Anarchic update news all over the world - past 1 - 18.06.2017

Today's Topics:

   
1.  ese Union Libertaria de Réthimno: Solidarity with the squat
      Rosa Nera (ca, gr, pt) [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
2.  anarkis: Indonesia, Why does Anarchism Reject the State? BY
      MELFIN ZAENURI [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
3.  sosyal savas: 2nd Intergeographic Festival of Anarchist
      Cinema (29-30 September-1 October 2017) (ca, de, tr)
      (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
4.  anarkismo.net: The First International and the Development
      of Anarchism and Marxism by Wayne Price (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
5.  anarkismo.net: Slaughterers of the Palestinian people by
      Libertarian Initiative of Thessaloniki (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
6.  wsm.ie: Absolute boy - The Youth Revolt that led Corbyn to a
      victory of sorts by Andrew N Flood (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1





Text of the Union Libertaria de Réthimno, published on its website on the occasion of the 
offensive recently unleashed by the University of Crete against the squatter Rosa Nera . 
---- There are no hotels in Crete. Missing spaces are missing. ---- During the last years 
all the governments have carried out several campaigns of elimination of the self-managed 
spaces and free. What they want to achieve is that we find ourselves only in our homes, in 
the cafes, in the bars and in the shopping centers. That is, they want us to be just 
consumers and customers. Consequently, the offensive that Rosa Nera squatter is receiving 
in Chania is not fortuitous. ----The squatter building belongs to the Polytechnic School 
of Khania, and for thirteen years has been a place of struggle and emblematic culture, 
also covering roofing needs. In its facilities the tireless people who have worked hard to 
give life to the building have created a theater, a library and reading room, a space for 
presentations (of artistic creations), a children's park, a construction workshop, a space 
in Which is a bazaar of gifts, an oven for the production of artisanal bread, and a coffee.

In these thirteen years hundreds of events, concerts, presentations, debates, workshops, 
parties, cafes to support collectivities and actions have been organized. All have had an 
anti-mercantilist character. It was recently learned that the rector of the University of 
Crete, Basilio Digalakis, in the framework of the expropriation of the University's 
fortune convened a competition in order to convert the squatter's building into a hotel. 
 From the beautiful view from the Kasteli hill, where the squat is located, you can enjoy 
only those who have a full pocket.
It is logical that governments want to deprive us of all the places in which we organize. 
It is logical that we want to resist by all possible means to this methodology. Our newly 
founded group calls for actions of solidarity and knowledge of the squat.
Take the hands of Rosa Nera.
Libertarian Trade Union of Rethymno

http://eserethymnou.espivblogs.net/2017/06/03

------------------------------

Message: 2




Anarchists in Korea-China who are members of the Shinmin Anarchist Federation, read about 
the anarchist movement in China-Korea in the Anarchist Revolution in Korea. ---- What's on 
your mind if you hear the word 'anarchist' or 'anarchism'? A series of negative words can 
be mentioned: rough, violent, destructive, troubled, chaotic, and selfish. ---- If there 
are community organizations (mass organizations) that often do mischief and damage public 
facilities, for example, mass organizations are stigmatized anarchist organizations. ---- 
In today's society, 'anarchists' have gotten a bad stigma whose presence is not 
expected-even present in thought. Anarchism is very dangerous, therefore it should be 
shunned. Associating anarchism with violence is not entirely false and also not entirely true.

Anarchism as a praxis of thought and action has gone through a long history that is 
necessitating development. The 'negative' stigma of anarchism also can not be separated 
from the historical events that melumurinya.

Viewing anarchism as solely a matter of violence and therefore must be rejected and 
annihilated on earth is an attitude and acts of either big or silly.

Thought, whatever its form and kind, including anarchism, will never really perish even 
though the organization that sheltered it has disappeared. On the contrary, it can 
encourage (sort of stimulate) people to know more deeply. There is a kind of curiosity in 
the minds of people: why is ideology banned or not? Why is the organization banned? And 
other questions.

In Indonesia, for example, finds its form in the issue of Marxism and Communism. Communism 
as an ideology of thought and ideology would never, if not impossible, be buried. 
Forbidding it is silly and futile. So it is with anarchism: why is anarchism "considered" 
dangerous and should be shunned? To find the answer, we can not only arrive at anarchism 
according to today in the mass media now. It took a thorough search to find out why the 
anarchism, for today's context (and perhaps for the future), is needed in answering life's 
problems, especially socio-political issues.

What, then, is the fundamental definition of anarchism? And what are the points of thought 
that are advanced?

Etymologically, the word 'anarchist' comes from Greek, anarchy , which means 'opposite or 
contrary to authority (contrary to autority) , or without government (without rulers) 
'.[1]Anarchists also mean an archos , no government , no government. Thus, the fundamental 
stance of anarchism is a rejection of authority, which in this context is 'monopolized' by 
the state.

Why does anarchism reject the state? For anarchists the state as an institution that is 
coercive and the main source of power (power) and the authority is unjustified existence. 
This view of anarchism is at odds with the main 'task' of political philosophy which 
centers on the study of 'natural state' and the justification of the state: on what basis 
is the state established, why should we entrust our affairs to the state, and on what 
basis the state is allowed to control the actions and The behavior of its citizens?[2]

In essence, anarchism denies the existence of the state. The rejection of anarchism in 
this country is a logical consequence of the philosophical foundation that underpins 
anarchism as a thought. According to Mansour Fakih, the views and ideas of anarchism can 
not be separated from the view of the 'natural state' of man. That in essence, man is a 
creature that can naturally live in harmony and freedom without power intervention.[3]

In line with what Mansour Fakih said, long ago, Peter Kropotkin, an anarchist leader from 
Russia, said that people benefit from the nature of mutual help (cooperative).[4]

The natural state of humanity as harmony, good and cooperative becomes the justification 
of anarchists to say ' say no to state' . This is the opposite, for example, with the view 
of Thomas Hobbes who holds that the natural state of man is homo homini lupus , the wolf 
for the other wolf. Therefore, the state is needed to ensure that people do not slip into 
war among peers.[5]Even countries need to incarnate leviathan , a kind of sea monster, 
which forces and creates fear for an order among citizens.

Understanding the basic understanding and philosophical foundations of anarchism above 
indicates the absence of a misconception, rather than leading to chaos and violence. In 
essence, anarchism places the state as the main 'enemy'. Not because the state monopolizes 
power and authority, but is also destructive to society. For example, the territorial 
power it possesses, the jurisdictional power over the people includes the controlling 
power of resources within the controlled territory, and equally important the state power 
over the imagination or the idea of the people of a nation.[6]

Basically, the state is a political arena with power as its primary goal. If power has 
been achieved, then the next effort is to keep his power in order to stay sustainable. For 
the sake of perpetuating power and authority, the state uses all means-as in politics 
justifies all Machiavellian ways-by utilizing its assets, possessions and possessions, 
even with the production of falsehood and unrighteousness.

Rocky Gerung in one cuitannya on twitter who had viral some time ago said that the largest 
source of hoax is the country, because the country has everything to me (re) production of 
hoax and make it as commonplace in the community. The lie that is reproduced continuously, 
in the future, will become a truth that is accepted by society. There are capital, 
authority, media, and legitimacy of science institutions. With everything that is owned, 
the state standardizes and normalizes the actual society to secure its power and authority.

For example, during the New Order era through its anti-communism campaign. Instruments 
such as the military, state institutions, media and scientific institutions and 
legislation were used by the New Order regime for the eradication of communism. In the 
field of culture did not escape the control of the regime of the ruler; No New Order 
propaganda film Pengkhianatan G30S / PKI who routinely aired on state television and 
several literary works such as short stories and novels.[7]

The state, with its authority as legitimacy, defines 'forbidden' as 'not us,' 'normal' and 
'abnormal', 'good citizens' and 'betrayers' for the need for stability while perpetuating 
power. So it appears, for example, the word nomalization, ideological clarification, 
anti-development, anti-progress and so on.[8]

If anarchism rejects the state as a manipulative authority, then does anarchism always 
reject authority? What about, for example, the expertise and profession of someone who is 
inherently authoritative? To answer this question, the anarchists to distinguish between 
the state (state) -bersifat political ( the political ) - and society (society ) -bersifat 
Social (the social) . The distinction of both leads to discussion of authority in 
expertise or profession.

Anarchism means a politically manifested state of power, authority, hierarchy, and 
domination. Whereas society, with existing social principles, can be seen in spontaneous 
interpersonal associations in order to realize common needs and interests.[9]With power 
and authority possessed, often, the state still wants to show its power beyond the limit; 
That the rightful and legitimate make a definition of everything is state. No wonder then 
the state creates standards, national uniformity, even regulate the most private affairs 
of individuals such as the subject of sex and belief. Therefore,

Society builds its life collectively. Because who knows the affairs, problems and needs of 
society is the community itself, not the state. Often, for example, the state taxes from 
individuals in society, but the state 'gives' the unneeded of society. The profit is still 
'given' (read: returned to the community), often used to repress society or corrupted for 
the interests of the state apparatus.

Let the community take care of its own affairs and needs, so what happens is 
decentralization; Sovereignty of societies. In dealing with its own affairs and needs, the 
community has social control within it, one of them, including the authority of expertise 
or profession. In this context, anarchists agree with the need for the authority or 
authority of experts in various fields of society, for example: some people know the best 
way to produce food, it is appropriate that others succumb to their policies in the making 
of food.[10]

Authority can also be interpreted as a co-operative division of roles in a society that 
enables the current order; The achievement of social justice. The division of this role 
presupposes equality, not hierarchy. There is no superior individual over other 
individuals. All individuals contribute to society. Under such circumstances, instead of 
associating with violence, troublemakers, chaos and other negative tendencies, anarchism 
inflames anti-tyranny, anti-state arbitrariness, anti-authoritarian hiding behind the 
cloak of the state, for the realization of a just social order with Based on the principle 
of equality and freedom.

Note

[1]cf. Colin Ward, 2004, Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction, New York: Oxford University 
Press, p. 1.

[2]cf. Robert Audi[Ed.], 1999, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (Second Edition), 
United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, p. 718.

[3]cf. Mansour Fakih, Anarchism: Undisguised Understanding, in 
http://anarkis.org/anarkisme-paham-tak-not-padam-2/ , accessed on February 22, 2017.

[4]cf. Jonathan Wolff, 2013, Introduction to Political Philosophy , M. Nur Prabowo 
Setyabudi], Bandung: Nusa Media, p. 47.

[5]cf. Ibid., P. 12.

[6]cf. Mansour Fakih, Op., Cit.

[7]For more details on how the New Order regime campaigns against anti-communism through 
culture, especially film and literature, see Wijaya Herlambang, 2015, Cultural Violence 
Post 1965: How the New Order Legitimizes Anti-Communism through Literature and Film , 
Tangerang Selatan: Marjin Left.

[8]George Orwell in his famous 1984 novel describes and simultaneously describes how the 
state oversees the everyday lives of every citizen. Even established divisions or 
ministries to deal with the conduct of such supervision. Cf. George Orwell, 2014, 1984 
,[translator. Landung Simatupang], Yogyakarta: Landscape.

[9]cf. Colin Ward, Op. Cit., P. 26

[10]cf. Jonathan Wolff, Op. Cit., P. 50

http://anarkis.org/mengapa-anarkisme-menolak-negara/

------------------------------

Message: 3




This year, CIGC (Intergeographic Collective Film) will be with us for the second time with 
a selection of films and the films of the participants. Different workshops and talks will 
accompany the screening of films that belong to different colors of the anarchist scale. 
The festival, which is going to last for 3 days, is waiting for people who will contribute 
to several discussions as much as they are waiting for those who want to support the 
participants of the films: They can support those who are recording the films in the 
script fields, Shooting, set, makeup, acting, dialogue, editing, effects, graphics, ideas, 
production, etc. And collectivize the films. ---- The categories of the festival this year 
are the questions in the lens of the anarchist aesthetic: experiences of reclamation and 
reacquisition of life and the world / generation of small or different forms beyond the 
big speeches / forms of autonomy and resistance that Are above the forms of neoliberal 
thought / deconstruction of the means of oppression of power and outlets or escape routes 
/ ego losses and different forms of individualization, etc. Focusing on these questions, 
developing them, building them in different ways or from the inside out and asking what is 
not yet asked with the videos sent to the festival will be a big benefit.

We are expecting a great interest in the production of anarchist films as in the past 
year, with an individual or collective organization, especially the "DIY" short films that 
mostly drive the festival.

Participants must submit applications as of 15.08.2017.
The e-mail to communicate:
caskolektif@gmail.com

Address: InfiAl-Turan cad.No:36A Tarlabasi-Beyoglu
https://www.facebook.com/casksac/
https://www.facebook.com/infialmekan/
https: //infial.noblogs.org/

Sketch:
* By the way, for the attention of those who make and listen to music! Like last year, the 
bands will come on stage. If you want to play also, please contact us.

** The program and details will be published one month prior to the festival.

http://sosyalsavas.org/2017/06/2-cografyalararasi-anarsist-kisa-film-festivali-29-30-eylul-1-ekim-2017/#more-31186

------------------------------

Message: 4





Anarchism originated in the 1st International, through the Marx-Bakunin split. ---- There 
are recent histories of the First International researched from anarchist perspectives, 
which balance the dominant Marxist narrative. Both sides had their strengths and 
weaknesses, but overall the anarchists had the better program. ---- Both anarchism and 
Marxism developed in the 19th century out of movements for democracy, workers' rights, and 
socialism. With this common background, they had a great deal of overlap-plus deep 
divisions. They split in a bitter faction fight in the First International-officially 
called the International Workingmen's Association. The International was founded in 1864 
and their fight took place in the early 1870s, in the same period as the rebellion of the 
Paris Commune (1871). The anarchist movement, strongly influenced by Mikhail Bakunin, 
developed through the First International. On the other hand, Karl Marx and Friedrich 
Engels had been working out their views since the 1840s, but Marxism expanded 
theoretically and practically in the First International.

By and large, most available accounts of the conflict in the International are written 
from the point of view of the Marxists. However, in recent years there have been a number 
of histories of the conflict in the International from the viewpoint of the anarchists. 
(See Berthier 2015; Eckhardt 2016; Graham 2015-all excellent.)

Like other political fights within left-wing groups, there were personality clashes, 
misrepresentation of other's views, sharp dealing, and undemocratic manipulation-on both 
sides. But the issues were real and important. A century and a half later, the issues 
still resonate. Radicals today can still learn from this clash among giants of our 
history. Personally, I identify with the anarchist tradition, while also being influenced 
by Marxism. I find this history fascinating.

Years after the final split in the International, Errico Malatesta, a colleague of 
Bakunin's, stated that both the anarchists and the Marxists "sought to make use of the 
International for our own party aims....We, as anarchists, relied chiefly on 
propaganda...while the Marxists...wanted to impose their ideas by majority strength-which 
was more or less fictitious....But all of us, Bakuninists and Marxists alike, tried to 
force events rather than relying upon the force of events." (quoted in Graham 2015; 137) 
(By "party" he meant movements or tendencies.)

What were the issues? In the abstract, Bakunin was to declare, once the conflict broke 
out, that it was "a great struggle between two principles: that of authoritarian communism 
and that of revolutionary socialism." (quoted in Eckhardt 2016; 77) But actually, there 
was little direct discussion of theoretical disagreements between Marxism and anarchism. 
For example, the question of whether there should be a transitional "workers' state" 
("dictatorship of the proletariat") after a revolution did not come up in any major 
debate. Nor did the question of whether socialism would come about through centralized 
state ownership or through popular decentralized associations. (The one really political 
issue will be discussed in a moment.)

The Charges

Instead, Marx and his friends accused Bakunin of organizing a secret conspiracy behind the 
scenes, whose aim was to take over the International-or, if it could not, to destroy it 
from within. In his turn, Bakunin claimed that Marx already dominated the General Council 
of the International and manipulated its congresses, in order to push for his agenda.

The anarchists and Marx (and other tendencies) agreed that the International should 
promote labor unions everywhere. Marx's additional program was to demand that every 
national branch of the International form a political party to run in elections. He rammed 
through a resolution stating this at a completely unrepresentative gathering in London in 
1871. However, Bakunin and the anarchists did not insist that the branches be forbidden to 
organize parties. Instead they proposed that each section be able to decide for itself 
whether to run in elections (which was how the International had been operating from its 
inception). But Marx wanted the organization to be more centralized in order to demand 
party-building.

Marx's justification for this electoralist strategy has never been clear to me. After the 
Paris Commune rebellion of 1871 (which was before the London congress), Engels wrote a new 
introduction to the Communist Manifesto, quoting from Marx's Civil War in France: "One 
thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that ‘the working class cannot simply 
lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes'." (Marx & 
Engels 1955; 6) This insight would seem to point to a rejection of an electoral strategy. 
It implies that the working class and oppressed either could not take over the capitalist 
state, or, if it did, the working class could not use it for its liberation. It means the 
existing state must be overturned and replaced with other institutions. Yet Marx and 
Engels continued to push for workers' electoral parties, and even argued that they might 
get elected to state power in some countries, such as Britain and the U.S.

On the other hand, "Bakunin's argument[was]that participating in politics would result in 
the labor movement being tied to the state and thus make carrying out their 
social-revolutionary demands impossible....Freedom can only be obtained by refusing to 
participate in the existing power structures, destroying those power structures, and 
creating new forms of community." (Graham 2015; 15)

The Marxist David Fernbach writes, "Marx hoped to transform the International's 
organizations in the various countries into political parties centered on London. Already 
in 1867...Marx had written to Engels, ‘In the next revolution...we (i.e. you and I) will 
have this powerful engine in our hands.' ...The remaining condition for transforming the 
International into a more centralized and disciplined body was a certain degree of 
ideological homogeneity....[At congresses of the International]Marx and Engels...were 
certainly not above using foul means when political necessity demanded." ("Introduction," 
1992; 47 & 49) (I am deliberately quoting the pro-Marx Fernbach, an authority on Marx's 
life and work, rather than from pro-anarchist texts. But when referring to weaknesses of 
Bakunin and the anarchists, I will cite from pro-Bakunin sources.)

Marx's "foul means" included calling congresses to which few of those on Bakunin's side 
could attend, printing blank delegate papers in order to stack the congresses, passing on 
false information about Bakunin's forces, using name calling and slander. For example, 
Marx denounced Bakunin as being a "pan-Slavist" reactionary, even though Bakunin had 
abandoned that viewpoint years ago. Marx blamed Bakunin for evil deeds carried out by a 
young psychopath and nihilist named Nechayev, whom Bakunin had befriended, "...although 
they knew that Bakunin was guilty of nothing worse than crass misjudgment and 
gullibility." (Fernbach 1992; 49) This was used as a justification for expelling Bakunin, 
his comrade James Guillaume, and other anarchists from the International in 1872. This 
caused an organizational split in the International.

As for Bakunin, it was true that he had initiated an international political organization, 
one which worked inside and outside of the First International. It went under various 
names, sometimes the "International Brotherhood," but mostly the "International Alliance 
of Socialist Democracy." In general, it was a network of Bakunin's fellow-thinkers and 
friends, spread throughout Europe. At times it had a mass membership, particularly in the 
Jura region of Switzerland and in Spain. Originally it had asked to join the International 
as a body, but this was not allowed. The Swiss section was accepted as a branch of the 
International.

Although claiming to be dissolved, the Alliance really continued. In itself, this does not 
seem to be such a terrible thing. Why couldn't the anarchists (or anyone else) have a 
transnational socialist caucus inside the International? Marx argued that this secret 
conspiracy existed to take over (or to destroy) the International. Actually members of the 
Alliance were known to have worked hard to build sections of the International in 
Switzerland, in Spain, and in Italy.

Part of the problem here was that Bakunin was notorious for constantly creating, on paper 
and in his imagination, secret conspiracies run by hierarchical authorities, with himself 
at the top-conspiracies which were to act behind the scenes of the mass movement. "Our aim 
is the creation of a powerful but always invisible revolutionary association which will 
prepare and direct the revolution." (Bakunin quoted in Dolgoff 1980; 10) " We must be the 
invisible pilots guiding the Revolution...by the collective dictatorship of all our 
allies[members]." (same; 180). This was balanced by contrary statements that he did not 
want this association to rule over the workers or to be an overt dictatorship. Yet, as 
Morris, a pro-Bakunin writer, puts it, "Bakunin's writings on secret societies often seem 
to contradict his own anarchist principles...." (1993; 150) Dolgoff, an admirer of 
Bakunin, writes, "Bakunin's...closest associates...considered his schemes for elaborate, 
centralized secret societies incompatible with libertarian principles." (1980; 182) This 
says something about the peculiarities of Bakunin, but not much about the movement. Almost 
all the other anarchists (or "federalists" or "revolutionary socialists" as they often 
called themselves) saw the Alliance as a loose association of comrades.

For that matter, Marx and Engels also had a loose network of friends and allies which they 
sought to build. They had regular correspondence with the German social democrats. They 
sent one of Marx's sons-in-law into Spain to try to out-organize the anarchist sections, 
and to split them if necessary (this failed). Marx was also willing to ally himself with 
the Blanquist sect, which was highly centralized and secretly conspiratorial; they 
supported his drive to centralize the International.

In theory, Marx had declared that he was against the formation of sects, with their own 
dogmas, inside the workers' movement. He claimed that they would dissolve in the actual 
course of the popular struggle. The historical process would produce the correct general 
direction. Therefore he opposed any factions based on specific, pre-established, political 
views, within the International.

But Marx believed that he knew the course which history would take. He was sure that the 
workers would form political parties and run in elections; that this would lead, somehow, 
to the workers forming their own states and then nationalizing the economy as the 
beginning of communism. Marx did not see this as a program which he was proposing to the 
workers, so much as the more-or-less inevitable course of history which the workers needed 
to take to move toward workers' power and socialism. It was, I believe, this certain 
belief in a foreordained future which justified (to Marx) his authoritarian and "foul" 
methods. Similarly, it was this sense of absolute surety which was to rationalize the 
later Marxist-Leninists in carrying out their atrocities of dictatorship, mass murder, and 
super-exploitation. They were sure that it would come out right in the end, in a free and 
cooperative society.

Unfortunately, Bakunin had other authoritarian traits which made his cause "foul." 
Especially this included his writings (many not published at the time) which denounced 
Marx for being a German Jew, and denounced both Germans and Jews in vicious racist terms. 
An anarchist biographer writes, "This anti-Semitism was a vile and disturbing theme in 
some of his writings in this period." (Leier 2006; 247) In 1869, he was accused by Hess of 
trying to destroy the International and associating with a police spy. Bakunin responded 
to this slander by "writing a lengthy response[which]degenerated into an anti-Semitic 
rant...." (Graham 2015; 125)

Bakunin wrote of Marx that he showed, "subterranean intrigues, vain grudges, miserable 
personal animosities, dirty insults and infamous slurs, which moreover characterize 
political struggles of almost all Germans...." (quoted in Berthier 2015; 159; my emphasis) 
Bakunin wrote, "Mr. Marx is a[German]patriot no less ardent than Bismarck....He desires 
the establishment of a great Germanic state, one that will glorify the German 
people....Marx...considers himself at least as Bismarck's successor....What unites 
them...is the out-and-out cult of the State...." (in Dolgoff 1980; 314-315) He claimed 
that the Slavs and Latin "races" were naturally libertarian, while the Germanic people 
were invariably authoritarian. "The anti-Jewish sentiments[of]Bakunin's...were often a 
byproduct of his anti-German attitude....Such remarks are not in keeping with the 
anarchist ideas which Bakunin became famous for." (Eckhardt 2016; 196) (In his letters, 
Marx sometimes made national chauvinist and racist comments, but they were nothing 
compared to Bakunin's tirades, nor do they justify Bakunin.)

This anti-Germanism was not unique to Bakunin. His closest comrade, James Guillaume, wrote 
a book, Karl Marx, Pan-Germanist. This racist anti-Germanism later played a part in 
persuading a minority of prominent anarchists to support the imperialist Allies against 
the imperialist Germans in World War I-including Kropotkin and Guillaume.

The Problem of Power

Overall I believe that the anarchists had the better opinions and practice in the fight 
inside the First International. History has shown that the electoral strategy of the 
Marxist parties led to accommodation to capitalism and its state. The anarchists were 
correct to oppose this strategy.

Marx was actually not a worshipper of the state. He agreed with the anarchists on the goal 
of ending the state. But his strategy was for the workers to use the state as the key 
instrument for workers' rule and the beginning of socialism. The anarchists were correct 
in opposing the Marxist perspective of seizing state power (whether by election or through 
a revolution which replaces the capitalist state with a new state).

This issue was somewhat confused, in my opinion, due to the anarchist approach to "power." 
Anarchists often declare that they are not in favor of the workers "taking power." 
Actually they generally favor the workers creating councils and assemblies, in workplaces 
and neighborhoods, federated to replace the state and capitalism. They are for working 
people overturning all capitalist institutions, and replacing them with a new society. I 
would call this "taking power." The key difference with the Marxists is that the Marxists 
wanted to "take state power." They sought to create a new, "workers' state"-but the state 
is an alienated social machine, with bureaucracies, regular military and police, 
professional politicians, etc., standing over the rest of society and holding down the 
population. This is what anarchists are absolutely against.

As Berthier puts it, the Marxists sought "the conquest of political power through 
elections," while the anti-authoritarians aimed to "conquer social power, creating new and 
radically different forms...through which it would be able to go forward to social 
reconstruction." (2015; 13) The anarchists' goal was "having working class social power 
replace bourgeois political power." (same; 80)

Further Developments

At the time of the split in the International, the anarchists had most of the membership 
and national sections. Even groupings which had worked with Marx, such as the Blanquists 
and the British union officials, fell away from him. Outside of the German socialists (who 
had played little role in the International) there were few Marxists. However, over time 
the Marxists came to have the largest section of the international workers' movement. Up 
until World War I, the anarchists still were the mainstream of the far left within the 
movement. But with the Russian Revolution, when the Marxists seemed to have shown that 
they could make a revolution, the anarchists were reduced to a minority even on the far left.

What weaknesses did the anarchists display which led to this relative marginalization? One 
problem was the lack of theoretical development among the anarchists, who often succumbed 
to anti-intellectualism. Bakunin had often expressed great admiration for the theoretical 
work of Marx. Even in his most bitter attacks on Marx, Bakunin would repeat his respect 
for Marx's political economy. Other anarchists were similarly impressed by Marx's theories 
(but not his politics). Yet this was not built on by the anarchist movement. There were 
valuable works by Kropotkin and others which discussed what an anti-authoritarian society 
might look like. But there was little or no analysis of how capitalism worked and how the 
workers' movement should react to it under varying conditions. "The disappearance of a 
mass movement went hand in hand with a breakdown in the theoretical level of the 
movement." (Berthier 2012; 133)

Berthier cites what he regards as one major problem in the anarchist/anti-authoritarian 
movement. He believes that the anarchists overreacted against Marx's drive for 
bureaucratic centralization of the International by becoming opposed to almost all 
authority and organization. "There developed opposition to all forms of organization as a 
reaction against the centralization and bureaucratization put in place by Marx....The very 
basis of the doctrine elaborated by Proudhon and Bakunin-with federalism as its center of 
gravity-would be abandoned....The great theoreticians of the libertarian 
movement...advocated federalism, i.e. an equilibrium between...the autonomous action of 
basic structures, and...centralization." (Berthier 2015; 154-5) While not 
anti-organizational, Graham (2015) has a somewhat different opinion, but I agree with 
Berthier's analysis.

A rejection of specific anarchist self-organization was consistent with a perspective of 
individual or small group actions. Instead of working to build mass movements, through 
propaganda and union organizing, many anarchists turned to small scale "propaganda of the 
deed," which was often interpreted as unsupported little insurrections or individual 
terrorist actions. They had hoped to inspire revolution but instead this orientation led 
to isolation for the anarchists. Others (particularly the anarcho-syndicalists) reacted to 
this isolation by returning to support of mass actions, including union organizing and 
strike participation.

Some continued (or revived) the tradition of Bakunin's Alliance by organizing specific 
anarchist federations-in democratic forms. Over time, this became "dual-organizationalism" 
(or "neo-platformism" or "especifismo"): that revolutionary anarchists who agree with each 
other form a "specific" federation. This was to improve their effectiveness when being 
involved in broader organizations, such as unions or community groups or antiwar movements.

Conclusion

After the split in the International, the Marxists went on to build fairly large social 
democratic parties in Germany and other major countries. Most of these parties were to 
betray socialism by supporting their imperialist states in World War I and to oppose 
revolutions afterward. Today they have abandoned any pretense of advocating a new society. 
Part of the Marxist movement tried to revive its revolutionary heritage, under the 
leadership of Lenin and Trotsky. This wing ended up creating monstrous authoritarian 
mass-murdering state capitalisms, before collapsing back into traditional capitalism. So 
far, Marxism has utterly failed in its original aim of working class revolution in the 
industrialized countries.

Anarchism spread throughout the world, at various times and places creating major unions, 
popular armies, and anarchist federations. Yet anarchism has so far also failed, in that 
it has not led to successful revolutions of the working class and other oppressed people.

We who believe in freedom need to learn from our mistakes and our successes if we are 
finally to succeed in making revolutions, before the final crises of capitalist collapse, 
nuclear war, or global ecological catastrophe. Therefore we must study our history, going 
back at least to the First International.


References

Berthier, Rene' (2015). Social Democracy and Anarchism in the International Workers' 
Association 1864-1877. (Trans. A.W. Zurbrug.) London: Anarres Editions.

Dolgoff, Sam (ed.) (1980). Bakunin on Anarchism. Montreal Canada: Black Rose Books.

Eckhardt, Wolfgang (2016). The First Socialist Schism; Bakunin vs. Marx in the 
International Working Men's Association. (Trans. R.M. Homsi, J. Cohn, C. Lawless, N. 
McNab, & B. Moreel.) Oakland CA: PM Press.

Fernbach, David (ed.) (1992). Karl Marx; The First International and After; Political 
Writings; Vol. 3. London: Penguin Books/New Left Review.

Graham, Robert (2015). We Do Not Fear Anarchy, We Invoke It; The First International and 
the Origins of the Anarchist Movement. Oakland CA: AK Press.

Leier, Mark (2006). Bakunin; The Creative Passion. NY: Thomas Dunne Books.

Marx, Karl, & Engels, Friedrich (1955). The Communist Manifesto. (Ed. S. H. Beer.) 
Northbrook IL: AHM Publishing.

Morris, Brian (1993). Bakunin; The Philosophy of Freedom. Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Black 
Rose Books.

*written for www.Anarkismo.net

------------------------------

Message: 5




Let's "welcome" as it suits them
This Thursday 15/6, the greek "leftist" government is going to receive in Thessaloniki the 
prime minister of Israel B. Netanyahu for the tripartite meeting among Greece, Israel and 
Cyprus. During their last such meeting, in November 2015, Alexis Tsipras described the 
occupied city of Jerusalem as the "historic capital" of Israel, thus legitimizing the 
atrocities of the Israeli occupation forces. Even though minors are shot by the Israeli 
occupying forces on a daily basis and they are left to die on the streets of Gaza and the 
West Bank, while 6,500 political prisoners (including 300 minors) are detained in Israeli 
prisons without any formal accusations, A. Tsipras is unrolling the red carpet for the 
Zionist slaughterers. ---- Let's "welcome" the slaughterers of the Palestinian people as 
it suits them

This Thursday 15/6, the greek "leftist" government is going to receive in Thessaloniki the 
prime minister of Israel B. Netanyahu for the tripartite meeting among Greece, Israel and 
Cyprus. During their last such meeting, in November 2015, Alexis Tsipras described the 
occupied city of Jerusalem as the "historic capital" of Israel, thus legitimizing the 
atrocities of the Israeli occupation forces. Even though minors are shot by the Israeli 
occupying forces on a daily basis and they are left to die on the streets of Gaza and the 
West Bank, while 6,500 political prisoners (including 300 minors) are detained in Israeli 
prisons without any formal accusations, A. Tsipras is unrolling the red carpet for the 
Zionist slaughterers.

The tripartite meeting puts on the table transnational economic agreements that touch on 
the energy sector, as well as issues of geopolitical strategy which are skillfully 
disguised with the authoritarian mantle of the "protection" and "security" of the region. 
This entails, of course, the upgrading of the military equipment of these countries, which 
are already among the most heavily armed states in the region and deeply immersed in the 
profitable for the war industries of armaments market. Incidentally, the SY.RI.ZA-ANEL 
coalition government is already in consultation with NATO for a new military base in 
Karpathos.

At the core of these talks is the discussion for the promotion of the East Med submarine 
pipeline, which was already endorsed by the energy ministers of Greece, Cyprus, Israel and 
Italy at the Tel Aviv meeting in April. This pharaonic project is going to link the gas 
fields of the Israel-Cyprus EEZ and traversing the island of Crete it will reach the 
Peloponnese and from there western Greece and finally Italy. Furthermore, the economical 
field of electricity is also going to be part of the consultation. More specifically, the 
Euro-Asia Interconnector among Israel, Cyprus and Greece, is to carry electric energy by 
means of a submarine power cable, thus connecting the isolated energy markets of Israel 
and Cyprus with those of the E.U.

The greek state and the local bourgeoisie seek, through such alliances and agreements, to 
get as much as possible from the pie. They seek, that is, to make Greece an energy hub for 
the transportation of natural gas in the EU, with privileged rewards in the context of the 
upheavals that take place in the inter-capitalist conflicts in the Middle-East and, more 
generally in the wider context of the turbulent east Mediterranean region. The means by 
which they are trying to achieve this goal is through their attachment to the 
Euro-Atlantic imperialist bloc, in the context of which Israel has been maintaining for 
many years the role of the regulator of the Euro-Atlantic imperialism in the Middle East 
and the Eastern Mediterranean, thus acting as a powerful counterweight to the rival 
imperialisms (Russia, Syria, Iran, China).

But the bilateral relations between Greece and Israel are not limited only to economic 
agreements. The Greek army is cooperating with Israel in military exercises, either in the 
context of bilateral agreements or through the NATO, clearly bearing direct or indirect 
responsibility for the bloodshed in the Middle East and the brutal treatment of immigrants.

Today, the state of Israel is posing as a shining beacon of democracy in the darkness of 
the Middle East fundamentalism and as a trustful and mighty associate of the EU and of the 
North American imperialism in the region. Of course, the compliments to the state of 
Israel by the bourgeoisie are way far from the brutal, militarized reality of the Zionist 
regime. This regime, which built the foundations of its territorial establishment after 
World War II, in 1948, as a reckless response to the anti-Semitism and the barbarity of 
the Holocaust, eventually formed a state that fully embraces the triple 
"law-class-security" in the most militarized terms. In essence, it is an authoritarian 
regime in a constant state of emergency, that applies apartheid to the detriment of the 
Palestinian people who, after being forcibly displaced from their homes, are now defined 
as second-class citizens by law. On the other hand, Israel is flagrantly attacking its 
neighboring states by conducting military operations that often lead to the annexation of 
adjacent territories. Apart from being a demonstration of power, the war machine of 
extermination and the militarized democracy of Israel are also an experimental model for 
other bourgeois states, a potentially nightmarish image of the future.

The initial persecution of the Palestinians was followed by their ghettoization and their 
subjection to an established state of exception. The Gaza Strip is the largest 
concentration camp in the world today, while the West Bank is under military law. The 
blood of the unrepentantly resisting Palestinians is daily poured on the streets and the 
repression exercised by the Israeli police and the army against them is relentless. The 
prisons in Israel are full of Palestinians, who are not only arbitrary and revengefully 
imprisoned but are also subject to the most infamous treatment. Until today every military 
attack of Zionism against Palestinians creates hundreds of uprooted and dead people.

In the territory of the Israeli state, struggles against the Zionist regime, whether given 
by Israelis (see Anarchists Against the Wall) or by Palestinians, are always repressed and 
often with victims. Also significant is the contribution of the Israeli Total Army 
Objectors and Conscientious Objectors who refuse to be enlisted in the Israeli army (3 
years for men and 2 years for women), as they recognize its oppressive and murderous role, 
challenging at the same time the legal sanctions imposed for their choice.

For our part, we are not surprised at all by these political movements of the "left 
government". Its pre-electoral "progressiveness" has been long lost since the dawn of its 
election, and its cruelty has been proven ever since, as it follows (and often more 
aggressively) the footsteps of its predecessors. By recognizing ourselves as part of the 
social basis, we must first and foremost engage in the interception of the expansion of 
the state and capital that are constantly degrading our work and depraving our lives, 
locally and internationally, and we must do that collectively and from the base. We ought 
to organize the social and class counter-attack that will outweigh the barbarity of the 
state and capitalism, the counter-attack that will rebuild society as a whole in the 
direction of self-management, and with freedom, equality and solidarity as our compass.

As much as the clouds of a generalized warfare may get thicker over the Middle East for 
the purpose of overcoming the recurrent crisis of over-accumulation -a constituent element 
of capitalism- for the benefit of capital, our war will always be a class war, and it will 
always be against both Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, against any kind of racism. That is 
why our class and international solidarity with both the people of Palestine, who are 
struggling against the oppression and the atrocities of the Zionist regime, and the 
oppressed and exploited of the Israeli state is a given fact, for as far as we are 
concerned the universal human emancipation knows neither borders nor nationalities.

We will "welcome" the slaughterers of the Palestinian people as it befits them!

SOLIDARITY WITH THE STRUGGLE OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE

AGAINST THE ZIONIST APARTHEID TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE PALESTINIANS - AGAINST THE GLOBAL 
STATE AND CAPITALIST BARBARISM

STRUGGLE FOR LIFE AND FREEDOM

Libertarian Initiative of Thessaloniki - member of the Anarchist Federation

lib_thess@hotmail.com

libertasalonica.wordpress.com

https://www.anarkismo.net/article/30343

------------------------------

Message: 6





Corbyn's strong showing in the June 2017 UK elections has given a big morale boost to the 
left.  A considerable youth vote, self-mobilising in larger part as a reaction to the ‘me 
and mine' selfish society revealed by the Brexit vote seriously set back Tory plans for a 
fresh wave of Brexit required austerity.  Activists used social networking to overcome 
what had previously been seen as an all powerful smear machine of the billionaire print 
press.  Very few outside the radical left expected this outcome, what drove it and more 
importantly where can it lead? ---- [This is a long read so you can also listen to an 
audio of the text] ---- This piece is not going to answer that in terms of assumptions and 
assertions but as far as possible through hard numbers.  66% of 18-24 year old's voted 
Labour, only a quarter of that, 18% voted Tory[p4].  27% of those 18-24 year olds said the 
NHS was the most important issue for them, even though they are least likely to need 
it[p40].  For the over 65 age group this was flipped, only 23% voted Labour and over twice 
as many (58%) voted Tory[p4].  In fact, given the way the UK election system works, if 
only 18-24 year olds had voted, Labour would have been heading for 500 seats.  If it had 
only been those over 65 voting the Tories would have had over 400 seats.

A note on the figures used in this piece.  I've obtained them from the exit poll conducted 
by the Tory, Lord Ashcroft, the page numbers refer to the page in the 161 pages of data 
tables he provide. I also used his earlier Brexit exit poll to analysis that referendum, 
writing at the time "Michael Ashcroft is an interesting character, the former Deputy 
Chairman of the Conservative Party and the 74th richest man in Britain, the Sunday Times 
reckons he was worth 1.32 billion in 2015. The polling seems to be part hobby, part 
philanthropy".  If anything the fact he is a Tory Lord helps in being certain that the 
numbers we will be talking about here are not the product of wishful think and bias from 
our side, quite the opposite.

The story of the election is  primarily the story of younger age groups becoming 
politically active to change the Brexit ‘me and mine' agenda they perceived as being 
imposed by the older age groups in the referendum.  This is a point that we'll return to 
later in the piece but as the table below shows age more than any other factor predicted 
how people were likely to vote with each older age group being more right leaning than the 
previous one.

Those who voted Labour came together not primarily on a basis of self interest but rather 
with a collective ideological belief in some form of ‘caring & sharing' society, best 
captured by the defence of the National Health System by the age group least likely to 
need it in the short term.  A lot of journalists and politicians have presumed it was free 
tuition fees that swung the youth vote. In reality, that was only the 3rd most important 
issue identified in the 18-24 age group at 10% - with almost 3 times that percentage (27%) 
  identifying the NHS[p40].

Labour, for the first time in a long while, ran on a platform that was primarily one of 
‘caring and sharing'.  That is of using the government to redistribute wealth through 
increased taxation of the wealthy and the closing of tax loopholes. The extra income would 
be used to fund health, education and welfare.  It's a long, long way short of the 
introduction of socialism. Indeed as appendix 2 demonstrates it is not that the Labour 
swing was on the basis of class, this 2017 election had almost none of the intense class 
polarisation of  1974, if we stick to the standard and outdated understandings of class 
divisions.  This is important in understanding the lack of a movement outside of the 
Labour party behind this swing and why this is a major weakness.

It is unlikely that a future Labour government would be able to introduce such policies 
without there being a massive popular mobilisation to deter the capital flight that 
typically defeats such left wing economic moves within the framework of the constitutional 
politics.  But all that aside in effect the Labour V Tory choice broke down into one 
between ‘caring and sharing'  V ‘me and mine.'  I'm not a Labour party supporter, in fact 
as an anarchist I reject the idea that electoralism can bring about fundamental change. 
But in so far as the results are a poll of opinions that polarises between ‘me and mine' 
or ‘caring and sharing' I can certainly root for the later.

The question that remains, is can this movement now break out of the barriers of Labour 
electoralism which, in particular with Labour's defeat, has nothing to offer in the short 
term.  And if it can, how and where might it organise. With a fragile Tory government 
propped up by the hard right DUP there is a huge possibility for a fight in communities, 
workplaces and educational establishments as well as the streets if that government tries 
to push ahead in imposing the reactionary politics that reflect its composition.  The 
danger is that, in the name of respectability, Labour will curtail that fight and limit it 
to mobilisations that just serve to build for the next election.

The big weakness is the movement around Corbyn is very much just a movement around him. 
It's not the case that powerful movements already fighting for a ‘caring and sharing' 
society took advantage of the election to try and make some gains in that sphere.  Rather 
the movement has for the most part been the electoral process so now we have to hope it 
flows into and  becomes a movement of resistance and change outside of that process 
independent of the Labour Party.  The danger is that instead it will become a movement 
internal to the Labour Party, where energy will be used to try and unseat Blairites and on 
other internal factional disputes.

Abandoning the centre

It's long been a given in the British Labour party that any move to the left would see the 
party destroyed by a concerted and vicious media smear campaign.  This wasn't an 
unreasonable fear, 80% of the British press is owned by billionaires and they make no 
secret of wielding that ownership as a political tool, particularly on election day. 
Rupert Murdoch who controls a huge segment of the printed media claims with justification 
to have decided the 1992 and 2015 elections with anti-Labour party front page spreads.  In 
2015 from this point of view it was ‘The Sun wot won it' for the Tories, the Independent 
revealing that "Mr Murdoch personally instructed The Sun to turn the heat up against Mr 
Miliband, telling editors that the very future of News Corp depended upon the result."

These smears also played a useful role for the more centrist politicians in the Labour 
Party in terms of being able to use that threat against the left.  Lots of these Labour 
politicians were more than happy to go to the Murdoch press during the Corbyn election 
campaign and initial attempt to unseat him as well of course as the more respectable if 
also biased media like the BBC..  There was no sense whatsoever that such disputes should 
be internal to avoid damaging the chances of Labour getting elected.   For more on 
respectable media bias see Craig Murray's analysis



It's impossible to know with certainty the impact of these past campaigns but the media 
campaign against Corbyn in 2017 was more sustained and vicious than ever.  The front page 
of the Sun on election morning, showing Corbyn sticking his head out of a bin, was so 
atrocious then when it was circulated online many of us at first assumed it was a spoof. 
The list of accusations against him opened with ‘Terrorist friend' (bearing in mind that 
there had been two mass terrorist killings in London and Manchester just before the 
election) and proceeded to call him a destroyer of jobs and other accusations before 
ending with ‘Marxist Extremist'.

The 2017 campaign saw such smears used over and over again but they failed to work, in 
particular with younger voters.  Social media was used to answer and parody the smears 
making them increasingly ineffective and indeed probably counter productive - the 
circulation of that Sun cover online probably got a lot of additional Labour voters down 
to the polling stations.  With the announcement of the exit poll revealing Labour had 
gained a substantial amount of votes, billionaire Rupert Murdoch stormed out of the media 
party he was at, hopefully to spend the remainder of the night tearing out what is left of 
his hair.

This mainstream media V social media story is important because there was a lot of hope as 
the internet developed that it would help overcome the rule of the billionaires.  But the 
aftermath of the Trump election saw a panic that the right had discovered how to 
manipulate fear through social networking at a subconscious level, in particular through 
serving paid Facebook ads to targeted groups on a very localised basis that would not be 
visible to others.  This allowed for fairly obvious racist messaging to be aimed at 
elderly whites that wouldn't be seen by people of colour and younger, less racist white 
voters. Targeting people in such an insidious manner allows for more of a chance for such 
positions to go unchallenged. We know the Tories spent a lot on targeted Facebook ads in 
this election but it clearly didn't work for them in the way it appeared to work for 
Trump.  This suggests that cash for targeted ads can't necessarily overcome the positives 
of mass social networking by a very large number of highly motivated people.

The Brexit effect

Much of what I write above won't be controversial to anyone on the left.  But early on I 
want to expand on one element that I think will be controversial: the role played by the 
youth rejection of the forces that delivered the Brexit vote which served to mobilise the 
young to campaign and vote for Labour.  The connection is almost undeniable, below I 
present the breakdown by age groups of the Ashcroft Brexit exit polls above the Ashcroft 
2017 election exit poll. They almost mirror each other, in particular when you view them 
as Conservatives V the combined Labour, Liberal Democrat, SNP, Green vote.

Now it is also true that about 31% of Labour voters had voted to Leave[p6]in the 
referendum. Also 17% of those who voted UKIP in 2015 voted Labour this time around, this 
was some 5% of the total Labour vote[p5].  We could certainly expect that those UKIP 
voters would be pretty serious about wanting Brexit to go ahead but in a sense that's not 
the issue here as Corbyn didn't take an anti-Brexit stance, the election was not fought on 
Brexit.  The majority (57%) of those who want to resist Brexit voted Labour, but 25% of 
those who are are enthusiastic about Brexit also voted Labour, as did 42% of those who 
accept it[p6].

As we will see below, however, it's clear from other questions that getting out of the EU 
was not the main priority for Labour voters who had voted Leave in the referendum. The 
Labour Leave vote would include those who voted for Brexit for progressive reasons, 
chiefly to try to escape any potential future EU involvement in opposing a radical Labour 
government. There is a certain irony to this as the UK government was one of the main 
proponents of inserting compulsory neoliberalism into EU treaties.

57% of 2015 UKIP voters switched to the Tories[p5]and 68% of Tory voters had voted 
Leave[p6].  59% of those enthusiastic about Brexit voted Tory, only 11% of those who want 
to resist it did so[p6].  So although there were a significant amount of Leave voting 
Labour voters there were far more Leave voting Tories and they are more serious about it. 
Ashcroft also asked what was the most important issue for each voter, with Brexit being 
one option.  Only 8% of Labour voters opted for Brexit as against a fairly incredible 48% 
of Tory voters[p42].

As the Financial Times has pointed out there is some evidence that Labour areas with a 
high Leave vote had a strong Tory swing in this election - these areas ran against the 
island wide pattern of a swing to Labour. In other words if you were strongly in  favour 
of Brexit you probably voted Tory rather than Labour even if you had previously voted Labour.

So my argument here is not that the Labour vote represents an anti-Brexit vote but rather 
a vote against the ‘me and mine' forces that drove Brexit.

This is because the Brexit vote was overwhelmingly a crystallisation of the most 
reactionary elements of Britain - driven by colonialism, racism and to a lesser but 
significant extent other reactionary rages against everything from feminism to 
environmentalism.  That included the section of the working class whose employment 
chances, wages and conditions had been devastated through deindustrialization and 
automation but who had blamed migrants rather than the robots and bankers.   I presented a 
very detailed analysis of this at the time in Making Sense of the Brexit Tide of Reaction 
and the Reality of the Racist vote  but its self evident that in that context a Britain 
alone exit from the EU is an attempt to return to the racist - colonial days of Empire 
rather than a blow against neoliberal capitalism.

The immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote saw a useless wave of pro-EU protests, 
overwhelmingly comprised of young people who felt betrayed by the older generation.  I 
view these as not being useful because the EU is also a racist, colonialist project, just 
with more people inside it.  They're also not useful because that sort of generational 
conflict does not address the underlying causes of the Brexit vote, the robots and banks 
on the one hand and the rival racist - colonialism of the EU and Empire on the other. It 
is perhaps worth mentioning here that older generations did have legitimate reasons for 
wanting to strike back against the forces who have delivered them cut after cut and 
demolished the welfare system they once saw blossom. This does become complicated however 
when you combine this with other reasons, such as racism in the form of shutting down 
migration. And even though a restaged referendum might well have the opposite result - the 
Ashcroft data says 49% of voters this time around voted Remain and only 47% Leave[p19]- 
the current reality is that even most Remain voters want to just get it over with, on the 
right terms.

In summary if you were horrified by the reactionary nature of the Brexit vote demanding 
another referendum was not the way to deal with that as Brexit was a symptom rather than a 
cause.  The early post referendum demonstrations against the decisions faded away and the 
subsequent mobilisation has been against the ideas that won it rather than the result.

A sharing caring future

What happened instead was more and more young people came to see the Labour Party under 
Corbyn as a vehicle to construct a society that was the opposite of that reflected in the 
Brexit vote.  Despite being an anarchist I'm going to hold off with what I see as the 
problems with using electoralism to achieve that.  For now I'm going to acknowledge that 
the manifesto the Labour Party fought the campaign on was a manifesto that in many 
respects sought to use parliament to construct a society much more centred on caring and 
sharing than in any election for decades.

This meant that lots of 21 to 44 year olds who didn't see the 2015 election as offering 
anything went to the polls this time.  The Ashcroft data has 27% of 18-24 year olds voting 
for the first time but I presume that includes those too young to vote in 2015 so the 9% 
first time voters in the 25-34 year old age group give a better snapshot.  In contrast 
only 1% of those over 65 said they hadn't voted in 2015[p13].  Labour this time around won 
29% of Lib-Dems and 58% of Green voters from the 2015 election, but as these were two 
smaller parties they only combine to about 12% of the Labour vote. 8% of the total Labour 
vote had not voted in 2015, in fact Labour captured 59% of those voters who had not voted 
in 2015, the Tories only 22% [p5 + 14].

Of course we've seen something like this before in recent history, Obama with a somewhat 
similar message mobilised a lot of people who normally saw little point in voting in 2008. 
  In a warning to those who see change coming through Corbyn, Obama's record in power - 
where he almost completely failed to deliver on the ‘hope' agenda - meant he lost almost 
all of these voter's by 2012. And they all understandably stayed at home for Clinton and 
her ‘America is great already' schlock.  Trump is the cost when electoral mobilisations 
succeed but prove unable to deliver on their promises, few get fooled a second or third 
time, they stay at home.

Indeed when we look at the exit poll data we have to wonder why the hell are older voters 
so comparatively reactionary, even on the issues like the NHS where they need ‘caring and 
sharing'?  It's not like older people are having it easy in 2017 Britain, as Fionnghuala 
who read an early draft of this section points out "According to data collected by Age UK 
(2016) 26% of older people ‘are ‘just about getting by' or finding it difficult', with 27% 
of those over 60 ‘worried about the cost of food, and 41% are worried about the cost of 
heating their homes in the winter.' The ‘from the cradle to the grave' mentality has truly 
vanished from UK society with over 90% of all care-home provision in the hands of the 
private sector and rent costing double the average state pension older people are being 
cast aside by the state."  And ahead of this election Theresa May gave extra incentives to 
the older generations to not vote Tory by carelessly unveiling the ‘dementia tax'

So why despite all this did the over 65s so overwhelmingly vote Tory?   A speculative 
explanation is that these age groups have gone through previous rounds of Labour Party 
promise and disappointment and so were the generations least likely to believe that Corbyn 
in power will deliver.  Indeed that there were almost no new voters amongst the 65+ group 
confirms that such potential ‘hope' voters stayed at home.  There is a major warning here 
for those who favour the electoralist approach to change, that is if you get power and 
fail to deliver you don't necessarily get a second chance with that generation.  Fool me 
once, shame on you, fool me a second time shame on me, comes into play.

Policy V Personality
The Ashcroft data shows the very different reasons to vote Tory or Labour with a set of 8 
questions that cover motivations that range from party loyalty to policy promises.  Across 
the board the Labour voters opted for policy options like ‘I preferred the promises..' 
(26%) while the Tories went for loyalty and skills "I thought the leader.." (25%).  The 
major exception being the Brexit negotiations where 31% of Tories against only 3% of 
Labour voters selecting on that basis[p28+29].  Again confirming that the Labour Leavers 
don't see Brexit as central.  When you cross check against the age groups you see these 
preferences are very strongly reflected in an identical fashion there, older votes being 
motivated by party loyalty and leadership, younger ones by policy and goals.

The final and strongest confirmation of the ‘caring, sharing' argument made here is the 
responses to the questions about the most important of the "wider issues facing the 
country"[p40, 41, 42]

For Labour voters these were NHS (a massive 33%), Austerity (11%), Brexit (8%) and Poverty 
(6%).
For Tory voters these were Brexit (a massive 48%), Leadership (13%), Economy/Jobs (11%), 
Immigration (9%) and Terrorism (7%).

Only 3% of Tory voters identified the NHS as most important.   The breakdown by age group 
of the NHS as the most important issue is quite startling.  If this was motivated by 
self-interest, people wanting a good service for themselves, then you would expect the 
older groups to be the ones saying the NHS was most important - they after all will be the 
ones most in need of medical care in the short term.  In fact the pattern is the complete 
opposite, those least likely to need care for themselves, the largest percentage who put 
the NHS first were from the 18-24 age group care (27%) while only 13% of the 65+ group did so.

Something similar is seen in the concern about immigration, if that was created by job 
competition and driven by self interest then we'd expect the young to care the most and 
the old the least.  Again the pattern is reversed, 7% of the over 65s, almost all of whom 
are retired so not competing for jobs, identified immigration as the most important 
concern while only 2% off the 18-24 age group where unemployment is concentrated 
identified immigration as most important.

The high correlation between the Labour vote and the youth vote on these two questions 
tells us that the youth vote is motivated much more by ideology - the desire for a caring, 
sharing society than primarily by self-interest. Likewise the older voters also are 
motivated by ideology, but a much grimmer ‘me and mine' which sees people who are 
different as a problem. In terms of the progressive youth vote this isn't just the Labour 
party activists saying the right thing but voters as demonstrated by the NHS 27% as the 
most important issue for 18-24 year olds. Emma Rees of Momentum in a post election piece 
reveals that they had about 100,000 activists who checked to see where they should canvass 
and 10,000 who pledged to spend election day knocking on doors to get Labour voters out, 
that's a tiny, tiny fraction of that 27% even if all them were in the 18-24 age group.

The influence of ideology, positive and negative is an important reality to acknowledge. 
There is a section of the left that sometimes falls into believing only self-interest can 
mobilise the working class and conversely that anything that might be perceived as being 
against that self interest should be avoided as divisive.  In British politics this has 
led to some who would otherwise be quite hard left offering de facto support for 
immigration controls rather than arguing against the segment of the working class that 
wants those controls.  What swung the 17% of 2015 UKIP voters who went Labour this 
time[p5]and what can retain them - assumed answers to this and to the importance of that 
segment (5% of the Labour total[p14]) can lead to some pretty terrible political decisions 
which is why this data is important.

General attitudes

The Ashcroft poll continues with asking a number of questions about social attitudes. 
These also confirm the pattern I argue above, with a ‘caring & sharing' youth vote 
contrasted with a ‘look after me and mine' older vote.

Q summary: If you work hard it is possible to be very successful in Britain[p49+50]
Age - 70% of those 65 and older agree as against only 46% of 18-24 year olds.
Labour 36% agree, Tories 84% agree

Q summary: The government should do more wealth redistribution through taxation[p55-57]
Age - 63% of 18-24 year olds agree as against only 42% of 65+
Labour 79%, Tories 23% agree

Q summary: People have a right to housing, healthcare etc[p61-63]
Age - 76%  18-24 year olds agree as against only 45% of 65+
Labour 81% agree, Tories 29%

If the high ratio of 65%+ voters who seem to be against policies that would be good for 
them like a right to healthcare it's worth remembering again this is not a sample of all 
65+ people in Britain but only of those who voted (themselves a subset of those allowed to 
vote).  And as we will see in Appendix 2 this voting segment is disproportionately drawn 
from the more wealthy class divisions.  We will also see that women opt for the ‘caring 
and sharing' options in higher numbers and in what would not be expected there are more 
men voting in the 65+ group than women, 54% against 46%.  Given that this is the age 
category in which the greater life expectancy for women over men starts to play out that 
difference is startling, if anything you'd expect the reverse.  The 18-24 age group was 
60% women, 40% men (the overall total for the Ashcroft voters was 54% women, 46% men)[p123].

The reactionary vote

The final section of the exit poll looks at social attitudes.  Now it's hardly going to be 
a surprize to anyone on the left that the reactionary end of this is concentrated amongst 
Tory voters.  It's still worth throwing these in to underline the nature of that vote but 
more significantly we again see  how age group skewed it is.  It would be interesting to 
compare with other countries but my suspicion at least is that what we are seeing is the 
ideological victory of Thatcherite neoliberalism in winning over that section of the older 
age groups that has continued to vote.  It's not obtainable from this data but as already 
stated my suspicion would be that there is a large over 65 segment that learned that 
voting for Labour made no difference to what then happened to them when Labour won, so 
they also stayed at home this time resulting in the bizarre reactionary age skew visible here.

This section was a set of questions asking people to assign a score out of 10 indicating 
to what extent they considered things like feminism a force for good or a force for ill. 
For reasons of space I'm going to simplify this to the aggregate percentages considering 
each of them a force for ill, check Ashcroft's raw data for more subtle results.

Feminism force for ill: Lab 10%, Con 25%; 18-24 12%, 65+22%[p87]
Immigration for ill: Lab 23%, Con 49%; 18-24 16%, 65+ 41%[p117, 119]
Capitalism for ill: Lab 36%, Con 13%; 18-24 32%, 65+ 21%[p111, 113]

So in terms of ideology we see a concentration of pro-capitalist, anti-feminist and 
anti-migration opinions amongst the older age groups that voted, and, of course, amongst 
Tory voters.  I've taken three examples out of this section of the data, but this pattern 
is consistent with the other questions Ashcroft asked as well.

Conclusions
Election and referendum results are often the most important measures we have access to of 
the opinions of the section of the population motivated to vote.  But a huge amount of 
left discussion of election and referenda results is based on assertions about the 
election result itself  with all sorts of inbuilt assumptions about class, gender etc 
based on nothing  much beyond suiting what the author wants to argue.  Detailed exit polls 
of the Ashcroft type which ask a wide range of additional questions beyond ‘how did you 
vote'  allow us to test those assertions and assumptions.  And hopefully, as I've tried to 
do here, to construct an analysis based on looking at the data.

This June 2017 election is strange in that it's seen as a massive victory for the left 
even though the left was actually defeated and the most likely result is a very right wing 
informal minority government. The victory isn't in the result but in the large increase in 
the Labour vote in a situation where the leadership very deliberately moved the party to 
the left in the face of extreme media hostility.

Digging into that victory is precisely why this exit poll is unusually valuable.  We might 
have assumptions in what the substantial increase in the Labour party vote means, we might 
want to assert certain reasons for it but looking at the data allows us to confirm or deny 
these assertions and assumptions in a way that hopefully reveals additional and more 
important factors

I didn't expect the clear ideological shift to the left that the data reveals, if anything 
I expected that self-interest as measured by free tuition fees would top the interest list 
for the 18-24s.  I had also no clear idea what the role of the Brexit vote would be within 
the Labour vote - although I certainly considered the Brexit referendum to be disastrous 
in unleashing a reactionary agenda.  Indeed here I think there is evidence for a Brexit 
effect I did not expect, a reaction against the sense of what that vote was that generated 
the emergence of a substantial progressive and youth based movement, if one so far limited 
to electoralism.

The electoralism is what concerns me.  As you probably know by now I'm an anarchist and 
anarchists don't think fundamental change can come about through electoralism.  It's a top 
down system that requires us to put our power in the hands of leaders we then have no 
control over.  And those leaders, even when well intentioned are then subjected to all 
sorts of corrupting influences.  If they get to form a government that government then 
discovers that it has far less power to determine major issues than expected, a wide range 
of legal, semi-legal and even illegal forces stands in its was.  This is a very brief 
summary of the problems I outline in the article Why elections fail to bring about real 
change - the 10 filters that make them ineffective for the radical left

So I look at this result with a certain weary ‘If I wanted to go there I wouldn't start 
from here' attitude.  It's not simply a question of thinking the Corbyn program is not 
radical enough.  It's more that in recognising the improvements it would offer I don't see 
a movement that could ensure Corbyn in power would be able to overcome the obstacles 
outlined above.

The historic experience of the left in power when it lacks a powerful movement in the 
workplaces, communities and streets is not only that it fails to implement its policies 
but it fails to even try. Faced with capital flight in particular it quickly becomes clear 
  - within the confines of parliamentary politics - there is little chance of success and 
will be a huge cost to failure.  The retreat is called before any significant if doomed 
battle is fought and that destroys hope in the possibility of socialist transformation, 
possibly as the age figures in the exit poll suggest, for generations.  In some cases that 
hope then flows into extra parliamentary movements, but generally only when they are 
already strong enough to pose a clear alternative.  That's certainly not the situation in 
Britain today.

However we are living in a very different time for movement building, one where social 
networking means that sharp changes in direction can happen very quickly and without 
requiring huge resources.  The Corbyn Momentum campaign is the formal structure around 
which this movement emerged but alongside it are all sorts of Facebook and Whatsapp 
groups, and dozens of other instant communication methods outside the control of the 
party.   When the Tories get themselves together and start to rule those networks may well 
shift their facing, away from the narrow electoral terrain they won ground on and instead 
towards the communities, workplaces and educational institution that will bear the brunt 
of Tory attack.

Words: Andrew Flood, follow me on Twitter
Thanks to Fionnghuala and Tom for criticism and improvements on early drafts of this piece



Appendix 1:  How accurate is Ashcroft
The Ashcroft poll is an exit poll asking 14384 voters how they voted. It's somewhat off, 
Torys got 1% more than he predicted, Labour 2% more, LD 1% less, SNP 1% less, UKIP 1% 
less.  But that's pretty close to the actual results so we can presume the other responses 
are accurate.
With the finer graduations the accuracy will decrease, what that means is that small 
differences of 1-3% may simply be artefacts of the sampling method rather than an 
indication of real differences amongst all actual voters. What I select out above are 
large differences, large enough so that even if the exact size if a bit off the general 
pattern should remain true.

Appendix 2 - complex intersections

Class

The Ashcroft exit poll included divisions into classes but unfortunately not the 
capitalist class / family business (middle class) / worker that would have been very 
useful.  Instead it uses the ABCDE classification system which was also the case with his 
Brexit exit poll. In comparison with the other groupings you have to start making a lot of 
assumptions and approximations to use the data here to talk about class in a way useful to 
anarchists, below I do what can be done.

I discussed the limitations of this NRS class classification system in my piece on Brexit 
as follows
"Definitions of who belongs in what class are enormously controversial and could be fought 
over all day. Left groups tend to use the term working class in both a broad sense that 
includes almost everyone (if they are trying to recruit you) and in a narrow sense (if 
they want to denounce you). ..

He uses the 50 year old NRS system, a common market research classification. NRS standing 
for National Readership Survey at its origins lie in advertisers' desire to know what sort 
of people read different publications in order to crudely target their advertising on that 
basis. Broadsheets often boast of having a high ABC1 readership to attract high value 
advertising as that segment has much greater disposable income.

 From the Wikipedia table of the NRS
A - upper middle class
Higher managerial, administrative or professional
B - middle class
Intermediate managerial, administrative or professional
C1 - lower middle class
Supervisory or clerical and junior managerial, administrative or professional
C2 - skilled working class
Skilled manual workers
D - working class
Semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers
E - non working

Casual or lowest grade workers, pensioners, and others who depend on the welfare state for 
their income
The NRS class classification system is flawed, apart from anything else the ruling class 
are invisible in it, presumably because although the power and wealth of that group is 
enormous their numbers are too few to make a distinct division worthwhile. The 
classification being 50 years old is rather tied to old ideas about the relative merits of 
manual labour and desk jobs, desk jobs are middle class as it appears are retail and 
service workers."

So this system only crudely maps to the way anarchists and others on the left talk about 
class, the capitalist class vanishes into AB along with the family business owners and 
some categories of well paid skilled workers.  Computer programmers who spend their entire 
day labouring to create wealth for mega corporations probably end up in A or B.   The 
table below shows the percentage of voters in each category in the Election exit poll.

36% - 5905 = A+B
22% - 3791 = C1
11%- 1912 = C2
16% - 2360 = D+E

So as the NRS labels them a rather extraordinary 68% of voters were middle class and above 
(the ABC1s). It's worth noting in passing that in 2015 under the NRS classification 54% of 
people in the UK were middle class and above, the very sizeable 14% higher boost when the 
sample is amongst voters is a measure of the greater participation of this group in 
electoralism. The C2DEs are only 28% of voters in 2017 but 46% of the population.  C2DEs 
are likely to understand that in general politicians don't act in their interests.

Again I'd prefer "looking at whether people have to make a living through working for 
others (the working class), have enough skills, tools and space to independently work for 
themselves (the middle class) or have so much wealth that most of their income comes from 
having the rest of us work for them. For the UK that would give you more of a 80%+ working 
class, 20%- middle class and 1%- ruling class, with the actual section of that class that 
rules being more like the top 0.01%."

All those disclaimers issued its still not very surprising to see that 43% of ABs voted 
Tory, and 34% of them voted Labour.  A ratio more or less reversed with DEs with 33% 
voting Tory, and 43% voting Labour.  It's not so clear cut with the two C classes, C1 
actually being more inclined to vote Labour 41% than C2s at 38%.  C1s were 40% Tory, C2s 
43%.[p4]

Taking the relative percentage of each voter block into account it's clear that the AB 
vote is crucial for the Tory victory. Labour were substantially ahead if you total just 
C1C2DE.  Within this however the Tories have a substantial lead amongst C2s, what the NRS 
calls skilled workers.  It's worth realising though that the NRS system would probably 
include some plumbers and other skilled construction workers - who actually own their own 
business and may well employ  a labour at least part time - as C2s.   In left terms these 
are more usefully understood as middle class because they own their own means of 
production and may be small employers.

The Financial Times also looked at the Ashcroft data using this NRS class classification 
system.  On that basis it argued that "class no longer divides Britons at the ballot box, 
another characteristic has stepped into its place: age".  While this claim obviously 
crosses over with what I write above I suspect that the real cause of this effect is the 
use of the NRS system which increasingly no longer provides any sort of useful indicator 
of class in the way we might find useful.  The distinctions it makes between ‘middle 
class' desk jobs and working class ‘dirt & oil' jobs no longer has the relevancy it might 
have in the 1950s.  The nature of work is very different but so too are the effects race 
and gender have on class composition, more on this below.

But if you want to stick with the NRS system the transformation is indeed huge.  In 
comparison with the 1974 election the FT points out that the "middle classes were 40 
percentage points more pro-Conservative than the electorate as a whole, and the lower 
working classes were 32 points more pro-Labour: a total partisan gulf between the classes 
of 72 points. But fast-forward 43 years to today, and the gap has plummeted to just 15 per 
cent."

The FT analysis is really just another wake up call to a Nostalgic Left with an idealist 
view of a working class that can be brought into being in a pure form through the 
excommunication of heretics who are preventing this miracle occurring.  The route to a 
recomposition of the working class instead exists through struggles that will create unity 
across its many modern identities, ideology has a role in shaping these but not at the 
level where idealism can create the class regardless of these realities.

Age, Gender & disability acting on class (and how people voted)
A final note on these ABC1C2DE voters.  The proportion in each group is not consistent 
across gender and in particular age.  This is probably quite different to the 1950s when 
almost all women were living with parents or a husband and probably assigned to the same 
class as the ‘head of household'.

Let's look at escape from the workforce through retirement first[p145-46], 35% of ABs are 
retired (who are 31% of 65+ age group) as against only 24% of C2s (22% of 65+), and 28% of 
DEs (24% of 65+).   So we find far from the same proportion of people in each class being 
found in each age group it varies quite significantly with the higher classes have a 
higher proportion of older (and retired) people than the lower classes.  What's important 
here is simply recognising that this is significant. The optomistic interpretation could 
be class mobility across the life span or on the pessimistic (and to my mind more likely) 
side it could be an indication of a society where the divide between rich and poor is 
increasing and so class mobility almost non existent.

In terms of gender[p129]46% of Men were ABs and 17% were DE while only 38% of women were 
AB but 22% were DE.  Outright home ownership[p135]also reflected this divide with 44% of 
men but only 38% of women saying they owned their home outright.   Although the 
classification is crude this is a useful reminder that you can't talk about class without 
considering how it intersects with gender and other factors including disability. 15% of 
ABs self reported a disability of 12 months duration that has an effect on day to day 
activities as against 41% of DEs and 20% of both Cs[p156]

In summary these stats show that the upper class individuals were more likely to be older, 
male and able bodied while the lower classes were more likely to be younger, women and 
disabled.

Gender in particular also had a major impact on who you voted for.  43% of men voted Tory, 
35% vote Labour.  This reversed for women with only 39% voting Tory as against 41% 
Labour[p4]. (Note - as I published this a YouGov poll came out that did not show these 
gender differences)

In other words if only women voted there would probably have been a Labour majority and 
the Tories would certainly have been nowhere near forming a government.   This is 
reflected in an even stronger sense in the question asking if capitalism was a force for 
good, 51% of men thought it was as opposed to only 35% of women agreeing with that 
statement[p111].

A major flaw in the gender data is that it's a binary man / woman that adds up to 100%. 
I've recently seen an academic survey that at least offered ‘other' as an additional 
option and among a 18-24 population 3% selected that, I wonder what happened with the 
Ashcroft data in that regard, were such people forced to choose or perhaps even dropped 
from the data.

Author: Andrew N Flood

https://www.wsm.ie/c/absolute-boy-youth-revolt-jeremy-corbyn


------------------------------