user preferences

Διεθνή / Αναρχικό κίνημα / Γνώμη / Ανάλυση Wednesday February 19, 2020 19:33 byZaher Baher

Αυτό το άρθρο επισημαίνει την αδύναμη θέση μας στους παγκόσμιους αγώνες ενάντια στο κράτος και το σύστημα. Λέει στους αναγνώστες ότι το σημερινό σύστημα είναι πιο προηγμένο και ισχυρότερο από πριν, μιας και δεν λειτουργούν οι παλιές μέθοδοι αγώνων, κάτι που ωφελεί το κράτος και το σύστημα.

Πρέπει να θάψουμε τους παραδοσιακούς αγώνες και να υιοθετήσουμε νέους

Αυτό το άρθρο επισημαίνει την αδύναμη θέση μας στους παγκόσμιους αγώνες ενάντια στο κράτος και το σύστημα. Λέει στους αναγνώστες ότι το σημερινό σύστημα είναι πιο προηγμένο και ισχυρότερο από πριν, μιας και δεν λειτουργούν οι παλιές μέθοδοι αγώνων, κάτι που ωφελεί το κράτος και το σύστημα.

Ο καπιταλισμός και ο πυλώνας του, το κράτος, έχουν αλλάξει τις μεθόδους τους για να αντισταθούν στο κίνημα της εργατικής τάξης. Το σύστημα με όλες τις δομές του έχει τροποποιηθεί και προσαρμοσθεί στην πάλη ενάντια στον ταξικό του εχθρό και έχει μάθει πώς να το εξημερώνει. Στην πραγματικότητα ο τρόπος με τον οποίο η εργατική τάξη αγωνίζεται εναντίον των εργοδοτών της και του κράτους έχει όντως ωφελήσει το καπιταλιστικό σύστημα.

Ο καπιταλισμός αναπτύσσεται. Από καιρό σε καιρό ανανεώνεται για να αντιμετωπίσει καλύτερα τα εσωτερικά προβλήματα του ανταγωνισμού και τα εξωτερικά για να πολεμήσει τον εχθρό του. Αυτή η εξέλιξη είναι πολύ προφανής, ειδικά από τη δεκαετία του '80, αλλά ακόμα η εργατική τάξη ή μάλλον οι μάζες αγωνίζονται με τον ίδιο τρόπο που αγωνίζονταν πριν από δεκαετίες.

Τα παγκόσμια μαζικά κινήματα του παρόντος, ιδίως τα Κίτρινα Γιλέκα στη Γαλλία, τα οποία συνεχίστηκαν για περισσότερο από ένα χρόνο, οι αμέτρητες διαδηλώσεις στο Ιράν, τα μαζικά κινήματα στον Λίβανο και το Ιράκ, που άρχισαν τον Οκτώβριο του 2019, δεν έχουν επιτύχει τίποτα. Αυτό δεν οφείλεται στο γεγονός ότι δεν είναι ισχυρά ή επειδή τα αιτήματά τους είναι άσχετα ή επειδή δεν έχουν υποστήριξη από διαφορετικά τμήματα της κοινωνίας.

Αν δούμε τις πρόσφατες διαδηλώσεις σε παγκόσμια κλίμακα, τις εξεγέρσεις και τα κινήματα, συμπεριλαμβανομένων των τεσσάρων χωρών που ανέφερα παραπάνω, εξακολουθούν να χρησιμοποιούν τις ίδιες παλιές τακτικές και μεθόδους για να ικανοποιηθούν τα αιτήματά τους. Σίγουρα, δεν μπορούμε να χρησιμοποιούμε τα παλιά εργαλεία και τις τακτικές για την αντιμετώπιση αυτού του πολύ εξελιγμένου συστήματος.

Το θέμα δεν είναι αν μπορούμε ακόμα να κερδίσουμε ή να πετύχουμε κάτι παραπάνω με την παλιά τακτική, το θέμα είναι πόσο μπορούμε να κερδίσουμε. Εάν η νίκη περιορίζεται στην αλλαγή της κυβέρνησης ή του συστήματος.

Ας ρίξουμε μια ματιά στις πρόσφατες παγκόσμιες αναταραχές λίγο πιο κοντά από τα Κίτρινα Γιλέκα, το Χονγκ Κονγκ, τον Ισημερινό, το Σουδάν, τη Χιλή, το Ιράν, τον Λίβανο και το Ιράκ. Η χειρότερη πιθανότητα είναι ότι ενδέχεται να ηττηθούν και να δοθεί ένα αρνητικό μάθημα που θα οδηγήσει σε απογοήτευση. Το καλύτερο αποτέλεσμα είναι ότι επιτυγχάνουν πολύ λίγα.

Γιατί γίνεται αυτό; Η απάντηση είναι απλή. Οι σπόροι της ήττας βρίσκονται μέσα στο ίδιο το κίνημα. Βγαίνοντας στους δρόμους, κάνοντας πορείες, συγκρουόμενοιμε την αστυνομία, καταλαμβάνοντας ένα μέρος ή μια κεντρική πλατεία στις κύριες πόλεις και μένοντας εκεί για πολύ καιρό. Είναι εντάξει να γίνονται όλα αυτά στην αρχή των διαδηλώσεων ή των εξεγέρσεων για πολλούς λόγους. Αλλά παραμένοντας εκεί για τόσο πολύ καιρό χωρίς άλλα σχέδια, είναι κάτι που δεν οδηγεί πουθενά τους διαδηλωτές. Αυτό το αδύναμο σημείο πρέπει να ληφθεί υπόψη και να δράσουμε ώστε να επιφέρουμε ζωτικές αλλαγές στις μεθόδους του αγώνα μας. Πρέπει να επεκτείνουμε και να μεταφέρουμε τον αγώνα μας στη μεγάλη πλειοψηφία των ανθρώπων, που με τη δική τους συμμετοχή θα δημιουργηθεί ένα μαζικό κίνημα με την υπόλοιπη κοινωνία.

Ο τρόπος που αγωνιζόμαστε δεν ισχύει πλέον και εξυπηρετεί περισσότερο το σύστημα, το κράτος και τις δικές του γραφειοκρατικές δυνάμεις. Όσο περισσότερο συνεχίζονται οι σκέτες διαμαρτυρίες, τόσο πιο ασθενέστερη θα είναι η ενέργειά μας και όλο και λιγότεροι άνθρωποι θα συμμετέχουν. Η ιστορία των αγώνων μας από τη δεκαετία του 1980 μας έχει δείξει πολλά και είναι γνωστή σε πολλούς από εμάς.

Το πιο αποτελεσματικό κίνημα του σήμερα είναι αυτό του Ιράκ που ξεκίνησε τον Οκτώβρη του 2019. Ανεξαρτήτως, όμως, από αυτό, οι διαδηλωτές πρέπει να επεκτείνουν και να διαδώσουν αποτελεσματικά τον αγώνα τους στις μάζες οργανώνοντάς τις σε τοπικές ομάδες και μη ιεραρχικές μαζικές οργανώσεις.

Πρέπει να συμμετέχουν οι άνθρωποι στις γειτονιές τους, στα εργοστάσια, στους χώρους εργασίας, στα σχολεία, στα πανεπιστήμια και στα γραφεία για να οργανώσουν τις λαϊκές συνελεύσεις. Να πραγματοποιούνται τακτικές συνελεύσεις για να αρχίσει και πάλι να ασκείται η πολιτική από τους ίδιους τους ανθρώπους, εξουσιοδοτώντας τους να αναλάβουν την υλοποίηση των δικών τους αποφάσεων για κάθε πτυχή της ζωής τους και των κοινοτήτων τους.

Κατά τη γνώμη μου, αυτό είναι ένα πολύ σημαντικό βήμα και σχέδιο. Οι παραπάνω μέθοδοι είναι απαραίτητες για μια μαζική κοινωνική επανάσταση. Λυπάμαι ποιυ πρέπει πω ότι χωρίς να κάνουμε αυτά τα πράγματα, η μοίρα του κινήματος στο Ιράκ, το Ιράν και το Λίβανο δεν θα είναι καλύτερη από αυτή που έχουμε ήδη δει.

http://Zaherbaher.com

Στην αγγλική του μορφή, το άθρο δημοσιεύτηκε εδώ: https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31753 Μετάφραση: Ούτε Θεός-Ούτε Αφέντης.

north america / mexico / anarchist movement / opinion / analysis Tuesday February 18, 2020 08:37 byWayne Price

**Many people regard anarchism and socialism as contradictory programs. This is based on the conception of "socialism" as state ownership of the economy. Yet historically, anarchists have regarded this program as "state socialism" or "authoritarian socialism." They have rejected such views in favor of "anarchist-socialism" or "libertarian socialism." This concept of anarchism as a variety of socialism remains important today in opposition to pro-capitalist "libertarianism" and to "democratic socialism"--that is, reformist state socialism.**

Many U.S. anarchists, or radicals interested in anarchism, are surprised to hear of “anarchism” as being “socialist.” Like most U.S. people they have learned to think of “socialism” as meaning state-owned industry—which would be the opposite of anarchism. (Similarly “communism” is usually thought of as Stalinist totalitarianism.) Also “the Left” is often interpreted as support for such state-oriented economic programs. This was the view of socialism propagated by the U.S. ruling class as well as by its opponents in the Soviet Union and similar states.

And yet, what sort of economy have anarchists advocated? They are anti-capitalist and want to take away the wealth and power of the capitalist elite. They want to replace private ownership of the means of production with collectivized, social, ownership—to replace economic competition with cooperation—production for profit with production for use—division into classes with a classless society, with no rich or poor, no specialized order-givers ruling over specialized order-takers. A chaotic, competitive, system would be replaced with overall democratic coordination (planning) from below. All of which is entirely consistent with the rest of the anarchist program of abolishing the state and all other forms of oppression: racial, national, gender, sexual orientation, and so on. What is this proposed non-profit, cooperative, economy but socialism?

In fact, virtually all anarchists, from the beginning, have called themselves “socialists” (and some have also called themselves “communists”). At the same time, they have always regarded themselves as “libertarian socialists” or “anarchist-socialists,” to the left of—and in opposition to—the “authoritarian socialists” or “state socialists.” Well before the Russian Revolution, they argued that—whatever the subjective desires of the state socialists—in practice that program would only create a form of state capitalism (with the state bureaucracy acting as the new, exploitative, capitalist class).

The first person to identify himself as an “anarchist” was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Proudhon usually “described himself as a socialist….Although he criticized both centralized democracy and state socialism, he still considered himself a democrat and socialist….Like Bakunin and Kropotkin, he argued against state socialism and called for a decentralized, self-managed, federal, bottom-up, socialism: anarchism.” (McKay 2011; 23)

In his 1910 entry on “Anarchism,” written for the Encyclopedia Britannica,, Peter Kropotkin wrote, “As to their economical conceptions, the anarchists, in common with all socialists, of whom they constitute the left wing…consider the wage system and capitalist production altogether as an obstacle to progress….The anarchists combat with the same energy, the State, as the main support of that system….To hand over to the state all the main sources of economical life…would mean to create a new instrument of tyranny. State capitalism would only increase the powers of bureaucracy and capitalism.” (Kropotkin 2014; 164-5; my emphasis)

The great Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta was a younger comrade of Bakunin’s and Kropotkin’s. In 1897 he wrote, arguing against the “democratic socialists,” ”From 1871, when we began our propaganda in Italy, we have always been and have always called ourselves, socialist-anarchists….We have always been of the opinion that socialism and anarchy are two words which basically have the same meaning, since it is impossible to have economic emancipation (abolition of property) without political emancipation (abolition of government) and vice versa.” (in Richards 1984; 143; emphasis in original)

Malatesta had supported Kropotkin’s “anarchist-communist” version of anarchist-socialism, but he stopped using the “communist” label after the Russian Revolution. He still identified with that tradition and with the end-goal of a libertarian communist society. But he felt that the Leninists had given the term “communism” an authoritarian reputation. Instead, Malatesta referred to himself as a “revolutionary anarchist-socialist.”

Noam Chomsky cites the views of the anarcho-syndicalist Rudolf Rocker as indicating, “anarchism may be regarded as the libertarian wing of socialism.” (Chomsky 1970; xii) Chomsky further quotes one of the U.S. Haymarket Martyrs, Adolph Fischer: “Every anarchist is a socialist, but not every socialist is necessarily an anarchist.” (xii)

So, by theory and by history, mainstream anarchism is a wing of the socialist tradition. Some of today’s anarchists attack “socialism” and “the Left” for things—statism, authoritarianism, reformism, misuse of technology, sexism—which the classical anarchists had long since denounced. Yet the earlier anarchists were clear that they were not condemning “socialism” but “state socialism.” They regarded themselves as being far to the left of the authoritarian Left. Therefore they had seen no need to reject “socialism” as such.

Right Wing “Libertarians” and “Democratic” State Socialists

This argument may seem abstract and archaic, but there are also current reasons for U.S. anarchists to keep the term “socialist.” One reason is the growth of a “libertarian” pro-capitalist movement. Anarchists need to distinguish themselves from this trend which is relatively influential. It draws on some of the same motives that attract people to anarchism—opposition to drug laws, to gun suppression, to sex laws, and to other forms of state oppression. When anarchists speak about their views, they are often accused by Leftists of sounding like these pseudo-libertarians. Unfortunately, these right-wingers use the same label of “libertarian” which anarchists have used since the 19th century.

These “libertarians” range in views from Trump-supporting Republicans to the Libertarian Party to some who regard themselves as anarchists. As free-market absolutists, they oppose laws which protect public health or worker safety. Some are for a “minimal state,” while others call themselves “anarcho-capitalists” (which is not a thing). These latter are against the bureaucratic-centralized state but do not object to bureaucratic-centralized corporate monopolies. They would replace the state with private armies of “rent-a-cops” hired by the wealthy—which would, in effect, become the new state.

These pseudo-libertarians claim to be in the tradition of “individualist anarchism.” This tradition is somewhat distinct from the mainstream of revolutionary anarchism from Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin onward. Many anarchists (such as Emma Goldman or Daniel Guerin) have sought to integrate the insights of individualist anarchism with socialist anarchism. In any case, the individualist anarchists were never supporters of capitalism and sometimes called themselves “socialists”. One of their founders, Benjamin Tucker, wrote in 1893 of “the two principles…Authority and Liberty” as the basis of “the two schools of Socialistic thought…respectively, State Socialism and Anarchism.” (Krimerman & Perry 1966; 62)

Iain McKay argues, “Anarchism has always been a socialist theory and the concept of an ‘anarchism’ which supported the economic system anarchism was born opposing is nonsense.” (McKay 2008; 7; emphasis in original) So it is important for anarchists to identify as ”libertarian socialists” and “anarchist-socialists” in order to distinguish themselves from these phony, “libertarian,” supporters of exploitation and oppression.

Another current trend to which anarchists must relate is the rise of “democratic socialism” (or “social democracy”). Due to various factors, including the obvious failures of capitalism, a large minority has become attracted to this sort of “socialism.” A review of political polling over the last decade reveals, pretty consistently, that a sizable number (between 30 to 40 percent) favors “socialism.” While this is only a minority, it is about the same proportion of the population as that which supports President Trump! Importantly, young adults are most likely to have a positive view of socialism and a negative view of capitalism—from 40 to 50 percent. (Polling is summarized in Price 2018.) This is reflected in the significant position in the Democratic presidential primaries held by Bernie Sanders, despite his self-identification as a “democratic socialist.” It is also reflected in the rapid growth of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) to around 60,000.

What people mean by “socialism” or “democratic socialism” is very uncertain. (Sanders himself does not advocate expropriating the ruling rich, nor socializing major sectors of industry; his model, he says, is the Nordic countries, such as Denmark, which are capitalist countries with major welfare benefits—benefits which are now under attack.) The DSA itself is “multi-tendency.” It even has a Libertarian Socialist Caucus. But its predominant tendency involves using the electoral system of the capitalist state--by "democratic" they mean working within the electoral system of capitalist representative (limited) democracy. For most of them this means participating in the Democratic Party (right now supporting Sanders and some others, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez). This is in order to propose reforms which supposedly may lead to a socialist society. That is, they are reformist state socialists. Some of them regard themselves as “revolutionaries,” but they do not openly advocate overthrowing the existing state.

Not that “democratic socialists” openly propose a completely centralized, state-managed, economy. This is no longer possible even on the Left. They are also for workers’ management, consumer cooperatives, and local, municipally-owned, industry. Anarchist-socialists also include such concepts within their overall program of a self-managed economy—a program which can only be achieved through the overturn of the state. But for these “democratic socialists,” such ideas go together with nationalized industry and reforms enforced by the existing (capitalist) state. (See their proposals for a “Green New Deal”; Price 2019.)

Revolutionary anarchist-socialists should have a two-sided approach to this growth of interest in socialism. On the one hand, they should welcome the new, popular, hostility to capitalism and openness to alternate systems, summarized as “socialism.” This is not the time for anarchists to be rejecting “socialism.” Anarchists, too, are part of the socialist movement and have always been.

On the other hand, they must oppose all varieties of state socialism, both reformist (working through the existing state) and “revolutionary” (seeking to overturn this state and to set up a new state—the “dictatorship of the proletariat” or whatever). Anarchists are the authentic socialists, they must say. Reformist state socialists will only maintain the existing capitalist system—a system in crisis which can no longer provide significant reforms. Alternately, revolutionary state socialists (Marxist-Leninists) would, if successful, only create a new system of state capitalism.

The radical movement of the “sixties,” also began with a reformist program. The Students for a Democratic Society, the then-dominant organization, began as the youth group of the League for Industrial Democracy. This was a social democratic body which included Michael Harrington (who later started DSA). It was only over time that the youthful Left developed in a revolutionary direction—although one which was dominated by Leninist statism.

The pattern of movement from reformism to revolutionary socialism is likely to be repeated--this time hopefully toward libertarian socialism. The ongoing crises of U.S. and world capitalism will push the current radicalization further to the Left. The reformists will be unable to offer real solutions to the disasters which are looming over society. I am not proposing specific tactical directions (should anarchists join the DSA while opposing its electoralism and statism, or build independent organizations?). But revolutionary anarchist-socialists should be preparing for future developments by organizing themselves now.

References

Chomsky, Noam (1970). “Introduction.” In Daniel Guerin. Anarchism; From Theory to Practice. NY: Monthly Review Press. Pp. vii—xx.

Krimerman, Leonard, & Perry, Lewis (Eds.) (1966). Patterns of Anarchy; A Collection of Writings on the Anarchist Tradition. Garden City NY: Anchor Books/Doubleday.

Kropotkin, Peter (2014). Direct Struggle Against Capital; A Peter Kropotkin Anthology (Iain McKay ed.). Oakland CA: AK Press.

McKay, Iain (2008). An Anarchist FAQ; Volume one. Oakland CA: AK Press.

McKay, Iain (2011). “Introduction.” Property is Theft! A Pierre-Joseph Proudhon Anthology. (I. McKay ed.) Oakland CA: AK Press. Pp. 1—52.

Price, Wayne (2018). “The Revival of U.S. Socialism—And an Anarchist Response.”
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/30763?search_text=Wayne+Price

Price, Wayne (2019). “A Green New Deal vs. Revolutionary Ecosocialism.”
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31250?search_text=Wayne+Price

Richards, Vernon (Ed.) (1984). Errico Malatesta; His Life and Ideas. London UK: Freedom Press.

*written for www.Anarkismo.net

international / anarchist movement / opinion / analysis Thursday February 13, 2020 06:47 byZaher Baher

This article points out our weak position in the global struggles against the state and the system . It tells the readers that the current system is more advanced and more stronger than before so that using the old methods of struggles do not work, benefiting the state and the system.

We must bury the traditional struggles to adopt new ones
By Zaher Baher
12/02/2020
Capitalism and its pillar, the state, have changed their methods to fight back against the working class movement. The system with all its structures have amended and adapted themselves to the struggle of their class enemy and have learnt how to tame it. In fact the way the working class struggle against their employers and the state has actually benefited the capitalist system.
Capitalism is developing. From time to time renewing itself in order to manage better to cope with its internal problems of competition and external ones to fight back against its enemy. This development is very obvious, especially since the 1980s, but still the working class or rather the masses fight back in the same way they fought decades ago.
The current global mass movements, in particular the Yellow Vests in France, which has continued for over a year. Countless protests in Iran, the mass movements in Lebanon and Iraq, which started in October 2019, have achieved little to nothing. This is not because they are not strong, or because their demands are irrelevant or because they do not have support from different sections in the society.
If we look at the recent global protests, uprisings and movements including the four countries that I mentioned above, they still use the same old tactics and methods to meet their demands. Surely, we cannot use the old tools and tactics in dealing with this very advanced system.
The subject is not whether we can still win or achieve a little with the old tactics, the subject is how much we can win? Whether winning confines itself in changing the government or the system?
Let’s look into the recent global unrest a bit closer from the Yellow Vests, Hong Kong, Ecuador, Sudan, Chile, Iran, Lebanon and Iraq. The worst possibility is that they can be defeated and given a negative lesson leading to disappointment. The best outcome is they achieve very little.
Why is that? The answer is simple. The seeds of the defeat have been carried out by the movement itself. Going on the streets, marching, clashing with the police, occupying a place or a main square in the main cities and staying for a long time. Doing all of this is okay at the beginning of protests or uprisings for many reasons. But staying there for so long without further plans take the protesters nowhere.
This weak point must be noticed and addressed to make vital changes in our methods of struggle. We need to expand and transfer our struggle to the vast majority of the people, involving them to create a mass movement with the rest of the community and society.
The way we struggle is no longer valid anymore and it serves the system, the state and its own bureaucratic administrations more. The longer the protests continue, the weakest will be drained of energy, blood and less people will be involved. The history of our struggles since 1980s has shown that and is known by many of us.
The most current effective movement is the one in Iraq that started in October 2019. Regardless, the protesters need to expand and spread their struggles effectively to the masses by organising in local groups and non-hierarchal mass organisations. They need to involve people in their neighbourhoods, factories, workplaces, schools, universities and offices to set up people’s assemblies. To have regular meetings to bring back the politics to the hands of people by empowering themselves to make their own decisions about every aspect of their own lives and their communities.
In my opinion this is a very important step and plan. The above methods are necessary for a mass social revolution. I regret to say without doing these things the fate of the movement in Iraq, Iran and Lebanon won’t be better than the one we have already seen before.

aotearoa / pacific islands / anarchist movement / debate Wednesday February 12, 2020 13:04 byLAMA

This article defends the established Anarchist position of not voting for political parties. It arose as part of a dialogue with a self-declared Anarchist who claimed this view is "unhelpful and extreme".

This year Aotearoa will be experiencing an election. The various political parties will be expecting people to vote for them and many will. Aotearoa Worker’s Solidarity Movement (AWSM) members will not be doing so. We hope that other anarchists will decide not to either. However, we are aware that some avowed anarchists don’t agree with us. We recently interacted with such a person who argued our approach to this issue is “extreme and unhelpful”. We feel this is wrong and since there may be other people who have that view, we would like to address this point with a wero/challenge in the form of a few initial considerations and questions:

1) Calling our position extreme depends on what you’re comparing us with. Looked at next to the current crop of political parties our stance is extreme. Though…so what if it is? ‘Extremist’ is used pejoratively by the mainstream as if the established centre is intrinsically the best position to be in. We prefer what we see as the appropriate position regardless of how anyone may categorise it. It is what it is, regardless. In addition, the extremist tag is often applied with the assumption it obviates the need to engage in any debate once you have attached that label to somebody. It’s an attempt to use words as a weapon by those who currently wield authority over us. That it can be adopted even by somebody claiming the anarchist name, shows how effective unacknowledged assumptions can be. Fish don’t think about water…but with the literal and figurative water becoming more polluted, perhaps you should?

If you stand outside the dominant paradigm but within anarchist theory built up over centuries, our position is very much the middle-of-the-road, orthodox one. Traditionally nearly all anarchists both as individuals and organisations, theorists and activists have abstained from voting for political parties. There have been historical exceptions. For example, the Anarcho-Syndicalist union in Spain, the CNT did have supporters who voted in favour of the Popular Front in the early 1930s, in order to obtain the release of its militants from prisons. While we are aware of such examples the more relevant point is, such instances are rare enough to highlight that their opposite represents the norm. So, calling for a non-vote is the normal, long-established standard view, not an extreme position.

Therefore, we have to ask our interlocutor and like-minded folks whether they are arguing from outside the anarchist perspective in reaching their claim by accepting the view pushed by the political parties regarding non-voting? If they are claiming on the contrary, that they have reached that point while still being an anarchist, we would like to know how the fundamental, long-held position has failed and theirs is preferable, while still being consistent with anarchism?

2) On a daily basis in order to survive, there are all sorts of compromises that have to be made in accommodating to the current system. It’s not hard to think of examples of times where we put up with shit just to be able to eat and pay rent. Not voting is one of the few times you can opt-out and make a principled protest and not suffer punitive legal sanctions (try not paying your taxes and see what happens!). So why would you not take the opportunity to do that? Why would you commit an unforced error?

3) There’s also a slippery slope argument. If you can find enough in what the parties are doing (whatever that would be?) to vote for one of them, then why stop there? You can use the same justification to begin canvassing for them, donating money, becoming a member and a whole bunch of other unnecessary compromises. It’s no accident that we have had two ex-anarchist Green MPs (Metiria Turei, Nandor Tanczos) in this country and a whole bunch of anarchists who have ended up doing work for the party in its administration. So this is not a point of exaggeration, it has happened.

4) Epistemologically, on a practical basis what criteria would you set to establish which political party is ‘better’ than the others to the point you are prepared to vote for them? For each ‘good’ point a particular party may adopt, it is sure to have a ‘bad’ one that would cancel that out. And there are points that the ‘bad’ parties make that are sometimes ‘better’ than those the ‘good’ ones adopt, such as the Centre-Right National Party increasing unemployment benefits under previous PM John Key. Labour improves funding for roads (good?) while increasing the number of cops (bad?) while the Greens have banned plastic bags (good?) while accepting Labours increased road funding (bad) etc. What about policies they all agree with across their spectrum? The more policies you compare the more complex and contradictory it becomes. So how do you finally determine that a) you should vote and b) for which party? What method can you apply to reliably identify what the ‘lesser evil’ is in the first place?

5) Add to number 4) the short-sighted approach of voting for a particular party based on the current, single election. In doing this you can fool yourself that the differences are somehow crucial and your action in voting will make some kind of historical earth-shattering effect because “this election will decide the future of the planet” or some such politician’s rhetoric. However, if you stand back and look at the overall effect of the alternating parties over the past 100 years you see that there isn’t much between them. The conservative ones have always been upfront about supporting capitalism. The Left -wing ones have eventually given up all pretence of trying to overturn the system, in preference for sharing power with their Right-wing colleagues. When does it reach the point that you can no longer keep making excuses for them and decide that a better way is worth exploring? By voting, you are doing your small but important part in helping prolong the current system. It’s like claiming you are trying to help a meth addict by repeatedly ‘only giving him/her a small dose this time’ and expecting a different outcome from the last time he/she took a hit of the drug.

6) We are not advocating a no-vote for negative “unhelpful’ reasons. If that was the sole extent of what we were about, there might be an argument there. We aren’t anti-social nihilists. Not voting is only one component of a deeper, well-considered, positive political theory. Anarchism works practically to offer a way out of the fucking mess capitalism and all its parties have put us in and that we as anarchists haven’t actively contributed to. We do lots of helpful stuff, on a daily basis. For example, by helping people understand we can work together to get out of this system on a theoretical level through websites, pamphlets and so on, or by practical mutual aid and volunteer work in our community etc on a material level. You have to look at the action of not voting in a broader, fuller context of what we are doing and why we are doing it. If we are unhelpful to anybody, it is the various power mongers and their parties and their system that we are being unhelpful towards. We think that’s a good thing.

Διεθνή / Αναρχικό κίνημα / Γνώμη / Ανάλυση Monday February 03, 2020 19:40 byCoordenação Anarquista Brasileira - CAB

Οι αναρχικοί ανέκαθεν ασκούσαν την αμοιβαία υποστήριξη. Είναι μια σημαντική αρχή της ιστορίας και της ιδεολογίας μας. Σε όλες τις εμπειρίες αγώνα και οργάνωσης στις οποίες ήμασταν παρόντες, η αμοιβαία υποστήριξη έγινε σώμα από τοι σώμα μας, υλοποιήθηκε σε πρακτικό επίπεδο. Και σήμερα, μπροστά σε μια δαπανηρή, βίαιη ζωή και με την αφαίρεση πολλών κοινωνικών δικαιωμάτων, η αμοιβαία υποστήριξη είναι ακόμη πιο αναγκαία.

Αμοιβαία υποστήριξη

Οι αναρχικοί ανέκαθεν ασκούσαν την αμοιβαία υποστήριξη. Είναι μια σημαντική αρχή της ιστορίας και της ιδεολογίας μας. Σε όλες τις εμπειρίες αγώνα και οργάνωσης στις οποίες ήμασταν παρόντες, η αμοιβαία υποστήριξη έγινε σώμα από τοι σώμα μας, υλοποιήθηκε σε πρακτικό επίπεδο. Και σήμερα, μπροστά σε μια δαπανηρή, βίαιη ζωή και με την αφαίρεση πολλών κοινωνικών δικαιωμάτων, η αμοιβαία υποστήριξη είναι ακόμη πιο αναγκαία.

Αλλά τι είναι η αμοιβαία υποστήριξη;

Είναι οποιαδήποτε συλλογική και κοινωνική πρωτοβουλία και πρακτική που διεξάγεται μεταξύ γειτόνων, συναδέλφων, μεταξύ καταπιεσμένων, προκειμένου να εξασφαλιστούν οι ελάχιστες συνθήκες επιβίωσης.

Σε μια επαναστατική και αντικαπιταλιστική προοπτική, η αμοιβαία υποστήριξη δεν αντιμετωπίζεται μεμονωμένα αλλά μέσα στους αγώνες διαμαρτυρίας, στο πλαίσιο απεργιών και άλλων οικονομικών αγώνων.

Με την αμοιβαία υποστήριξη μπορούμε επίσης να βοηθήσουμε στην ανοικοδόμηση του κοινωνικού ιστού ή και να υποστηρίξουμε έναν μακρόχρονο αγώνα που απαιτεί πόρους για να επιβιώσει.

Με ποιές δράσεις;

Κουτιά ενίσχυσης ανέργων εν μέσω απεργιών, ενίσχυσης κοινωνικών αγωνιστών που εμπλέκονται σε δικαστικές διαμάχες · αυτά μπορούν να οργανωθούν από συνδικάτα, πολιτιστικούς χώρους, πολιτικές ομάδες κ.λπ.

Δημιουργία εκστρατειών, δικτύων υποστήριξης και δράσεων αλληλεγγύης στα θύματα αστυνομικής βίας και άλλων εγκλημάτων που διαπράττονται από το κράτος.

Συγκρότηση εργατικών συνεταιρισμών για δημιουργία εισοδήματος με στόχο την ενίσχυση των εναλλακτικών λύσεων και των συλλογικών και μη μεμονωμένων οικονομικών μας σχεδίων.

Δουλειά σε γειτονιές για να βοηθηθούν οικογένειες που δεν διαθέτουν επαρκείς οικονομικούς πόρους ή που έχουν πληγεί από κάποια φυσική καταστροφή, είτε πρόκειται για οικιακές κατασκευές, τοποθέτηση οροφής κλπ.,

Δωρεάν ή φθηνότερη παροχή ηλεκτρικών, υδραυλικών, νομικών, ψυχολογικών και άλλων υπηρεσιών σε οικογένειες που δεν έχουν οικονομικούς όρους.·

Οικονομική ή/και φυσική αλληλεγγύη μεταξύ κατηγοριών εργαζομένων εν μέσω δίκαιων αγώνων.

Οργάνωση συνεταιρισμών καταναλωτών για την ενίσχυση της σχέσης μεταξύ παραγωγών και καταναλωτών και αναζήτηση εναλλακτικών λύσεων στην αύξηση του κόστους των τροφίμων · ή την προώθηση κοινοτικών κήπων.

Δεν ξεχνάμε ότι ο αγώνας μας πηγαίνει πολύ πιο πέρα από την απλή επιβίωση στον καπιταλισμό και ότι θέλουμε να τον καταστρέψουμε ώστε να προχωρήσυμε στην οικοδόμηση νέων κοινωνικών, οικονομικών και πολιτικών σχέσεων.

Έτσι η αμοιβαία υποστήριξη μπορεί να είναι η ζύμη για έναν συλλογικό αγώνα που δεν θα περιορίζεται σε αιτήματα από το κράτος, αλλά θα το θέτει υπό αμφισβήτηση καθώς συνειδητοποιούμε και εμπιστευόμαστε τις δυνάμεις μας, μιας και είναι στο χέρι μας να παράγουμε και να διαχειριστούμε την κοινωνία και την αυτονομία μας.

Από τον Βραζιλιάνικο Αναρχικό Συντονισμός (Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira - CAB). Μετάφραση: Ούτε Θεός-Ούτε Αφέντης.

This page has not been translated into 한국어 yet.

This page can be viewed in
English Italiano Català Ελληνικά Deutsch



Neste 8 de Março, levantamos mais uma vez a nossa voz e os nossos punhos pela vida das mulheres!

Neste 8 de Março, levantamos mais uma vez a nossa voz e os nossos punhos pela vida das mulheres!

Anarchist movement

Sun 23 Feb, 16:26

browse text browse image

460_0___30_0_0_0_0_0_.jpg imageΝα υιοθετήσουμε _... Feb 19 19:33 by Zaher Baher 0 comments

walter_crane.jpg imageAre Anarchists Socialists? Feb 18 08:37 by Wayne Price 2 comments

.jpg imageWe must bury the traditional struggles to adopt new ones Feb 13 06:47 by Zaher Baher 0 comments

dont_vote.jpg imageNot Voting: "Unhelpful & extreme"? Feb 12 13:04 by LAMA 0 comments

83929793_2513531865528618_2957678247128596480_o.jpg imageΑμοιβαία υποστήρ... Feb 03 19:40 by Coordenação Anarquista Brasileira - CAB 0 comments

cats.jpg imageA History of AWSM 2008-2020 Jan 08 06:44 by AWSM 0 comments

class10.jpg imageRückblick auf ein Jahr Aufbau der Plattform und Verkündung unserer Lokalstrukturen Jan 02 01:02 by die plattform 0 comments

cala_1_1.jpg imageErklärung zum Wiederaufbau der Lateinamerikanischen Anarchistischen Koordination (CALA) Dec 28 20:52 by Coordinación Anarquista Latinoamerica 0 comments

cala_5.jpg imageComunicado de Relançamento da CALA (Coordenação Anarquista Latino-americana) Dec 28 04:23 by Coordenação Anarquista Latino-americana 0 comments

tumblr_pkv2l8tbjs1xrhrgmo1_1280.jpg imageΟι διάφορες μορφ^... Dec 22 03:21 by Andrew N. Flood 0 comments

cala_4.jpg imageCALA Yeniden başlatma deklarasyonu (Latin Amerika Anarşist Koordinasyonu) Dec 19 02:36 by Latin Amerika Anarşist Koordinasyonunu 0 comments

cala_1.jpg imageComunicado de lanzamiento de la Coordinación Anarquista Latinoamericana (CALA) Dec 19 01:50 by Coordinación Anarquista Latinoamerica 0 comments

cala_3.jpg imageDichiarazione del rilancio del Coodinamento Anarchico Latino Americano (CALA) Dec 18 03:38 by Ig 0 comments

cala_2.jpg imageLaunch statement of the Latin American Anarchist Coordination (CALA) Dec 17 02:28 by Latin American Anarchist Coordination 0 comments

cala.jpg imageΛατινοαμερικάνι... Dec 16 21:04 by FAU/CAB/FAR 0 comments

analisis_de_coyuntura.jpg imageAnalysis of the conjuncture: Latin America and the world move Dec 10 19:22 by Various Latin American anarchist political organisations 0 comments

st.jpeg imageComunicado público FAO sobre el alzamiento popular en Chile de octubre 2019. Nov 24 22:30 by FAO 0 comments

analisis_de_coyuntura.jpg imageAnálisis conjunto de coyuntura: América Latina y el mundo se mueven Nov 20 23:32 by Diversas organizaciones políticas anarquistas latinoamericanas 0 comments

malatesta.jpg imageThe Revolutionary Anarchist-Socialism of Errico Malatesta Oct 30 09:52 by Wayne Price 0 comments

oct19.jpg imageY, ¿Nosotras cómo estamos? Oct 29 23:34 by Colectivo Contrainformativo SubVersión 0 comments

volos_1.jpg imageIn Volos we never get bored Oct 10 04:54 by Anarchist and feminist collectives 0 comments

volos.jpg imageΣτο Βόλο δεν βαρι ... Oct 07 05:16 by Διασσυλογικό κείμενο 0 comments

latin_american_conjucture.jpg imageLatin American Conjunctural Analysis Oct 05 02:19 by Various Latin American anarchist political organisations 0 comments

fagfau_estructuras_1.jpg imageDocumento Wellington Galarza y Malvina Tavarez (Trabajo de estructuras) Oct 01 02:31 by Wellington Galarza y Malvina Tavarez 0 comments

coyuntura_latino_america.jpeg imageAnálisis de Coyuntura Latinoamericana Sep 26 00:58 by Diversas organizaciones políticas anarquistas latinoamericanas 0 comments

anarkismo.jpg imageΡιζοσπαστική Δημ... Sep 22 13:12 by Wayne Price 0 comments

71299580_1091631047697904_8826639731560284160_n.png imageMediterranean meeting Sep 18 18:04 by KAF 0 comments

declaracinxi.png image[Colombia] Declaración XI Asamblea Semestral Grupo Estudiantil Anarquista Sep 16 10:12 by Grupo Estudiantil Anarquista 0 comments

ana.jpg imageΗ Κοινωνική Αναπ^... Sep 13 05:37 by Αργύρης Αργυριάδης 0 comments

mandla_khoza_1.jpg image«Le soldat est tombé»: disparition de Mandla Khoza, militant anarchiste-communiste et acti... Aug 28 04:06 by ZACF 0 comments

more >>
© 2005-2020 Anarkismo.net. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Anarkismo.net. [ Disclaimer | Privacy ]