Today's Topics:
1. verba-volant: Greece, Information on the demonstration on 1
April against the new measures in the mass media [machine
translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
2. France, Alternative Libertaire AL - international, Guyana:
for public services, without the illusion of security by CAL
Guyane (fr, it, pt) [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
3. wsm.ie: Dublin Anarchist Bookfair 2017 & April 23 Anarchist
Gathering (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
4. wsm.ie: Common Threads #1 - Interview: Belfast
Co-operatives. (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
5. wsm.ie: Common Threads #1 - What Is Anarchism?
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
On Saturday, 1 April , a demonstration against new measures was carried out in the center
of Athens on mass media (very strict forms of control and surveillance, buses and subways,
surveillance cameras inside Wagons, special vigilantes for the mass media, in
collaboration with the Police, and above all the introduction of the electronic ticket
(registering the personal data of the passenger and excluding people from the use of these
means). A series of demonstrations, actions and sabotage , in response to the approval of
the above-mentioned measures. ---- About 500 people participated in the demonstration, in
a city of about 4.5 million inhabitants, the vast majority of whom use the mass
transportation daily or several times a week. We noticed that the demonstrators were with
a few lobotomized consumerists, who defended the commercialization of social goods and
their "democratic right to pay for using mass means of transport" ... Most of the
participants in the demonstration have been anarchists, anti-authoritarians , Libertarians
and persons belonging to coordinators and initiatives against the electronic ticket and
for the free use of mass means of transport.
The concentration took place in the square of Monastiraki, and was followed by a march to
the main square (Syntagma) along the Ermú pedestrian street, the most commercial in
Athens. Some of the cryptic slogans are: "Neither control bars nor reviewers: Negative
payment for our basic needs", "For transportation the solution is easy: Free use of mass
transportation, and kicks to the reviewers "And" Neither bars nor validating machines, the
crisis has to pay the bosses "( video ). After the march, several of the new validation
machines installed in the metro station of Omonia ( video ) were broken .
http://verba-volant.info/es/informacion-sobre-la-manifestacion-del-1-de-abril-contra-las-nuevas-medidas-en-los-medios-de-transporte-masivos/
------------------------------
Message: 2
The popular movement that shakes this departmental colony is formidable, despite the role
played by the bosses and the "500 Brothers". ---- The social movement in Guyana is
astounding by its intensity: blocking the firing of the Arianne rocket, roadblocks were
successively put in place, until the general strike. ---- In this unprecedented situation,
forces of a very different nature are working side by side: the unions of the Union des
Travailleurs Guyanais (UTG, notably its Lighting Union), citizen collectives (the Toucans
de Kourou, the 500 Brothers Against the delinquency, the Iguanas of
Saint-Laurent-du-Maroni) and ... the trade unions (Medef CGPME, FDSEA). It was the latter
who in practice installed the dams. ---- A curious mixture of genres, already seen in
Brittany at the time of the Red Bonnets and which incites to the vigilance. When the
employers have seen his private interests satisfied, he will undoubtedly let go of this
formidable popular movement.
Health, social, education ...
Despite this, the Creole population (majority in French Guiana) joined forces with the
roadblocks as they expressed economic and security demands in response to its concerns.
These concerns are primarily insecurity, with a large movement of popular support to the
500 Brothers against delinquency. But economic demands are also important, with an
unemployment rate of 24% - and up to 55% among the under-25s. In addition, there were
health claims (the public service of the medical and surgical center of Kourou in session
of a private group, refinancing of the hospital of Cayenne ...) and educational (school
buildings to allow schooling Of all children, speakers in mother tongue ...).
20,000 people demonstrated in Cayenne on 28 March 2017.
Cc Gerno Odang / Art Picture
Amerindian indigenous communities have also joined the movement with their own demands
(signature of the ILO Convention 169, the fight against illegal gold mining, etc.).
There is no obvious political recovery of this movement for the moment, with elected
officials who say they are in solidarity, but stand back.
Thus, from the second day of the general strike called by the UTG, 15,000 people (for a
city of 100,000 inhabitants) demonstrated in Cayenne, without presence of political
organizations in the procession, 6,000 in Saint-Laurent-du-Maroni , And 600 in Maripasoula.
All of Guyana is mobilized, from the communes of the Maroni River to the west, to
Saint-Georges de l'Oyapock and to Camopi in the east.
In the collective demands
As libertarian communists, it is impossible for us to support all the demands of this
movement initiated by the 500 Brothers, an agglomeration of former policemen and
vigilantes, namely the creation of a new prison and a new tribunal, Increase in the number
of police and gendarmerie, and the eradication of squats in which migrants survive. The
link between immigration and insecurity is detestable. And the basic solution to
insecurity is not repression, but the eradication of social distress.
AL Guyane enthusiastically participates in the various communities in which we operate
(river communes, education, health, culture).
This " Guyanese Spring " is an opportunity for us to create links for the future.
Alternative libertarian Guyana, April 2, 2017
http://www.alternativelibertaire.org/?Guyane-pour-les-services-publics-sans-l-illusion-securitaire
------------------------------
Message: 3
The WSM is not organising the 12th Dublin Anarchist Bookfair for the spring of 2017 as
might be expected. Instead, we are organising an alternative event, the Anarchist
Gathering. ---- The Anarchist Gathering 2017 will take place on Sunday, 23nd April,
10am-5pm in the Teacher's Club (36, Parnell Square West, Dublin 1). Please reply to
activity@wsm.ie to register your interest in attending. We are gathering to discuss how we
can better organise and fight for a free society. We would hope that everyone actively
interested in building anarchism in Ireland will attend. ---- The following piece maps out
our thinking about the bookfair at the present moment. ---- In solidarity, ---- WSM Dublin
Anarchist Bookfair Committee. ---- WHY NO BOOKFAIR? ---- We've taken this step because we
feel the circumstances we now find ourselves in are very different from those of the first
anarchist bookfair in 2006. In significant ways, some circumstances are better. There are
now far more people who call themselves anarchists and are involved in ongoing activity.
However, this involvement has become much more individual and informal. Clearly, there are
some advantages to these new conditions. With the massive growth of online communications,
Facebook in particular, the need for organisations to organise and transmit information in
printed form is gone. Protests can be organised online with a tiny fraction of the
resources once required. On the negative side, we are all aware that the lack of
face-to-face meetings has often resulted in an increased difficulty in resolving disputes
and increased isolation. The decline of collective organisations raises particular
problems for bookfair organising.
At the time of the 2006 bookfair, there were several collective organisations with a solid
existence beyond WSM who were either explicitly anarchist (as with RAG, Revolutionary
AnarchaFeminist Group) or pretty close to being anarchist in their practice, like Seomra
Spraoi. For a few years that number grew. The emergence of Solidarity Books, ABC, Queer
Thing, Rossport Solidarity Camp and others meant that while the WSM organised the bookfair
we hosted a number of domestic anarchist related groups as well as international anarchist
publishers like AK Press. Alongside this we hosted lots of campaigns anarchists were
interested in. The Bookfair is an increasingly popular event: attendance last year was at
least five times greater than the first one. However, most of the collective anarchist
groups mentioned here no longer exist. Last year, the presence of anarchist organisations
at the bookfair was minimal.
In the context of the movement as it currently exists then, the Dublin Anarchist Bookfair
has become something that is much harder for us to commit to organising. The workload is
considerable: a small team working steadily for four months ahead of the date, a larger
team putting a couple of hundred hours of work in over the two weeks before hand, the day
itself, and then the clearing up and poster removal afterwards. The cost is also
significant. In the last few years, we have spent from 3,500 to 5,000 euro on the event.
(However, a benefit of the growth of the number of anarchists was that last year for the
first time we covered all those costs in the aftermath). Nevertheless, for the last couple
of years, we found that the work required to ensure that everything runs smoothly on the
day left us with little time or energy to ensure an anarchist presence at our own event.
In other words, while we enjoy the Bookfair, its contribution towards building a
collectively organised anarchist movement is uncertain.
For these reasons, at the present moment, we think it is better to attempt a gathering of
anarchists to discuss how we can better organise collectively and fight for a free society.
TOWARDS THE ANARCHIST GATHERING
The Anarchist Gathering is not a particularly novel idea. In 1998, a couple of the older
members of WSM attended an anarchist conference in Bradford that took place following the
dissolution of Class War (See
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/andrewnflood/report-1998-bradford-mayday-...). The
conference didn't lead to the formation of a new organisation (that was never its goal).
However, the shot in the arm it provided played a role in creating the sort of solidarity
that allowed the J18 Action against the City of London to take part. The J18 in turn
inspired anarchists heading to the WTO in Seattle and - along with other initiatives like
the Zapatista encuentros - was a significant part of the reason that an anti-capitalist
summit protest movement running from Seattle to Genoa emerged.
We aren't aiming that high (yet!). But we anarchists of the WSM think that its past time
for all those actively involved as anarchists in Ireland to gather together to discuss how
we communicate, how we work together and how we can achieve a hell of a lot more in the
future.
To work out the detail, a planning and volunteering meeting for the Anarchist Gathering
will take place at 7:30pm, Tuesday, 11th April in Jigsaw (10 Belvedere Court, Mountjoy,
Dublin 1). Please do send us an email at activity@wsm.ie to let us know what you feel and
if you are willing to get involved in the organising process.
Subject: Anarchist bookfair
Topics: Anarchist movement
Geography: National
Source: News alert
Type: News
Author: WSM PRO
http://www.wsm.ie/c/dublin-anarchist-bookfair-2017-april-23-anarchist-gathering
------------------------------
Message: 4
Belfast has seen something of a surge of co-operatively run businesses in recent years as
more people are faced with the choice between precarious work and unemployment with meagre
dole payments. Belfast is now home to a taxi co-op, Union Taxis, a cleaning co-op, Belfast
Cleaning Society, a co-operatively run café, Lúnasa, and a digital media co-op, The
Creative Workers' Co-Op - to name but a few. We sat down with Clem and Colin, two of the
three members of the Creative Workers' Co-Op, and Elena from Lúnasa to get their thoughts
on co-ops in Belfast. ---- Common Threads (CT): Why did you want to start a co-op? ----
Elena: I had been working for other people for a long time, since I was very young. I've
been a union member from the beginning of my working years too. For me, working in a co-op
was and is the only moral and ideologically sane alternative.
Clem: I was working in various jobs in the media industry and it was a very unstable and
precarious market. The newspaper I was working for closed down. We were working in
precarious, zero-hour contract jobs.
Gerard and I were working in jobs that paid very little with very little prospects, he was
a photographer I was a graphic designer we put our heads together and said "right will we
just open a co-operative?" I was involved with a trade union, the Independant Workers
Union, that was very supportive of the idea. We talked about it for quite a bit, we
thrashed out the idea. There were a couple of other people who were interested but didn't
follow through when it became a project.
CT: How did you start off?
Clem: It was myself and Gerard who initially started off, we sort of grew a wee bit and
gained two other members who then, for different reasons went on to different jobs, but we
very slowly started to build up a base of clients we worked with which were NGOs, Trade
Unions, Unity groups, some private companies, but essentially we were just building up a base.
Colin: I worked freelance for two years when I was studying; it was low paid with very few
prospects. I came in here one day and asked the guys to do a newsletter when I quickly
realised it was a job interview, we went for lunch and they said "Right is this the new
member then?" From there we just started getting stuff together to register, to get the
bank account set up all that there stuff, all the stuff that we weren't used to doing.We
got some advice from the Co-Operative Development Hub and got up and running.
CT: Do you find that the co-op model is becoming more well received as the economic
situation continues to worsen?
Clem: Not really, it's a very very small movement across Ireland. One example is the
credit union movement, they are essentially co-operatives. They survived the bulwark of
the crisis because they weren't speculating on people's money and they're quite autonomous
and ingrained in Irish society.
It's a functioning model of co-operation within communities and people don't even think of
them as a radical idea but they are very radical in terms of what they do, in terms of
gathering a community's money together and loaning it out to those within that community
who need it.
There's probably very few people who haven't had experience with them and it's mostly a
positive experience - but outside of that, in your workplace or how you live your life,
there isn't much in terms of co-operation.
So you have a credit union movement which is the largest density of co-ops in Ireland but
outside of that there was very large agricultural co-ops that were set up in different
phases but outside of the financial credit union type things there's a tiny amount of
worker co-operatives and most people having lived through a capitalist, individualistic
system for so long haven't seized on them mostly because they're very difficult to set up.
A lot of places that do have successful co-operative movements have universities dedicated
to teaching people how to co-operate. It may seem counter intuitive but it's a very
difficult thing to do, based on a lot of compromises between workers and how they operate
and dealing with work on a day to day basis, especially if you have a flat structure.
It's completely different to the management structures of a normal business: in a co-op
you're the boss as well, you have the responsibilities that go along with that, it isn't
like going to a normal waged job.
Colin: People are used to a certain way of working. People know to talk and communicate
with each other to get the job done, but in other jobs you do your bit and then other
people do theirs, but in a co-op you need agreement on every step of the way, every part
of the job and that means compromise.
In terms of setting it up, there are a few different options but the biggest thing that
other people have found is difficulty in getting funding. We've never taken funding which
is why we've never had difficulty in it.
But in terms of the state, the government doesn't have a definition of co-ops and doesn't
have a structure for it, so you have to decide if you're going to be a company limited by
guarantee, a partnership or if you're going to go down the Industrial and Provident
Society route and that's as close as you'll possibly get to what a co-op is.
Elena: I definitely think so, but only for those who were already organised activists or
had some previous education in these matters.
CT: Among these difficulties what other factors do you have contributing to the difficulty
in setting up?
Colin: There used to be recognition for co-ops, the Rochdale Principles were set up years
ago, there had been a certain amount of recognition within government - that was removed.
In its place we essentially have social enterprises. A social enterprise operates as a
business but with some social values, a co-op starts with social and then builds a
business on top of that.
Clem: Social enterprises now are kind of like a buzzword, some of them could be doing
particularly positive things but still exploiting their workers, it's not one member one vote.
What was previously quite a large co-operative movement in England has sort of shifted
towards social enterprise models. Quite a lot of what people would have naturally tended
towards, like co-operation, has now been changed under the guise of social enterprises,
which are really just businesses.
A lot is made of them but when you go in and look behind the curtain you see that they
don't actually produce that much social value and they generally don't have a democratic
workplace. Do they distribute wealth in an equitable manner? Probably and mostly not. Not
to knock them, some of them do a lot of good within communities, it's just a shame they
don't go further.
Elena: The human factor aka slave mentality. We are not used to running our work life, we
are not used to directing ourselves. I think that is a massively important factor in terms
of obstacles.
CT: What role do you think co-ops have to play in creating an alternative society?
Elena: Right now, we are fun, weird anecdotes. We should be the norm. It's only through
self organising that we are going to gain anything, starting by some dignity.
Clem: Co-operatives are not a solution to capitalism at this stage. They need a wider
array of political activism.
Co-ops are generally, the history of them, a small bubble within wider capitalism, and
they can sort of be a band aid to that but they're never a complete solution to it.
Co-operatives are in a big and wide arena in a sense, but they're not in themselves a
solution to it.
They could foreshadow what a society could look like in an alternative economic model but
at this stage it needs a wider reach, I don't think it's gonna be co-ops replacing capitalism.
That said, they are useful, and while they are still a capitalist enterprise they do give
you quite an insight into how Capitalism operates and into how to run and operate an
economy, your own small economy. It does make you realise however that you are not free
from the constraints of capitalism in any capacity.
Colin: A lot of stuff that we're now doing in our work is stuff that we usually would have
volunteered to do and doing it through our day job kind of helps with preventing burn out.
Our workplace is based on a co-op model as well as our own principles which means that we
can try to make a positive change through a full-time job.
CT: After working in a co-op for some time now what are your opinions on bosses and
workers' control?
Elena: My opinion is the same as before. Although this experience is turning out to be
even tougher than I expected, my opinion on employers, bosses and management hasn't
changed. I still see most of them as conscienceless vultures. I really don't think this
behaviour is inherent in the managerial class, I think it is an option; a decision on how
to run a group of people and a business that ignores the welfare of workers and puts
profit first every single time.
Clem: We don't need them! We don't need bosses, we need workers control
CT: What do you enjoy most about working in a co-op?
Colin: There's a purpose to everything we have to do. It's not about doing the next
mundane thing just because the boss said to. Every decision, whether you agree with it or
not, is made together and is rooted in the collective desire to succeed, not an
individual's desire to control.
Elena: The pride and self respect.
CT: What advice would you give to anyone looking to set up a co-op?
Colin: Hurry up!
Clem: Stick at it! Go and talk to as many people who have been through that process
before, it could help you resolve or avoid a lot of common mistakes that other people have
been through before, there's a small network of co-ops in existence
Elena: I would say, get twice the money you think you are going to need. Make sure you
know who are you getting in bed with. Be resilient. Take some time off from work. Accept
help from others and get professional help if needed (from accounting to electric
installation).
Colin: Get in touch with us, give us a shout, one of the principles is co-operation among
co-ops!
http://www.wsm.ie/c/interview-belfast-co-operatives-2016
------------------------------
Message: 5
Like almost any political term, ‘anarchism' is very broad in scope and covers a huge range
of ideas and practice. Instead of trying to give an exhaustive description, or detail
everything that is and isn't anarchism, this article will attempt to get to the heart of
it, and capture the essence, as far as possible, at the core of anarchism. Giving a
complete definition of such a broad term would take many more words than will fit here and
has been done well in other places (e.g. An Anarchist FAQ). ---- Any short, simple
statement trying to define anarchism will necessarily fall short: it will lack nuance,
depth, and be open to misinterpretation. However, if a concise defining phrase is what
we're seeking then, "favouring cooperation over authority", seems about as complete and
accurate as can be captured in just a few words, though it does, of course, leave a huge
amount of room for discussion.
Anarchism embodies a kind of skepticism of power and domination in that it assumes that
the burden of proof lies with those who wish to exert them. In other words, I don't have
to give reasons why I should be free, you have to give reasons (and good ones!) why I
shouldn't be. The definition given above naturally splits in two: favouring cooperation
and disfavouring authority.
On the pro-cooperation aspect, anarchism proposes alternate (leaderless) models of
organisation and concepts for better, more egalitarian organisational mechanisms and
structures. On the anti-authority aspect we find analysis of the current system,
criticism of its manifestations, exposition of its lies and machinations, and challenges
to its institutions through direct action.
There are many myths and misconceptions about anarchism and, though this will not be an
exhaustive list, it seems useful to address a couple of the more common ones. The first
is that anarchy equals chaos and no rules, and anarchists are those who want chaos (or
bomb-throwing mayhem) and a society where everyone simply does whatever they feel like all
the time.
There may very well be some people who wish for this, but no one can seriously expect to
be able to run a complex society this way. However this seems to be the definition most
often upheld by the mainstream.
Beyond simple misunderstandings of the term, the most common criticism of anarchism is
that it is utopian and therefore unrealistic. That it requires that all ill intentions
cease in the absence of repressive force, and everyone becomes something like a perfect being.
Anarchism makes no promises of such an idealistic world to come, only one to strive for -
and this it surely has in common with most any other ideology. Dictionaries tend to
define anarchism in terms of its opposition to governments, but this is really something
that comes out of anarchism rather than being a defining feature.
The fundamental question underlying any political philosophy is: what values or ideals do
we wish to promote and emphasise, and which ones will we devalue and de-emphasise? In the
state-capitalist world in which we live, one of the main values that underpins the
political system is authority - the right for someone to have control over others' actions.
Some people are in charge of others and make decisions for them, or on their behalf. We
are expected to (for the most part) obey those who are in charge of us, and be obeyed by
those we are in charge of. This is how most of society's organisations are arranged,
there is a hierarchy of authority from the ‘ordinary' members or workers, up through some
sort of management structure to a single person and/or small committee at the top (board
of directors, council, etc).
The main value that's sacrificed under this system is freedom. The freedom for people to
decide for themselves - or even, in many cases, have any input into decisions that affect
them - is ceded to managers or, within the electoral system, ‘representatives'.
What we're supposed to gain from this sacrifice is order, and a well functioning system.
This rests on the assumption that outside of authoritative systems order is impossible.
History has tested this assumption many times and has found it wanting: the Paris commune,
the Spanish Revolution, the Limerick Soviet. These are just some examples of events in
history in which communities decided to favour the value of freedom over authority and
oppression.
Devaluing authority as an ideal doesn't mean we eliminate it completely. This would be
undesirable, and surely impossible. One can think of many examples where authority is not
only favourable but essential. For example, if we see a toddler about to run out on the
road into oncoming traffic, we would exercise authority over the child in order to
physically prevent them from doing so. Instead of seeking to abolish authority, anarchism
prescribes that authority requires justification.
Strong justification. This justification is primarily owed to those over whom authority
is to be wielded, If I wish to exercise authority over a group of people the best way to
justify it would be to get their agreement. This, of course, does not always make sense
and is not always possible, as in the example above - we do not stop to get the child's
permission before we prevent them from running into traffic.
Authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism are both strong values that seem to develop
naturally within all us of from the time we are children. We are resistant to authority
("You're not the boss of me!") and at the same time we exercise authority over those
smaller/weaker than us - a child might take a toy from a smaller, younger sibling.
The notion that authority requires justification is also an early development. If asked
why did you take the toy, the child generally doesn't simply say, "I'm bigger and stronger
and I wanted it." Instead we're more likely to hear justifications like, "Well they
weren't using it anyway" or "I had it first." It's much easier for someone wielding
authority to justify it to themselves than to the subject of the authority.
Of course the younger sibling in the example is unlikely to accept or agree with the
justifications and would, if they could, resist the imposition of authority and keep the
toy in question.
So what this example also points to is the fact that authority doesn't exist on its own,
and cannot uphold itself by its own virtue. Instead it needs to be underpinned by
violence, or "might makes right". In the example of the siblings, the older child is
essentially backing up their authority with something like an implied threat. They want
the toy, they take it, and, since the younger child is physically overmatched, any
struggle to retrieve it will likely be met with some force.
Similar implied underlying threats exist within the world's political system(s). The word
‘violence' is a rather poorly defined term, and doesn't have a very agreed-upon
definition; how it is used in this article in the context of authority is to mean,
"something bad will happen to you if you don't obey." It's quite easy to test that this
is the case within society, just stop obeying and see what happens. Just to take one
example, let's say you decide that you want electricity in your house but you can't (or
don't wish to) pay for it. First step is probably to stop paying your electricity bills.
What's likely to happen then is you'll be written to, called on, phoned, texted, emailed,
or all of the above, with requests and entreats to pay off the bills. These are likely to
then escalate to demands and threats - of being cut off and/or having debt collection
agencies employed to retrieve the payment.
Once your electricity is inevitably cut off, if you decide to just reconnect it yourself,
you'll then be committing a crime and the electricity company (assuming they find out) may
very well press charges. If you keep pushing it far enough, particularly if you are open
and forthcoming about what you're up to, eventually people (police) will come to your
house and physically remove you and lock you up, and if you resist this part of the
process you will be subjected to what most anyone would agree is violence - i.e. battery.
The authoritarian, hierarchical nature of the system inherently makes greater reward
available to those further up the hierarchy. The division is extreme currently, with a
fraction of a percent of the world's population owning most of the wealth, but the general
trend is only to be expected: those in power will naturally pay more attention to their
own needs and desires, like most people.
This is at the heart of class division. Class analysis is an extremely complex and
in-depth subject and a single paragraph can barely hope to scratch the surface, but, put
simply, in a ‘democracy', there's a specialised class: the elite, political, or manager class.
These are the responsible, intelligent people (historically, men) who presume to know
what's best for everyone and have the role of doing the thinking and planning. The part
everyone else is expected to play is to mostly be spectators, and occasionally to turn out
to the voting booths to choose between one or another member of the specialised class to
be a leader (these days usually called a representative).
The underlying framework of this system has changed very little, if at all, since early
civilisation. The ostensible leaders (even in dictatorships) rule only as long as they
have the support of those with real power - the wealthy elites who own society. In older
times, merchants and manufacturers; these days, CEOs, hedge-fund managers and such. What
has changed is how power is imposed upon the masses.
Thanks to labour organising and other large-scale mass direct action, the amount of
freedom available to the public in western societies has increased dramatically and the
oppression, and degree to which those in power are able to resort to violence, has
decreased (particularly if you're of the ‘right' colour, creed, nationality, gender, etc).
It was becoming easier for people to organise collectively and effect positive changes
in public policy. No longer could the people simply be beaten down.
The ability for people to achieve societal, system change is a serious threat to the
established order: most people would like the world to be more fair, which necessitates
the rich and powerful become less rich and powerful. Naturally this is something they're
against: to oppressors, fairness and equality feel like oppression.
As totalitarian states grudgingly gave way to ‘democracies', propaganda took over from the
bludgeon as the main tool for controlling populations and set itself to the task of
diverting people away from organising and participating in politics, and of promoting
values that serve the interests of power.
This tendency is visible right up through all the major institutions of society beginning
with the family unit and the education system. Schools tend to instill values like
obedience and competitiveness and individual achievement, and discourage values like
dissent, challenging authority and mutual cooperation.
The public relations industry is by now a massive, multi-billion euro enterprise, the main
function of which is influencing and controlling the public mind. Spectator sports, tv
shows, advertisements, movies, and the like, all serve to divert and distract people's
attention from the ills of society, while building up power-serving values.
Those who succeed or ‘make it' in this system will tend to be those who have had the
required values successfully instilled in them. And those who reject these values will
tend to be ostracised or marginalised by society's institutions.
A tiny minority of the population have had their hands on the reins of the system, shaping
and designing it to their ends, while at the same time trying their best to hide this from
the masses.
International investment agreements are negotiated in secret; neoliberal capitalist
organisations have almost no answerability to the public, just to their shareholders (the
majority of whom are other members of the wealthy elite); and governments plead national
security whenever they can, and employ other instruments in order to hide what they're up to.
The level of secrecy in place is a good indicator both of the extent of public opposition
to the policies, and also of how damaging they are - destroying the environment, and
spreading tremendously powerful weapons throughout the world, are two examples that come
to mind.
This is not a conspiracy of course, it's just how the system works, and what it tends to
emphasise. If you're the CEO of a major corporation and you decide to adopt fairer,
greener, or more equitable (and, therefore, popular) policies you'll soon find your
corporation floundering or, more likely, lose your job.
If you're a politician seeking to implement popular policies you'll be less likely to
receive the backing of the business community (which includes, crucially, the media) and
most likely find yourself losing out to the candidate who aligns themselves with economic
interests.
The state-capitalist system upholds and propagates a lot of dangerous and damaging trends
in humanity - economic inequality, resource depletion, environmental destruction, warfare,
large scale discrimination and racism, among others. They are opposed by the majority of
the world's population, polling data from almost everywhere it's gathered shows this
pretty clearly.
The will to end, or at least address, them exists - what seems to be lacking are popular,
widespread, interconnected institutions that can challenge the power and domination of the
wealthy minority, along with showing alternate, more egalitarian, modes of organisation.
Anarchism holds that these should be institutions of cooperation and mutual aid, worker-
and community-controlled enterprises that are well structured but leaderless and without
top-down power hierarchies. Human beings have all sorts of natural tendencies: greed and
generosity, compassion and animosity, solidarity and individual ambition.
Leadership roles tend to not only attract, but also emphasise the negatives of greed and
personal ambition; while leaderless, egalitarian organisations encourage the positives of
generosity and solidarity. There are many such organisations in existence: worker owned
co-operatives, community groups, and activist collectives are just some examples that come
to mind of non-leadership organisations.
Many of these use ‘bottom-up' forms of organisation, with members making the decisions and
accountable delegates appointed to carry them out. This form of organisation seeks to
eliminate (using agreed rules and guidelines) the possibility of a leadership emerging to
make decisions ‘on behalf of the members' and keep the group under the control of its
membership.
Of the problems the power-hierarchy based system has created, there are two that loom
particularly large: environmental devastation, which seems poised to eliminate the
possibility of decent human existence on the planet; and nuclear weapons, which, either
through war or accident (and there have been many close calls on both) could also make our
planet all but uninhabitable, but on a much shorter timescale - this is an extremely
serious threat that is largely missing from mainstream media and conversation.
These two issues bring a sense of extreme urgency to the anarchist pursuit, an urgency
that has been noticeably lacking from the governments and institutions of the
state-capitalist system. To the contrary, their responses have been, on the one hand,
planning for the further exploitation of natural resources (e.g. Arctic oil and mineral
exploration), and, on the other, spending billions upgrading nuclear arms (in
contravention of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty). The powerful minority is failing
to address these (and many other) issues, that necessarily leaves it up to the rest of us!
A common (possibly even the standard) response to the overwhelming complexity and
severity of the world's problems, is a kind of passive urban nihilism: the world is
screwed, there's nothing I can do as an individual, might as well just get on as if it's
not happening: concentrate on work, or raising my family, or just partying.
This response is perfectly understandable, the problems are much too huge for any one
person to attempt to address. But we should keep in mind that those most responsible, the
rich and powerful, would barely fill the average town hall.
They are organised, active and engaged, and they command massive military and police
force, but their numbers are small and their grip on power tenuous - and they are well
aware of this, hence the massive propaganda enterprise and military spending. However
understandable this passive despair reaction is, it has the function of supporting the
continuation of the power division, since it tends to isolate and demotivate people so
they don't pay attention to what their leaders are up to.
And even if our world is beyond the point of saving why should we not live together as
well as we can for as long as we can? We need to get ourselves organised and figure out
what we want to do about our problems and how we want to live together.
Anarchist organising is something almost everyone is familiar with, in informal settings.
A group of friends on a night out, for example, is usually leaderless, with no one
particular person deciding what movie to go see or where the group spends the evening.
What tends to happen is someone makes a suggestion and sees if the others are on board. If
somebody strongly disagrees then perhaps another suggestion will be made, and so on until
the group comes to general agreement, also known as consensus.
Such a leaderless group can be thought of as an informal anarchist collective, using
informal consensus decision making. In anarchist organising, formal consensus decision
making works in much the same way, except the rules/guidelines tend to be codified and
agreed upon.
The thrust of anarchist theory and activity is separable into six fairly distinct, though
overlapping, areas:
Create. Building the new egalitarian institutions, collectives and enterprises, which are
to comprise the massive-scale popular organisation effort that will be required to bring
about the society we wish to inhabit.
Transform. Altering existing authority-based institutions and groups into ones with more
egalitarian structures.
Advocate. Anarchist advocacy, spreading the theory and practise of anarchism, through
writing, lectures, interviews, workshops, etc.
Challenge. Challenging the authority of power-centres of all kinds, seeking good
justifications for their authority and, when none are found, seeking to dismantle them. In
practise through direct action and in theory through analysing and critiquing aspects and
institutions of the current system.
Expose. Seeking out and making public the secrecy, lies, corruption and other machinations
of the system.
Reform. Chipping away at some of the more oppressive aspects of society through the
available avenues within the current system.
Whatever kind of world we want to live in, it will not simply be granted to us by our
‘masters', we will all need to be involved in the running and decision-making of the
communities in which we spend our time. Where we work, live, and socialise there are
already businesses, institutions and establishments that decide what these experiences are
like. We mostly tend to just accept them as they are because any one of us, as an
individual, can have little effect on them. What we need to do is organise amongst
ourselves to transform these institutions into egalitarian, inclusive leaderless ones, or
to create new ones of our own. Seek out and get involved with such organising groups and,
where they don't exist, find like minded people with whom to start them.
If we wish to have a hand in deciding what our world is like, and we wish to leave
something behind for future generations, each of us needs to get active and involved.
Further Reading
Alan MacSimóin, Follow the Leader?, 2011, http://struggle.ws/ws93/leader38.html
Edward S Herman & Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass
Media, 1988
An Anarchist FAQ,
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq
http://www.wsm.ie/c/introduction-anarchism-2016
------------------------------
Home »
» Anarchic update news all over the world - Part 2 - 9 April 2017