is a small organisation in the greater scheme of things, like the Socialist Party, to punch way above its weight.
When James says he supports the right of some workers (pickets) to stop other workers (scabs) from working, I agree with him. But I also recognise that he is supporting something centralist, something which is in fact "authoritarian".
Unity in action is important in any real struggle. I would like to know, genuinely, if the WSM agrees on that. If the WSM makes a decision which James, for instance, disagrees with, is James entitled to do his own thing regardless?
There are two issues here, centralism and unity, which anarchists consider it helpful to separate and believe Marxists tend to conflate.
But first…
Brian: “When James says he supports the right of some workers (pickets) to stop other workers (scabs) from working, I agree with him. But I also recognise that he is supporting something centralist, something which is in fact "authoritarian".”
Well it is not centralist, if the workers are deciding for themselves, it is ‘directly democratic’ - matched with unity of action. As for authoritarian, well I don’t think it is, though language could be getting the better of us. If you want to go to a pub and the rest of your friends want to go to the cinema is it authoritarian to go along with majority view? Abiding by the wishes of people with whom you have agreed to work with is not authoritarian. It is the basis for productive free association. Only a child thinks that he or she must get his way every time and common sense tells us that the next time the decision may be more to your liking. The important factor is whether one has a direct say in the decision. One can always voluntarily leave the association if you’re not happy with decisions over a period of time. Combining voluntarily with one’s peers is an expression of one’s liberty. It isn’t authoritarian.
It is an old attack by Marxists on anarchism that life requires authority. And because we are willing to use force against oppressors, which is what it comes down to, that the working class needs to submit to authority in other areas of life as well. The jump from the legitimacy of using force in self defence - against an oppressor and his allies, for example a boss and his scabs - to equating unity in action in opposing him to “authoritarian” is worrying. But that is what your equation of centralism, unity in action, and authoritarian necessarily means. The difference between the collective use of force in matters of self-defence and using it to imposing one’s will on one’s colleagues should be obvious. Engels’ criticism in On Authority of anti-authoritarian socialists like Bakunin: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm
A brief reply, but a good introduction as to how anarchists see freedom and association: http://www.anarchism.ws/writers/anarcho/talks/anarANDfreedom.html
On Democratic Centralism...
The question is: what do we mean by a _democratic_ decision?
Brian: “The principle of democratic centralism is not that "a few people at the centre" make the decisions…”
What about the practice? But I’ll come to that…
If you just mean members of a particular group - assuming membership is voluntary -should abide by the democratic decision of that group, which is a point I agree with, then you would be better off dropping the term ‘centralist’ and using ‘democratic unity’ as they seem to me to be closer to the actual meanings of the words in everyday usage. But while I think Marxists do mean that, they also, as I see it, mean more; centralism also encompasses the right of those at the centre to make decisions.
Brian: “The principle is that decisions are made democratically but then implemented by everyone regardless of what their personal opinions are on the subject. That notion - maximum freedom to discuss and decide, combined with maximum unity in action - is the core of democratic centralism.”
You don’t _specify _how_ decisions are made. Can they be made by a[n elected] leadership, i.e. “the centre”, or must those affected by the decisions have a direct and equal say? The former method is centralist, the latter closer to libertarian practice. Maximum freedom to discuss and decide will, in practice, often be at odds with the reality of leadership which will have the means and resources to disproportionately influence a discussion. More fundamentally it will have the _authority_ to see that its wishes are adopted.
The Socialist Party has, like many Marxist-Leninist parties, to the best of my knowledge, a national executive committee (or some sort of central committee, not sure what it is called) that can and does decide matters on behalf of the organisation as a whole or particular components of it.
Do you know of any Marxist-Leninist organisations which describe themselves as ‘democratic centralist’ that don’t have such a feature? If you do and it describes itself as ‘democratic centralist’ then I’ll reconsider my understanding of the term. If you don’t, then I think my point about ‘centralism’, meaning direction from the centre which is binding on the wider membership, is valid. Note that I am not claiming that every decision comes from the centre, I’m sure many are discussed and decided upon more widely, but if that central committee has authority in matters of policy, tactics, and organisation, then it is centralist.
What exactly do your leadership do if not make decisions on behalf of others? If they have just an equal voice, the same as everyone, why elect them to a central committee? HS's explanation that they are a political leadership seems correct to me. And therefore it is legitimate to say that the centre wields power; how much differing with each particular party.
It strikes me that the Socialist Party ambiguity about ‘centralism’ is reminiscent of their ambiguity about a “workers’ state”. Both appear to operate using the methods of representative democracy, but you’re rarely very clear on this and one could come away thinking you meant a form of direct democracy. Maybe you do, but it would be helpful if you could spell it out, and one way to do so would be to drop using ambiguous terms like “democratic centralism” and “workers’ state”.
On unity, the basic position is as outlined in my comment above.
In answer to your question: “I would like to know, genuinely, if the WSM agrees on that. If the WSM makes a decision which James, for instance, disagrees with, is James entitled to do his own thing regardless?”
For the most part, no. But then if I disagreed with the rest of them regularly or on a few important issues, I would leave or I hope the others would ask me to. It is a voluntary association of people with shared values and outlook. If the disagreements are too frequent or too deep then our values have diverged and remaining in the organisation would be pointless.
Having a good level of shared values restricts the scope of disagreement to a reasonably low-level – though not infrequent! So we don’t really disagree on going for election, for example, but we might on whether to run an anti-election campaign. If I’m in a minority on such issues I’m not going to publicly undermine their campaign.
Anyway life, being reasonably complex, means one is aware that there’s the distinct possibility you’re often wrong. So even if you didn’t think a particular tactic was a good idea, it makes sense to help out, put it to the test and see how it goes. It’s a good way to learn. It is also important to respect the wishes of the majority with whom, after all, you share most of your political and ethical views.
If WSM members are going against the majority’s view in public, they have to specify that they are not speaking on behalf of the organisation. If they are a mandated delegate from a different campaign they have to follow that mandate even if it diverges from the WSM’s view.
I think, given the complexity of life, that that provides for a realistic level of collective action and room for people to voice their different opinions. While unity is very important, there are different levels which are appropriate at different times. Sometimes a ‘one size fits all’ model can be counterproductive and a diverse range of tactics working towards the same goal could be better. As in the broad anti-capitalist movement for example where you had block-blockers and very reformist types demonstrating separately, yet together.
And the rights of the majority are not always sacrosanct which is why it is good to have the freedom to dissent. There could well be exceptional occasions when such dissent is vitally important; for example if a majority of workers voted to prevent Africans being employed in their workplace, I think the minority opposing such racism would be entitled to go against the majority. But it should be borne in mind that that would be an exceptional case. Our actions are ultimately based on our ethics, which is why for unity in action we need those shared values. Anarchists think we can get those shared values without recourse to authority.
I think that we do need a level of national organisation, i'm not quite clear on this but on reading it seems different branches of the wsm are free to go their own way on different issues (if you could explain this please), but I think if you want to organise on a national level the organisation or party should follow the same tactic. Including all branches, experience of the bin charges is an example of this, sinn feins differing policies (at polar opposites) in different areas meant they could not defeat the charge, (if they wanted to at national level), and even divisions in dublin allowed the councils to divide up the city. if a group of factories went on strike but one remained working because a majority there didn't support the strike, can you picket? Remembering this is what happened to the british miners. If this is allowed the state or the boss will always be able to buy off a minority.
But on saying this I do believe a party member should express any discontents or disagreements rather than act as a party parrot. representetives though as they are representing members should stick to what we have agreed.
For making decisions at any level you must remember that a leadership can't just say the magic words and expect it to happen, voluntry organisations are voluntry, if a leadership vears away from the wishes of the organisations members, we are free to a, change the policy or even the leadership (which does happen), b, simply refuse to do it. or c, leave the party.
And if a party or leadership makes big mistakes it will pay for them in terms of members and influence. It all should be seen as a fluid process, parties come and go, different formations and ideas are tried the thing to try and do is learn from them.
For example while members of the socialist party spent years working inside the labour party I don't think it would be a good idea, but partly because they tried and we can learn from their experiences inside it.
for james, i was only joking about the fading away thing, but generally i don't trust anyone that uses that, even anarchists. if history teaches us anything things don't just fade away, people and organisations can and do change.
sorry the last comment was for seamus not james
This discussion has become quite wide ranging, so I apologise in advance if I've missed out on replying to a point that you regard as vital. It’s useful to have discussions like this from time to time, as it helps clarify what we do and do not agree on. As I will get to in a moment, sometimes socialists and anarchists can be divided by a common language.
On the issue of unity in action, I'm not sure that I am much clearer about James' position. There seems to be a general agreement about the need for an organisation to act in a united and disciplined way, but so many riders and qualifications are added that the agreement seems to lose much of its force.
Let's take a concrete example. Say James and some other WSM members are involved in a broader campaign. The WSM has put a lot of thought into the issue and it decides it wants to push for one tactic in that campaign. James regards that tactic as not only useless but actively counterproductive and damaging. Say for instance, James had agreed with the SWP that holding solidarity blockades in areas where bins were still being collected would undermine the campaign. A campaign meeting puts the issue to a vote. Does James vote as the WSM had decided or does he vote with his own opinion? And what would the rest of the WSM expect him to do? And if solidarity blockades are decided upon, does he take part in them?
On the issue of democratic centralism, yes I can think of organisations that would regard themselves as democratic centralist but which have not had a leadership committee. A number of the very smallest groups affiliated with the Committee for a Workers International do not have one. Such a structure would simply be unwieldy for a group with a handful of members in a limited geographical area. The principle that they decide democratically and implement together remains the same, however, despite different circumstances (in this case size and spread) dictating a different formal structure.
More generally, I don't accept that we are using terms ambiguously. Far from it. We operate from very precise definitions of what a state is. We take the (Marxist) view that a state is an apparatus which one social class uses to suppress another. Thus a capitalist state is the apparatus used by the capitalist class to oppress the working class. During and after a revolution, the working class will need to defend itself against counter-revolution coming from the capitalists and their allies. The apparatus used by the working class to defend itself against those enemies would be vastly more democratic than any state which has existed before. It would be the tool of the great majority against their former oppressors, but it is still an apparatus used by one class to suppress its enemies. That is the very essence of a state and we don't try to avoid applying our definitions to our own aims.
It seems to me that a lack of rigour about the application of terms like "state" or "authoritarian" is a hallmark of anarchist thought. When James argues that it is not "authoritarian" for one group of workers to seek to prevent another group of workers from going to work, I am left shaking my head in wonder. How is trying to prevent people from doing something they want to do, trying to force people to do what you want them to do instead, not authoritarian? James' point of view quite simply reduces the term "authoritarian" to a curse word, an insult used to describe something you don't like. Something he does approve of, like preventing people from scabbing, inherently cannot be authoritarian. Similarly, an apparatus used by the working class against its enemies cannot be a state. There is no consistency here.
This mixing of terms of insult with categories of analysis is in my view widespread amongst anarchists. Take the use of the term “leadership” as an insult by people whose entire political activity, objectively speaking, is about trying to offer leadership to people, every time they organise a meeting, hand out a leaflet or make a speech. It is difficult to imagine a deeper political confusion. Before James has a go at me for misrepresenting the views of the WSM, I do realize that his organisation has a more reasoned attitude on the concept of leadership than most anarchists, having read their stuff about a “leadership of ideas”. I am aware that during the bin tax struggle, the WSM understood more clearly than the “Marxist” SWP the need to offer leadership when it came to convincing residents of the need for solidarity blockades.
Arguing against the anarchist usages of terms like “leadership”, “hierarchy”, “state” or “authoritarian” self-evidently does not mean that I am always in favour of hierarchy or authority. What it means is that I am against substituting moralistic attacks for objective analysis.
A related point is about the nature of revolutionary organisation. As a Marxist, I am not interested in trying to create a revolutionary organisation which functions as a microcosm of a future society. Such an impulse, to me seems to have more in common with the desire to live in a commune than with the desire to overthrow capitalism. I am not trying to create within capitalism an organizational model of the future. Instead we are trying to create a political weapon for the working class, the most efficient and effective tool we can. That’s why we try to combine democratic decision making with disciplined action. It’s also one of the reasons why I could never be an anarchist.
On collective action…
I call it a nuanced reasoned position. Those riders seem perfectly in order to me. Is there any particular part of it with which you disagree? You don’t even bother to argue where I’m unclear or mistaken which leaves me inclined to disregard your comment that my points lose their force. Indeed one wonders are you going out of your way to be confused? Your example of blockades is a hardly what I called an exceptional occasion so I’d be happy to implement the organisation’s decision. But I’d prefer if there was a local group structure which sent mandated delegates and, if one, I would argue their agreed position even if I had reservations. A simple application of intelligence combined with those common values I mentioned are far preferable to a mechanical implementation of policy.
You manage to ignore what I would regard as a core point of shared values. As long as this is so I fear you will remain in the dark.
You simply don’t address points about representative decision making structure and directly democratic decision making.
On the use of the word “authoritarian” I do have some sympathy with your point, if you like then the external action against the boss is authoritarian, though legitimately so. Personally I dislike using the word in that way, but as you say, that’s probably a personal foible. However, it seems to me that you were extending that to internal policing of one’s own class with the identification of unity in action, centralism, and authoritarianism. Again you don’t address this.
On the state, anarchists would have a different definition, one that builds on Marx’s and one that closer reflects reality as it is in the world and was in Russia, China etc. In addition to its function as a mechanism for suppressing a social class, it is also a vehicle for the rule of a minority. This has historically been the case, even in Bolshevik Russia.
Our use of different language on this point would not be so important if Leninists did not support a form of representative democracy. The workers’ state being ‘vastly more democratic’ still sounds like a form of representative democracy. I’ve never heard it said any differently from any Marxist. You declined to do so, despite my invitation. If you meant a form of direct democracy then the argument would be a semantic one, but Trotskyites advocate the assumption of power by a minority, the party leadership, therefore I think the use of the word ‘state’ by anarchists is very accurate.
On CWI parties…
At last an answer to a question! It is interesting that some small CWI parties don’t have a leadership. Will they develop on if they reach a certain size? I would argue that if they do, then my point remains valid, though I suppose I’ll have to amend my argument so I mention 95% of Marxist-Leninist organisations operate using a leadership structure rather than 100%. There is a central locus of power in 95% of Marxist-Leninist parties, therefore the anarchist use of the word ‘centralist’ remains accurate.
On leaders, no anarchist has authority to impose his or her will. They have no problem in being the first to give a lead. There is a difference between arguing that a blockade tomorrow is a good idea and saying ‘hey ladies and gents, there’s going to be a blockade tomorrow morning’. And that is pretty much the difference between the WSM and the SP. In fact I recall you justifying such behaviour to me at a bin tax march this time last year.
Your last paragraph indicates that the SP is not organised in a directly democratic manner. So presumably there is a centre of power. So again my understanding of centralism, direction from the centre, is directly applicable to your own organisation, 95% of others and therefore is accurate. I’m not sure why you don’t agree that this is so, since in your last paragraph you explain why you think this is necessary.
And yes anarchists do try to organise in anarchist a manner as possible while not dropping out (commune!!). I’d disagree that it is less efficient in the struggle against exploitation. We are not merely aiming to get rid of the capitalist class but all rulers, and having our own set simply leaves it open for them to replace the capitalist version when the time comes.
Finally to hs, autonomy matched with common ideas and values fosters unified action. We don’t need direction from the centre to do this. National coordination can come from below as well as from above. Basically, in old fashioned terms, it’s centralism Vs federalism.
I'd have no problem with federalism, in fact the prc in italy are organised on a federal basis, it was also the cause of the split when the english and welsh sp split from the socialist alliance. I think any broad based party is best organised on a federal basis, you can still have unity in action along with it, its not contradictory.
core values are okay when you're small, but its not enough as you grow.
As for small cwi groups and how they are organised, when i was in italy i had some experience of this, we did everything by concencous as we were so small.
and there was no leadership. But in italy we are a small propaganda group, mostly we only had one or two in each city so delegates were pointless (unless you delegate yourself)
of course if it grows a delegate can represent 2 people or 3 etc And as structure and constitution will have to be written. Until everything is in place the group will not be excepted into the cwi, a group can only be accepted into the cwi at congress. (make sure there is no fundamental disagreements etc)
untill then its a sympathising group. This will be developed over time
I know Im very late for this discussion but I have a question for Joe, In an earlierr response to a question by Curious you claimed that WSM would be able to organise better than other countries because of our small size?. So does that mean Ireland could benifit as an Anarchist society because of our small size compared to Chile? or organise better because of our small size? If that makes sense?.
I scrolled up to have a look at what I wrote - I don't think you summary is actually right as its not an argument about being 'better'. Rather is the simple observation that it is obviously easier for instance to have a national meeting in a region where everyone can reach a centre point in 4 hours then in one where it would take 20 hours.
hi lads
your assistance and more learned views would be most welcome here
alvar aalto was an anarchist
http://easa.antville.org/stories/1041499/
an open system of a book entitled "alvar aalto was an anarchist" is being put together. your contributions, questions, views, ideas are all most welcome.
alvar aalto, Finnish artist, architect, anarchist
Ira H. Hayes is my cousin he is the one on the very left. We both are from Sacaton, Az
Gila River Indian Community (GRIC)