189592 WHY WORRY ABOUT
G. W. BUSH? (english) Bruce Wilson -----------189601 proposal 4 the end
of pro-palestinian/anti-israel rhetoric --------------- 1896?? (via scoop
nz) gush-shalom.org items about international peacekeepers observers being
thwarted by Israeli army (that's putting it way more polite than those
biased bastards deserve) ------------------- 189521 June 23, 2002 Anti-U.S.
militants showing up all over ------------------ the rest of this file
via infoshop.org: Some Major Problems with the Future of Civilization +
11 --------- What is vanguardism and why do anarchists reject it? + 21
----------- from vohuman.org (zoroastrian) on Nietzsche ------------ Retaliation
by Howard Zinn + 9 -------------- Ten Native Youth facing Death Penalty
----------- resistance is futile + 145!!!!! about the iso; the last 3 posts
here ------------- spreading the word -------------------- 189592 WHY
WORRY ABOUT G. W. BUSH? (english) Bruce Wilson 12:28pm Tue Jul 2 '02 address:
Daily Telegraph bruce.wilson@newsint.co.uk THE world outside the US is
now getting used to the fact Americans have a fraudulently elected nitwit
as their president, but George W. Bush excelled himself this week with
a "long-awaited" definitive speech on Middle East policies that stretched
even the weirdest imaginations. BRUCE WILSON in London reports: Why we
should be worried about George W Bush 29jun02 http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/
common/story_page/0,5936,459 9307%5E12634,00.html US embassies around
the world moved to "explain" the batty future Bush saw for Israel and Palestine,
but nothing could disguise that the bedbug was running the White House
and anything could happen next. Hey, look. Even Tom Cruise is worried.
In London this week he said he wanted his adopted kids brought up outside
the USA because of what happens inside the USA. He listed terrorism and
street crime, but very cogently he listed corporate crime as a reason not
to bring up kids in the old US of A. Now, Tom Cruise is not a Grade A rocket
scientist. In fact, he is a Grade A Scientologist. On the whole, though,
I would say he was brighter than George W. Bush (along with my neighbour's
catatonic cat) and it was most intriguing that he named corporate crime
as a reason not to want to grow up in America. The WorldCom affair comes
after the Enron affair while the Andersen affair simply defies belief.
It has become perfectly clear that major US corporations have been running
out of control, throwing billions of dollars into a kind of international
financial black hole. In vain you ask (as I tried to do), well, where has
the money gone? I mean, if you back a loser at Randwick, then you know
where your money went. If these companies have lost billions –
$US3.8 billion in the case of WorldCom – why hasn't
somebody won it? Or got it? Where has it gone? Or, more to the point, did
it ever exist? Of course it did, said the Doormouse. Otherwise, it could
never have been lost and 17,000 people sacked for the lack of it. This
is Alice in Wonderland stuff, capitalism rattling around like a high-velocity
round in a mental vacuum. Where was government? Where was control? Twenty
years ago, when I lived in Washington, the US was said to have a trillion-dollar-a-day
economy that was so strong not even government could screw it. Now, you
have to ask if things have turned, that apparent fraudsters like WorldCom
can screw government. Dubya Bush seems reluctant to address these issues.
He is a Texan (although not by breeding) and there they let things take
their course, execute mentally deficient minors, and generally behave like
good old boys, taking the Chevy to the levee. If it were not for September
11, Bush would be in serious political trouble in America. He may be yet,
in the mid-term November elections. His shocked nation rallied around him
as the personification of The Flag when the atrocities stunned us all.
His personal rating broke all records. Since then, though, what? On this
side of the Atlantic he is seen as a kind of strange joke. Britons try
to understand him, but in Europe they simply think of him as a sort of
circus act. The Middle East pronouncement was so absurd they didn't know
whether to laugh or simply ask the US senior political attache over for
a commiserating drink. These concerns are based on the belief –
that seems to be proven – that Washington itself is
a divided city. Colin Powell, in State, is trying to plead reason over
the clamouring voices in Defence, led by Donald Rumsfeld, clearly a man
not always entirely in control of his senses. Bush is listening to Rumsfeld,
and other strange voices – not least the Israeli Prime
Minister, Ariel Sharon. And, as he does, the US looks more and more to
be a long way away from the rest of the world. www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/common/st...
----------------------------------- 189601 proposal 4 the end of pro-palestinian/anti-israel
rhetoric (english) anonymous 1:15pm Tue Jul 2 '02 (Modified on 8:49pm Tue
Jul 2 '02) i am a vegan and an anarchist; i am opposed 2 all forms of discrimination
and prejudice; i am opposed 2 all authority and i am opposed 2 nation-states
and borders; but there is one thing i find annoying about some people in
the anti-globalization movement i think that the anti-globalization movement
as a whole should end its pro-palestinian rhetoric and its anti-israel
rhetoric; there are several reasons why i think this way; one is that religious
jews and some others get offended when they hear all this rhetoric, especially
if they care about some things that the anti-globalizaion movement as a
whole cares about,like eco-sustainibility, gay rights, transgender rights,
animal rights, anti-racist activities, pro-wymyn/feminist activities, etc.
another reason is that if anarchists and other socialists are 2 change
the world, we need 2 have solidariy with many people; we cannot just try
2 change things by doing direct action alone; altho i support illegal direct
action for animal liberation and earth liberation and humyn liberation,
i think that activists need 2 get down 2 normal middle-class folks on a
more personal level like doing free vegan food distribution, anti-military
education, environmental education, etc. also, i dont like some of the
anti-jewish rhetoric thats coming out of the movement; not all jews are
idiots; some are, some arent; anyway i must bid u farewell 4 now; peace
add your own comments ============= Offended (english) Spruce 1:59pm Tue
Jul 2 '02 comment#189612 Anonymous, I am offended by your post. Will that
get you to shut up, to end this silly rhetoric about ending rhetoric? If
a Jew is offended when I say that the modern state of Israel is oppressing
the Palestinians, that Zionism has become an euphemism for ethnic cleansing,
than so be it. I am offended by the oppression of the Palestinians. And
as long as individuals support this oppression, I do not see what help
at all they will be in all of the other movements for human rights and
dignity ("yeah, I support 'wymyn's' rights, unless the wymyn happen to
be Palestinian." "Gay rights, you betcha, unless they want an end to the
occupation.") Do you get all huggy-feely and not speak your mind if you
worry about offending someone? You say you are a vegan. Do you explain
to meat and dairy eaters the modern conditions of factory farms--even if
it offends them? Or, perhaps these meat eaters will be good allies in the
labor movement and, therefore, you do not say anything. Are you anti-militaristic?
Do you condemn US hegemony? Or do you refrain from making such statements
because of the possibility of offending allies in other struggles? Overall,
your suggestion is simply nonsensical. ============== ..continuance (english)
soren k 8:49pm Tue Jul 2 '02 comment#189669 "also, i dont like some of
the anti-jewish rhetoric thats coming out of the movement" anonymous that
comment could be construed in various ways. are you against any critizism
of the zionist state its policies etc, or were you referring to anti-judaic
as in anti simply being jewish? if it was the latter, you're in the majority
as no where in the socialist-anarchist movement will you find anti-semites.
if you've come across it, kindly post your findings. however, the assertion
that merely critizising israel is wrong is quite repulsive. the first platform
of progressive socialists-anarchists is the plight of people, which in
turn leads to alternative theories in order to correct that plight - i.e
utopian socialist societies etc at the moment, the israelis are engaged
in a 55 year brutal occupation and systematic ethnic clensing of the indegenous
arab population in palestine. if critizising this is wrong, then you arent
what you claim to be. --------------------- GUSH SHALOM - pob 3322, Tel-Aviv
61033 - http://www.gush-shalom.org/ Press release ******** Palestinian
negotiator & 17 American peace activists refused entry at the Airport
******** Today Michael Tarazi, member of the PLO Peace Negotiations team
was refused entry at Ben Gurion Airport upon hiss return from a vissitt
to the United States. We spoke with him on his mobile phone, while he was
in the police station of the Ben-Gurion Airport - but it was interrupted
in the middle, and afterwards the phone was disconnected. Tarazi, who has
US citizenship, lives in Ramallah and works as the legal adviser for the
PLO negotiating team. Many Israelis have heard him speak, in house meetings,
but also in public halls where he gave his vision why the negotiations
went wrong, inspiring Israeli peace activists with hope. Preventing this
man from entering Israel is part of a war - not against terrorism, but
against those peaceseeking Palestinians who can prove that "there is a
partner" and thereby constitute a danger for the Israeli propaganda machine.
For similar reasons also 17 members of Fellowship of Reconciliation from
the US, were refused entry when they arrived at BG Airport. The FOR members
were to meet with Knesset members (e.g., Yosi Sarid) as well as with activist
groups. Already for a few months the Israeli army keeps the international
press away from the Palestinian areas during its reconquest operations.
Adam Keller Gush Shalom spokesperson Phone: +972-(0)3-5565804 / +972-(0)56-709603
/ +972-(0)56-709604 -------------------------- Internationals Stop Tank
Advancement With Bodies Monday, 1 July 2002, 1:45 pm Press Release: Gush
Shalom Forwarded by Gush Shalom.. INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY MOVEMENT http://www.palsolidarity.org
INTERNATIONALS STOP TANK ADVANCEMENT WITH BODIES Arrest of American peace
activist and journalists [NABLUS] Earlier today international peace activists
investigated a home that local Palestinians believed was seized by the
military. After determining that Israeli soldiers had indeed taken the
top floor of the house they tried to speak with the family. The family
is confined to the top floor and was not allowed to speak freely with the
internationals. In the street internationals made signs warning the local
population of the military presence. One armored personnel carrier (APC),
one tank and a bulldozer rolled down the street towards the house. With
local press from Reuters and other agencies as well as the internationals
taping, four international civilians representing the USA, UK, Canada and
Israel laid down in the street effectively stopping the advancement of
the Israeli military. Israeli forces resorted to violence launching tear
gas and sound grenades at them but the activists held fast. The military
backed away and approached from another direction and the same situation
was replayed. Israeli army jeeps arrived and arrested the press, forcing
them into jeeps and taking them to an uknown location. The journalists
are: Hassan Titti and Abed Qusini from Reuters. One American peace activist,
Eric Levine, was forced into another jeep and hauled away. At this point
we are trying to determine Eric's condition and whereabouts. International
civilians are still intent on protecting the family from the Israeli military
and will remain in the area. Video footage may be available. For more information
in Nablus contact: Rae Levine – 056-382-317 Neta Golan – 059-871-055 Marissa
McLaughlin – 067-360-810 For more information on The International Solidarity
Movement contact: Huwaida Arraf – 052-642-709 or 067-473-308 ----------------------
ll terrobull 'leaders' taunt peers; commoners merely ammo (english) via
rob schaap 4:01am Tue Jul 2 '02 article#189521 there's just too much unenlightened
'distorterone' goin' 'round to keep it peaceful ----- June 23, 2002 Anti-U.S.
militants showing up all over By ERIC MARGOLIS -- Contributing Foreign
Editor [A-List] Blowback Status Report Rob Schaap a-list@lists.econ.utah.edu
Tue Jul 2 01:39:01 2002 Previous message: [A-List] Asia into the center:
Turkey's eastward turn Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject
] [ author ] ----------------- Someone CC this to Christopher Hitchens
and any fellow triumphalists you can think of, eh? Under the sway of warlords
- Arafat, Sharon, Bush, bin Laden and so many others - we find a perverse
confluence of interests, whereby each elite seeks to perpetrate and perpetuate
a war-footing for its own political reasons and, in their hatred for each
other, serve each other's agendas admirably. It can't last - might not
even last, as I suspect it was designed to do - Bush's term ... but Gawd-only-knows
what will have been wrought by then ... Cheers, Rob. http://www.canoe.ca/
Columnists/margolis_jun23.html June 23, 2002 Anti-U.S. militants showing
up all over By ERIC MARGOLIS -- Contributing Foreign Editor ZURICH -- According
to a secret government report revealed last week by the New York Times,
the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan not only "failed to diminish the threat
to the United States," but actually complicated the U.S. counter-terrorism
campaign by dispersing its radical foes across the Muslim world. The small,
tightly-knit leadership of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida has been succeeded
by a group of younger militants who have formed ad hoc alliances with other
anti-U.S. groups from Morocco to Indonesia. These groups now pose the most
serious danger to the United States and will remain a potent threat for
years to come. This dismaying report confirms what this writer has been
saying in columns and on CNN since 9/11. A full-scale military invasion
of Afghanistan would prove futile; the correct response was intelligence
and police work, not brute force. Al-Qaida's numbers were grossly exaggerated
by the Bush administration and U.S. media. Hardcore al-Qaida members never
numbered more than 200-300. Claims that there were 5,000-20,000 al-Qaida
fighters in Afghanistan were nonsense. These wild exaggerations came from
lumping Taliban tribal warriors with some 5,000 Islamic resistance fighters
from Kashmir, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, the Philippines and Chinese-ruled
Eastern Turkistan, none of whom were part of al-Qaida. The reason 12,000
U.S., British and Canadian troops operating in Afghanistan can't find al-Qaida
- a campaign that has so far cost over US$10 billion - is that there were
few to begin with; by now, most have slipped away through Pakistan. Instead,
the U.S. is getting mired in Afghan tribal politics by trying to maintain
a regime in Kabul that will take orders from Washington. Last week's much
ballyhooed grand tribal council, or loya jirga, that "elected" CIA "asset"
Hamid Karzai as national leader was a wildly expensive charade conducted
under the guns of U.S. and British troops. Karzai's "election" has cost
Washington $5 billion in bribes and payoffs to Afghan warlords. As soon
as U.S. and British occupation troops decamp, Afghanistan will again dissolve
into tribal chaos or fall under the control of Russia, which continues
to arm and direct the Northern Alliance. Fury over Palestine It's also
becoming painfully clear that Afghanistan was never the true epicentre
of anti-U.S. militancy, as Washington initially believed. The real hotbeds
of Islamic resistance to the United States lay in Egypt, Arabia, North
Africa and Europe. According to the leaked report in the Times, a loose
network of anti-American groups have surfaced in these regions, united
mainly by their fury over events in Palestine, America's impending invasion
of Iraq, and opposition to America's political and economic domination
in the Muslim World. Osama bin Laden, be he dead or alive, and his al-Qaida
movement have become irrelevant. In truth, they were never much more than
a symbol of hatred and defiance. But their message, propagated by 9/11,
has reverberated around the world. The torch of anti-Americanism is being
taken up by the "jihadi" movement - Muslim veterans of the war against
the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980s - and by a younger generation
of militants. Sizeable numbers of anti-American militants have been uncovered
in Europe and arrested by local police and intelligence forces, the only
major success, to date, of the "war on terrorism." But more hostile groups
are springing up faster than they can be identified or neutralized. Call
this the privatization of warfare. Many young Muslims despair their own
feeble, corrupt, U.S.-dominated regimes will ever bring justice to the
Palestinians, save Iraq from invasion by the U.S., or end what they view
as oppressive American influence over their nations. They are taking matters
into their own hands by waging a personalized war against the United States
and Israel, two nations that have become one in the eyes of the Muslim
world. Forty years ago, the Islamic world regarded the United States as
its best friend and saviour. Today, the two are on a collision course.
There is growing fear across the Muslim world that the Bush administration
is being driven by backers of Israel and fundamentalist Christians into
a modern anti-Islamic crusade. Powell sidelined The leaked report in the
Times likely originated from Colin Powell's Department of State. Powell
is widely respected abroad as the administration's most intelligent and
ethical member, but he has been almost totally sidelined because of his
opposition to invading Iraq and waging a wider war against the Muslim world.
Foreign policy - particularly towards the Mideast and South/Central Asia
- has been taken over by a hardline, ardently pro-Israel faction in the
Pentagon and the office of Vice President Dick Cheney. Powell may soon
resign in disgust. President Bush's National Security Advisor, Condoleezza
Rice, should provide balance and nuance. But she has shown herself a rigid
ideologue with poor judgment and very limited understanding of the outside
world. She is in way over her head. Bush is not getting the sound advice
he needs. As a result, he has been vacillating and contradicting himself
for months. Afghanistan, billed only last fall as a triumph for America
and President Bush, is now looking less and less like a victory and more
each day like the beginning of a long, bloody struggle that could and should
have been avoided. Eric can be reached by e-mail at margolis@foreigncorrespondent.com
canoe.ca/Columnists/margolis_jun23.html -------------------- Nietzsche’s
Understanding of Zarathushtra’s Philosophy[1] Series: Source: Author: Pearlstein,Arthur
Subtopics: Reference: Related Articles: Related Links: In Ecce Homo, essentially
Nietzsche's autobiography, he expresses surprise that no one ever asked
what the real Zarathushtra meant to him (most folks wrongly thought it
was just Nietzsche having some fun). "What constitutes the tremendous uniqueness
of that Persian in history" Nietzsche wrote, was that "Zarathushtra was
the first to see in the struggle between good and evil the actual wheel
in the working of things....". And although Nietzsche was not a fan of
the moral categories that Judeo-Christians then seized upon, he pointed
out that Zarathushtra's teaching "and his alone, upholds truthfulness as
the supreme virtue... To tell the truth and to shoot well with arrows:
that is Persian virtue." He called Zarathushtra "more truthful than any
other thinker." And he announced that "the self-overcoming of morality
through truthfulness is what the name Zarathustra means in my mouth." Nietzsche,
in other words, praised Zarathushtra for what Nietzsche took to be his
willingness to take a fresh look at the world and to make distinctions
(as between "good and evil"). But the specific values of GOOD and EVIL
that evolved (through what I take to be Judeo-Christian MIS-interpretation
of Zarathushtra) --based upon a transcendental, unchanging, objective,
omniscient, supreme God-- were anathema to Nietzsche. Why? Because such
values do not apply to what we as human beings are in real life. We are
not omnipotent beings--never will be. These kinds of values do not promote
growth but rather inhibit the realization of our potential as human beings.
They deny our nature. The ubermensch or overman[2] that Nietzsche spoke
of (and which I take to be analogous to what Zarathushtra wants us to aspire
to) looks at the world as it is (and uses what Zarathushtra would call
his "good mind") to generate values from that very environment--he then
tests these values in the real world, avoiding prejudgment. Rather than
deny the drives within him and his needs for gratification, the overman
joyously pursues the fullness of his potential--guilt and negativity are
avoided. Likewise, Zarathushtra himself was anything but an ascetic (and
in this aspect, at least, most Zoroastrians--even among the traditionalists,
still agree. In the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition, for example, sex
is somehow sinful--something that both Nietzsche and Zarathushtra would
consider utterly absurd). "Good and evil" are not specifically, immutably
defined terms (Dr. Jafarey's definition, I think, is suitably generic)--not
some higher authority, some set of holy values for us to discover--rather,
according to Nietzsche, the overman trusts himself to make the distinction
between good and evil. My own personal take is that it is a pragmatic calculus--that
which promotes the welfare of the "living world," that which helps us realize
our potential and radiate happiness. But, in any case, values themselves
are not immutable--they can and should change as we make the world, as
in Dr. Jafarey's translation "ever fresh." This process of renovation of
the world--reinvention and self-realization, taking nothing for granted,
is what it means to live (I think both to Nietzsche and to Zarathushtra).
It is life itself. This, I think, is what Nietzsche means by the term "overcoming."
That's a brief summary of where I think Nietzsche is on Zarathushtra. Zarathushtra,
I believe, was a very powerful inspiration to Nietzsche and few westerners
(I dare say few people) have ever understood Zarathushtra so intelligently.
[1] These notes were produced by Arthur Pearlstein. He has had an interest
in understanding Nietzsche’s philosophy starting in college when the trivial
fact that Nietzsche and him have the same birthday caught his attention.
[2] Insight into the significance of the term Overman provided courtesy
of Mr. Alexander Bard: Overman as in the English word ‘overcoming,’ meaning
Man overcoming his own predicament, understanding who he is, beyond his
own actions. This is the same as introducing words, deeds, actions as ethics.
Strictly, seeing the human condition as a series of cause and effect. Making
ethics immanent. Reducing the transcendental to a condition for the thought
process. This is the exact opposite of Judeo-Christian thought where Man
is REMOVED from Nature and Mind is turned into an independent capacity
from, for example, The Body or The Context. Nietzsche puts Mind back into
The Body and makes it a part of The Body, realizing that Mind, although
its product is different from Nature (Culture) is not in any way independent
of Nature. Because without Nature (as in Body or Society) there would be
no Mind. Superman, as in a transcendentally superior being to current Man,
is a totally absurd notion to Nietzsche. This is why for example Nazism
(but also much of current popular culture) or for that matter the worship
of messiahs as “men of God” is totally alien to Nietzscheanism, as it of
course is to Zarathushtra. The founder of our religion is our equal, not
our superior. http://www.vohuman.org/Articles/ Nietzsche’s%20Understanding%
20of%20Zarathushtra’s_Philosophy.htm ------------- Some Major Problems
with the Future of Civilization + 11 ---- Autonomedia: Neo-Nazi Infiltration
of Anti-Globalization Protests Report from Jenin Cautionary tale for those
travelling to Palestine Earth First Activists Win Case Against FBI! "Autonomous
Action" Organization Founded in Former U.S.S.R. Kissinger May Face Chilean
Justice Fatwa Issued Against Software Piracy New York State Green Party
Nominates Stanley Aronowitz for Governor Medical Marijuana Intiative Sought
for New York State Turkish Anarchist Trial Takes Political Turn ----- hot
stories: Resistance is futile! (145) Why Not Reclaim the Left? (127) A
howard zinn one too. An Anarchist Program For Labor (105) Sketches Of Spain
by John Zerzan (93) --------- Some Major Problems with the Future of Civilization
posted by hpwombat on Friday June 28 2002 @ 09:10PM PDT Some Major Problems
with the Future of Civilization by High Priest Wombat, KSC As one searches
for the limits of a community within a global society future one wonders
why can't a single community say fuck-all to its neighbors and develop
a highly technological locality. Afterall if the decision-making is fair
and democratic and no coersion occurs between individuals within the community,
then its decision to go forward with technology should have no problem...right?
Well, not exactly. Much of pre-industrial technology might be able to continue
at this level, but I'm not looking at a society that has erased the history
of capitalism and perhaps wishes to continue with many of the industrial
and post-industrial technologies that were developed during its time. These
technologies require more than simply drawling from an isolated region
to upkeep. Even the simplest lightbulb or television set requires the community
to reach further than its own resources can manage. But it doesn't stop
here and even some civilizations that use pre- industrial technologies
could fall into this next point. This point being that of the pollutants
needed to be produced so that these technologies can exist and function
can have an affect outside of the community, and perhaps could affect regions,
nations, and perhaps even the entire globe. Certain levels of pollutants
may not seem much, but overtime, the buildup of even the smallest pollutants
can expand outside of the community. These pollutants could even be the
waste created by the concentrated piss and shit that humanity dumps into
the rivers, lakes, and oceans in order not to contaminate their own communities.
No civilization can avoid these concentrations of pollutants, and the larger
the urban sprawls get, the greater these pollutants affect areas outside
their own communities. Now we have astablished that this single community
cannot have most technologies by itself if its desire is to not have a
coersive relationship with its neighbors. So now we see that most levels
of technology and most levels of civilization have a need for communities
to confederate in order to maintain its most basic of functions. These
confederations must expand like a web over regions for all of civilization,
and for most industrial and post-industrial civilizations these confederations
must even reach the global level to continue. This begins to present problems,
especially if civilization is presented with communities that don't want
to participate in the maintenence of civilization. If there is a desire
to end or dramatically reduce the project of civilization, the community
that desires this suddenly throws the web of civilization completely out
of wack. This could include the resources that lie within the regions they
dominate and the plants and factories that lay within that community, forcing
other regions to seek these resources elsewhere. But elsewhere may be too
costly or too rare for a high technology community to aquire and if these
communities don't recieve the technologies they need to maintain their
level of civilization, collapse and death could be massive. So now we are
presented with some conflicts. Pollutants and the demand for resources
have a level of coersion that must be accepted, even by those that don't
desire it, resulting in coersion towards those communities forced to aid
in the project of civilization against their will. Or the more advanced
civilizations must accept a level of its population abandoning, suffering,
and/or dying to avoid this coersion. It is completely justifiable and ethical
for individuals affected by coersion to strike out against those that coerse
their communities, and perhaps even simply individuals that are coersed
can strike out. But on the flip side it is justifiable, though unethical,
for most civilized communities to demand from those communities that reject
a certain level of civilization to continue granting resources and accepting
pollutants needed so that misery doesn't set in the higher of civilized
communities. If these undercivilized communities refuse (again justifiable
though unethical), the higher civilized communities can aggress, perhaps
even violently, against these communities to prevent suffering. If these
communities work with the confederations required to maintain civilization,
perhaps a happy medium can be found, though it is clear that even if undercivilized
communities demand to be pulled out of these confederations they would
not be free of confederal influence and may have to still comply to the
guidelines presented within them as long as these confederations have a
level of dominance in society. So we are left with a few questions for
the future. Could a happy medium be developed even if it comes at the expense
of an acceptable level of coersion, much like workers of today's capitalist
era must accept shitty wages in order to live? Could technology continue
to progress, or even alter to a level where these problems can be avoided?
Can these problems be avoided if communities refuse to participate in confederal
bodies from the get go? The uncertainty of a socialist future lies in the
hands of the present, a direction must be found. -------- technology is
the key (part 1) writes on Saturday June 29 2002 @ 01:03AM PDT: [ reply
| parent ] Where is your right person, party, ideology, system going to
come from? How are we going to resolve societies big social or ecological
problems? I dont believe that delegating tasks to others is the solution
to my problems. I dont trust anyone, especially the laws and government
others create. I am an eco-anarchist, I have no morals, just a global social
ethic based on ecological survival of the individual, voluntary action
of the individual and a greater understanding of the bio-geochemical processes
composing our environment. My ethic is based on a radical ecological survivalist
discourse and its about the equal distribution of vital resources like
food, water and air for all people across all times. As our populations
expand and our resources dwindle, there be a time when most people realise
capitalist democracies are not good enough and that a new way to structure
our economies is required. Developments on the internet create an alternative,
globalised economy of ideas, where the dominant forces from the past has
far less status. I think the computers and internet, in the years to come,
will create a form of artifical intelligence from free information that
is able to be trusted by everyone. This will become more likely as the
conditions around us detetriorate and we turn to technology for solutions.
What I think you will find is that our infrastructure (hardware, machines,
communication and transport systems, etc) will be managed and electronically
controlled by a distributed network, with strict rules, dictating fairness
and ensuring equality. Hopefully society will collectively realise the
importance of protecting ourselves, from individuals, wilfully and unknowingly
behaving in a manner which causes harm, but at the same time ensure freedoms
are maintained for everyone else. I do not want a law trying to protect
me, I want a democratic use of technology providing security for myself
and all life. http://geekpress.com/ http://www.megarad.com/ http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Default.html
http://www.arstechnica.com/ http://www.osopinion.com/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/
http://www.techreview.com/ http://www.extremetech.com/ Net = free info
for all (part 2) writes on Saturday June 29 2002 @ 01:09AM PDT: [ reply
| parent ] On the net I very rarely pay for specific pieces of information
but I have access to practically an infinite source of it. Do weak theories
such as alchemy, copyright, or religous thought get defeated when technology
is used, yes. Information deserves no special rights such as the GPL, or
copyright. I do not believe any software licensing arrangements such as
copyright will ever work effectively. I think it is bizarre to suggest
that someone that sells something, then has any right over the product.
Information is not special, its one of a number of vital resources we all
need for our survival. To create peace, my utopia we must ensure everyone
has abundant access to vital resources, like information. Inferior ideologogies,
which fails to provide good progress should be replaced by an improved
viable alternative based on science. I believe the nature of free information
is related to recent developments in hardware but more importantly, the
fact that software, is a way to communicate. Simply put, a language is
something almost everyone needs and has. Isn't it to be expected that our
information technology develops free communication channels where any and
all languages are exchanged? You would probably like to grow your own food
if it was easy as using a microwave. What about a technology that allows
food sources to be in abundance. I want this because I dont want anyone
to profit from the provision of resources vital to me needs. In the years
to come why can't biogenetics produces orchard plants that can grow along
roadsides and in backyards, or make farms 10 x more productive, or 10 x
cheaper? Aren't science developments based on a majority of people working
together in a civilised altruistic manner going to create these sort of
advances during this century? I think academics in the universities around
the world had better do a much better job quickly and I think the internet
allows for this to occur at a global level. I think the good politicians
need to work much harder. Together with the staff working for our governments,
both academics and politicians need to collaborate in a manner similiar
to the development of free software to provide the vital needs to everyone
at no cost. If not, our planet's ecology will not exist, in its current
form for too much longer. http://www.zeropaid.com/ http://www.slyck.com
http://www.openp2p.com http://www.blog.org/ http://www.badassgeek.com http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/
http://news.openflows.org/ http://www.newsforge.org http://www.stallman.org/
----------------- writes on Saturday June 29 2002 @ 01:11AM PDT: [ reply
| parent ] Graham Seaman" To: list-en@oekonux.org on Free Software The
most dramatic aspect of free software is not the existence of free software
itself, but the way the core of it has been produced: outside the framework
of commercial software houses, outside the framework of universities, produced
neither as a commodity with a sale value nor even as research work funded
by the state. Production in co-operating groups is made technically possible
by the existence of the internet. But the existence of such groups is a
social phenomenon, typically at least partly based on physical areas. Typically
the first sign of the spread of free software to a new country has been
participation by individuals, often working on internationalisation of
existing software. Soon after comes the formation of Linux User Groups,
Perlmongers groups, or other such groups. Such groups have often been started
by students, or have a university base, but soon expand beyond this. Once
such groups exist, there is a virtuous circle of feedback; local pools
of developers encourage one anothers development and begin to create a
local culture of free software. This process has seen free software spread
first across Northern Europe and the USA (with a rather separate subculture
in Japan), then across southern Europe, and currently across Eastern Europe
and the larger of the former '3rd World' countries (Brazil, South Africa,
India). This process has particular advantages for countries outside the
'inner circle' of capitalist countries. These countries have little hope
of taking a lead in production of commercial software; the best they can
hope for in conventional software production is to provide cheap labour
for software houses within the inner circle countries. Free software production
provides these countries with the possibility of working at world level
in software; of creating a skilled workforce; of creating software which
is tailored to local culture and languages; and of breaking the dependency
on software imports. These possibilities are not limited to software only.
Possibilities for chip and electronic hardware design are even more limited
outside the inner circle countries; the emergence of free hardware design
may be starting to repeat the successes of free software in a very similar
way. The same applies to all production methods based on digital systems;
bioinformatics and genetics may also be heading in the same direction.
What can a state wishing to encourage these tendencies do? Since the whole
process is based on spontaneous, self-organised groups who are not motivated
by money (at least in this aspect of their lives) the usual bureaucratic
method of 'throwing money' at the problem will not work. But the state
can do something to defend and protect these groups against the challenges
being thrown up by the commercial software interests. 1. Refuse the adoption
of patent law applied to software. 2. Ensure that copyright law allows
the presence of free software. In some countries (especially those where
copyright has been heavily based on author's rights) it is unclear whether
the General Public License is valid. Where there are such doubts, copyright
law that explicitly allowed for the existence of free software on a public
good basis would be a great step forward. 3. Where forced to accept Intellectual
Property law aimed at combatting piracy, ensure that explicit clauses are
inserted exempting free software from any unwanted side effects of these
laws. 4. For those countries involved in the TRIPs process, the least restrictive
framework allowed within the rules should be chosen at each stage. In this
the interests of free software, free hardware design etc coincide with
those of countries needing to protect indigenous knowledge, the right to
produce generic drugs in cases of medical need, etc. 5. While not the core
of free software, universities have played a major part in its creation.
An explicit policy that software produced in universities must be free
would encourage this for the future. In particular, since Microsoft and
others are beginning to argue that the General Public License should not
be used by Universities, the right of universities to choose this license
needs to be explicitly acknowledged. 6. While not so essential as protection
of free software creation, protection and encouragement of free software
use can also be important. Laws encouraging the use of free software for
state business have already been passed in some Brazilian states and in
Germany, and are being debated in many other countries. The models to follow
already exist here. -------------- Dissipate contraction (part 4) writes
on Saturday June 29 2002 @ 01:26AM PDT: [ reply | parent ] The next 3 paragraphs
are my summary of the future of humanity The early 21 st century will be
a period of hard democracy or increasing civil unrest as the tyranny of
capitalism begins a dissipative contraction with a global depletion of
cheap energy, employment and natural resources while a major worldwide
refugee and oil depression will occur in 2012 to 2014. In a new political
era, every human shall use advanced information information, a hydrogen
fuel network, biotechnology and then after removing both the religous and
capitalist ideology, by the 4 th decade of this millenia humanity will
walk into orbit on a nanotech path, leaving an Earth in the flux of global
climate change. Humanities greatest ever achievement will be exploration
of the solar sytem and the start the journey to the promosing nearby stars,
while some will stay with Sol, to mother the Earth's recovery from our
greenhouse follies and to preserve this miracle for not just us, but our
ancestors and all other living beings in the universe. my speculative vision:
2003 - 2100 opinions of notable events, the future of humanity as a timeline
2003 Kyoto Protocol fail to achieve 55% of emission coverage, is abanded
Economic slump continues, while Europe and Asia show recovery, except for
Indonesia and Japan, Soth Korea, facing large debt problems mobile, wireless
internet explosion global unemployment increases, global inflation rises
unusual weather and atmospheric turbidity increasing widespread scientific
acknowledgement that global climate change is impending, unstoppable and
requires drastic changes of lifestyle by first world citizens (contraction)
use of foresight by educated people to convince energy users that changing
the voluntary actions of individuals energy consumption is only solution
to global climate change -------------on Saturday June 29 2002 @ 02:56AM
PDT: [ reply | parent ] The internet has been a boon to anarchism,imagine
the bonnot gang online.A computer has been compared to a musket during
the US revolution,and with good reason.Remote villages dont need wells
before computers they need net access to e-mail out that "HEY,were dying
of thirst here,send in some well drillers."I realize that computers are
a product of alienated labour and the web today resembles a suveilled strip
mall,but if we lose the 'commons' a second time we stand to rapidly join
in ongoing mass extinction events.Let free market APster bring down the
curtain on the 'free market' era.Each individual is important now,see ch
4 of the rand report and smog/net/sabotage for ideas on making a difference.
----------- bananarama writes on Saturday June 29 2002 @ 04:01AM PDT: [
reply | parent ] I think that you've misunderstood the level of economic
integration in the world. While the idea of transnational corporations
is an attractive one with regards to globalization the world is a little
more decentralized than that. If you look at patterns of development in
the third world you'll find that before trade was turned into the motor
of progress that it was recognized that production was localized. And that
production could be encouraged or discouraged, implemented in an egalitarian
way or an inegalitarian way, depending on the governmental factors in the
makeup of power in the country. This means that there is a limit to corporate
power. After a certain level corporations yield to economic autarchy and
self reliance. Before production dictates the circumstances that you've
outlined it serves the purpose of satisfying human needs. Because of this
it's somewhat possible to work outward from people's consumption demands
to the setup of the productive forces within the scope of economic autarchy,
with the result that it's possible to fine tune the resource use and the
way that production is implemented. This could open the door to more humane
ways of economic activity which don't violate confederal rights as much
as you've suggested. But, yeah, the world economy is interdendent, which
means that there has to be some cooperation. However, that doesn't mean
that the interdependence which follows from some economic situations has
to imply mass coercion in the most regressive way. ----------- anarchocommunist
writes on Saturday June 29 2002 @ 06:59AM PDT: [ reply | parent ] No friend
of primitivists, I at least feel compelled to say that this is one of those
times where you wish there was an adjective before primitivist (or some
nod towards that). Beware the confederations who would enslave you? Halt
technology to guarantee the certainty of a "socialist future"? Some of
where this leads would make any sane person a little edgy. -------------
steelhead writes on Saturday June 29 2002 @ 03:24PM PDT: [ reply | parent
] OK, noone has EVER replied to my question with a pro-industrial answer,
here goes again: The growth (or even maintenace) of industrialism requires
massive extraction of copper and other metals - the process of which (to
say nothing of the smelting, anodizing, etc) is extremely alienating labor
and severely toxic. Even if you "automate" the problem away, someone has
to build the machines that build the machines or repair them or transport
replacement parts for them (requiring an increasingly large worldwide system
of roads, rails, planes, ships: more resource extraction - less wilderness
- more shitty jobs). Somewhere down the line, people and the Earth are
getting screwed. How will industrialism continue and expand as pro-industrial
anti-authoritarians wish without seriously stepping on some toes? I'm not
addressing this as an attack, I've just not heard any replies and theory
is all well and good and all but how many of y'all have taken a look at
the nuts and bolts of the issue. Any takers? -------------- hpwombat writes
on Saturday June 29 2002 @ 04:07PM PDT: [ reply | parent ] Well, you must
present a reason for it to continue. Perhaps a space program is desired,
which could make short term ecological damage tolerable for the longer
goal of putting industry in an environment that the less technological
wouldn't be affected by, or a crisis has developed and people need heavy
industry to develop ways for all or certain segments of humanity to continue,
or perhaps people like industry more than absolute cooperation...seeing
the interests of the greater majority as more positive than the interests
of the few that desire freedom from technology...if the many were the ones
that desired industry that is. That is about all I could say. -----------
Steelhead writes on Sunday June 30 2002 @ 11:58AM PDT: [ reply | parent
] It doesn't sound idealistic to me nearly so much as it sounds like a
collossal waste of time. Children in an anarchist future get to spend their
time being "educated" so they can service the machines? Those kids could
be playing in the garden or rope swinging down by the creek looking for
frogs! Heck, I don't wanna sit behind a computer designing new gadgets
and then running a factory too. Boring! I have creeks and frogs and gardens
that demand my attention! You seem to have conveniently ignored the resource
extraction and loss of wilderness too. You don't get to sweep ecological
issues under the rug just because they're not your favorite area of activism.
hpwombat writes on Sunday June 30 2002 @ 12:29PM PDT: [ reply | parent
] excellent points! I'll keep it in mind. ------------ Sven writes on Sunday
June 30 2002 @ 05:38AM PDT: [ reply | parent ] Automation is, of course,
a fundamental - albeit still partial - "solution". It would be interesting
if there could also be a decentralization of the production into cleaner,
smaller units than today's massive industrial estates (at least when appropriate).
As for the "shitty jobs" question, the only viable solution I can think
of is some form of "job rotation", based on a time bank concept: everyone
dedicates a daily/weekly/monthly amount of her/his time to do her/his "community"
part of unpleasant work (which isn't only of the industrial kind, of course:
see also public toilet cleaning, street cleaning, etc.). ... And, of course,
together with much more "clean" and advanced technology than today's, there
really also must be some form of libertarian, polytechnic (art + science
+ technology + ...) education for *everyone* (more or less as Kropotkin
and others envisaged), in order to be able to manage the machines and production
processes, etc. in an effectively decentralized and directly democratic
way. In a few words, there shouldn't be any "traditional" industrial workers
anymore: they should gradually be replaced by skilled and interested "tech
artisans" - some form of "artistical" technological renaissance, that is...
(I know, it may sound rather idealistic: but I guess we'll have to wait
and see what happens in the coming years to have a better idea of how we
can go beyond capitalism without in any way sacrifying the positive aspects
of human technological development.) --------------- gumby writes on Sunday
June 30 2002 @ 11:02AM PDT: [ reply | parent ] Ugh. "Perhaps a space program
is desired, which could make short term ecological damage tolerable..."
A space program? Desirable? And how the fuck do you have a space program
that causes only "short term ecological damage"? Biodegradable satellites?
Bio-diesel rocket fuel? I find it really funny that all the anti-primitivists
out there call primitivism idealistic. But in timeframe we are working
with, the reality is that 'green technologies' will not be the norm before
mass die-off. Call me pessimistic. Can anyone tell me how pro-techs can
have their gizmos without affecting all of us that are willing to chuck
technology in the interest of survival? I'm not just talking about 'going
green' with technology. First you've gotta convince all the fuckers who
are getting rich off destroying the planet to 'go green'. Good luck. When's
the last time ya'll got out to the woods or the ocean or the desert to
see what we're losing? And I'm not talking day-hike on some purty little
park-like manicured trail. I don't want to coerce anyone into anything.
But the technological infrastructure and the degradation that it requires
to exist are coercing myself and millions of others to live on a toxic
planet. And many of those millions have never SEEN a computer. They don't
pipe in on message boards. Technology is coercive. I know it's not a popular
stance, but popular stances are killing us all. -------------- hpwombat
writes on Sunday June 30 2002 @ 12:25PM PDT: [ reply | parent ] "And how
the fuck do you have a space program that causes only "short term ecological
damage"?" Leave the Planet enmasse? Obviously there are many things that
must be concidered for such things to occur. Who knows, it might be even
more possible after capitalism drops a few tactical nukes on highly populated
areas, that would give us areas to pollute on where the damage would be
less because the surrounding area is already contaminated for a few eons,
so something that would only damage the area for a few hundred years would
matter less. We aren't getting a perfect planet after capitalism is finished,
nor is socialism going to be all happy fun and games, aggression seems
to be a very real possibility if a medium is not found. "I find it really
funny that all the anti-primitivists out there call primitivism idealistic."
Its funny that you say that, I'm not neither anti nor pro primitive, we
aren't at a point to decide exactly what is going to happen, though as
the ecological crisis continues to unfold, we grow closer to the time to
decide when we've had enough with capitalism. Who knows, we might not even
get far enough to even decide, capitalism could very well kill us all.
Now we can both be pessimistic. "Can anyone tell me how pro-techs can have
their gizmos without affecting all of us that are willing to chuck technology
in the interest of survival?" No, I can tell you that the industrial and
post-industrial technologies will affect all of us, and perhaps people
will want to chuck it all in the interest of survival. "First you've gotta
convince all the fuckers who are getting rich off destroying the planet
to 'go green'." Well, I'm discussing socialism, so nobody is getting rich
in this scenerio, though obviously in the present we have a great conflict
as profit-interest collides with the interests of self-preservation. "Technology
is coercive. I know it's not a popular stance, but popular stances are
killing us all." I agree. ------------------------------------ What is
vanguardism and why do anarchists reject it? + 21 What is vanguardism and
why do anarchists reject it? posted by Reverend Chuck0 on Friday June 28
2002 @ 09:47PM PDT H.8 What is vanguardism and why do anarchists reject
it? Many socialists follow the ideas of Lenin and, in particular, his ideas
on vanguard parties. These ideas were expounded by Lenin in his (in)famous
work, What is to be Done?, which is considered as one of the important
books in the development of Bolshevism. The core of these ideas is the
concept of "vanguardism," or the "vanguard party." According to this perspective,
socialists need to organise together in a party, based on the principles
of "democratic centralism," which aims to gain a decisive influence in
the class struggle. The ultimate aim of such a party is revolution and
its seizure of power. Its short term aim is to gather into it all "class
conscious" workers into a "efficient" and "effective" party, alongside
members of other classes who consider themselves as revolutionary Marxists.
The party would be strictly centralised, with all members expected to submit
to party decisions, speak in one voice and act in one way. Without this
"vanguard," injecting its politics into the working class (who, it is argued,
can only reach trade union consciousness by its own efforts), a revolution
is impossible. Lenin laid the foundation of this kind of party in his book
What is to be Done? and the vision of the "vanguard" party was explicitly
formalised in the Communist International. As Lenin put it, "Bolshevism
has created the ideological and tactical foundations of a Third International
. . . Bolshevism can serve as a model of tactics for all." [Collected Works,
vol. 28, p. 292-3] Using the Russian Communist Party as its model, Bolshevik
ideas on party organisation were raised as a model for revolutionaries
across the world. Since then, the various followers of Leninism and its
offshoots like Trotskyism have organised themselves in this manner (with
varying success). The wisdom of applying an organisational model that had
been developed in the semi-feudal conditions of Tsarist Russia to every
country, regardless of its level of development, has been questioned by
anarchists from the start. After all, could it not be wiser to build upon
the revolutionary tendencies which had developed in specific countries
rather than import a new model which had been created for, and shaped by,
radically different social, political and economic conditions? The wisdom
of applying the vanguard model is not questioned on these (essentially
materialist) points by those who subscribe to it. While revolutionary workers
in the advanced capitalist nations subscribed to anarchist and syndicalist
ideas, this tradition is rejected in favour of one developed by, in the
main, bourgeois intellectuals in a nation which was still primarily feudal
and absolutist. The lessons learned from years of struggle in actual capitalist
societies were simply rejected in favour of those from a party operating
under Tsarism. While most supporters of vanguardism will admit that conditions
now are different than in Tsarist Russia, they still subscribe to organisational
method developed in that context and justify it, ironically enough, because
of its "success" in the totally different conditions that prevailed in
Russia in the early 20th Century! And Leninists claim to be materialists!
Perhaps the reason why Bolshevism rejected the materialist approach was
because most of the revolutionary movements in advanced capitalist countries
were explicitly anti-parliamentarian, direct actionist, decentralist, federalist
and influenced by libertarian ideas? This materialist analysis was a key
aspect of the council-communist critique of Lenin's Left-Wing Communism,
for example (see Herman Gorter's Open Letter to Comrade Lenin for one excellent
reply to Bolshevik arguments, tactics and assumptions). However, this attempt
to squeeze every working class movement into one "officially approved"
model dates back to Marx and Engels. Faced with any working class movement
which did not subscribe to their vision of what they should be doing (namely
organised in political parties to take part in "political action," i.e.
standing in bourgeois elections) they simply labelled it as the product
of non-proletarian "sects." They went so far as to gerrymander the 1872
conference of the First International to make acceptance of "political
action" mandatory on all sections in an attempt to destroy anarchist influence
in it. So this section of our FAQ will explain why anarchists reject this
model. In our view, the whole concept of a "vanguard party" is fundamentally
anti-socialist. Rather than present an effective |
and efficient means
of achieving revolution, the Leninist model is elitist, hierarchical and
highly inefficient in achieving a socialist society. At best, these parties
play a harmful effect in the class struggle by alienating activists and
militants with their organisational principles and manipulative tactics
within popular structures and groups. At worse, these parties can seize
power and create a new form of class society (a state capitalist one) in
which the working class is oppressed by new bosses (namely, the party hierarchy
and its appointees). As we discuss in section H.8.9, their "efficiency"
is a false economy. However, before discussing why anarchists reject "vanguardism"
we need to stress a few points. Firstly, anarchists recognise the obvious
fact that the working class is divided in terms of political consciousness.
Secondly, from this fact most anarchists recognise the need to organise
together to spread our ideas as well as taking part in, influencing and
learning from the class struggle. As such, anarchists have long been aware
of the need for revolutionaries to organise as revolutionaries. Thirdly,
anarchists are well aware of the importance of revolutionary minorities
playing an inspiring and "leading" role in the class struggle. We do not
reject the need for revolutionaries to "give a lead" in struggles, we reject
the idea of institutionalised leadership and the creation of a leader/led
hierarchy implicit (and sometimes no so implicit) in vanguardism. As such,
we do not oppose "vanguardism" for these reasons. So when Leninists like
Tony Cliff argue that it is "unevenness in the class [which] makes the
party necessary," anarchists reply that "unevenness in the class" makes
it essential that revolutionaries organise together to influence the class
but that organisation does not and need not take the form of a vanguard
party. [Tony Cliff, Lenin, vol. 2, p. 149] This is because we reject the
concept and practice for three reasons. Firstly, and most importantly,
anarchists reject the underlying assumption of vanguardism. As we discuss
in the next section, vanguardism is based on the argument that "socialist
consciousness" has to be introduced into the working class from outside.
We argue that not only is this position is empirically false, it is fundamentally
anti-socialist in nature. This is because it logically denies that the
emancipation of the working class is the task of the working class itself.
Moreover, it serves to justify elite rule. Some Leninists, embarrassed
by the obvious anti-socialist nature of this concept, try and argue that
Lenin (and so Leninism) does not hold this position. As we prove in section
H.8.4, such claims are false. Secondly, there is the question of organisational
structure. Vanguard parties are based on the principle of "democratic centralism"
(see section H.8.5). Anarchists argue that such parties, while centralised,
are not, in fact, democratic nor can they be. As such, the "revolutionary"
or "socialist" party is no such thing as it reflects the structure of the
capitalist system it claims to oppose. We discuss this in sections H.8.6
and H.8.10. Lastly, anarchists argue that such parties are, despite the
claims of their supporters, not actually very efficient or effective in
the revolutionary sense of the word. At best, they hinder the class struggle
by being slow to respond to rapidly changing situations. At worse, they
are "efficient" in shaping both the revolution and the post-revolutionary
society in a hierarchical fashion, so re-creating class rule. We discuss
this aspect of vanguardism in section H.8.9. So these are key aspects of
the anarchist critique of vanguardism, which we discuss in more depth in
the following sections. It is a bit artificial to divide these issues into
different sections because they are all related. The role of the party
implies a specific form of organisation (as Lenin himself stressed), the
form of the party influences its effectiveness. However, it is for ease
of presentation we divide up our discussion so. Read more Link: < Afghanistan:
Escalating Attacks on Aid Workers and Civilians | Criminalisation of solidarity
> ----------- writes on Saturday June 29 2002 @ 03:45AM PDT: [ reply |
parent ] Its all very well to reject 'vangaurdism' out of hand as hierarchic,authoritarian,inequitable
etc,etc,yet defacto "vangaurdism" is a feature of the Ukraine and Spanish
experience.Sometimes a charismatic leader like Mahkno and Durruti come
to the forefront and inspire amazing deeds.Rotational and revolving,devolving
direct democracy is difficult under attack from left and right.Is the age
of heros over? I hope so,yet human nature does not rule out defacto vangaurdism
and the chestnut that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance might apply
here. Also maybe the one about the will to obey being more wicked than
the urge to command. Durruti's Love Child writes on Saturday June 29 2002
@ 12:33PM PDT: [ reply | parent ] That's not what is meant by 'Vanguardism'
in this article. The authors are referring to the type of organizations
advocated by Leninists which operate along the lines of "democratic centralism"
and view workers as too dumb to lead their own revolution. This is different
from having heros like Makhno. ---------- Craig Stehr writes on Saturday
June 29 2002 @ 09:58AM PDT: [ reply | parent ] What I find lacking, is
the entire subject of spiritual life. Human beings are spiritual at the
core, as opposed to being automatons. Without this realization as the basis
for all action, no worthwhile society is possible. not in mourning writes
on Saturday June 29 2002 @ 12:04PM PDT: [ reply | parent ] Define "spiritual."
---------- Circuit writes on Saturday June 29 2002 @ 10:09AM PDT: [ reply
| parent ] I have no interest in spirituality. I'm agnostic, I reject any
theory of existance or non-existance of anything until it can be proven.
That doesn't mean that I don't know what love, anger, fear, romance, etc.
feel like. A rejection of spirituality is not a rejection of emotion, and
emotion equally mixed with rational thought is all that is necessary for
an anarchist society. Circuit ------------ Kame504 writes on Saturday June
29 2002 @ 10:52AM PDT: [ reply | parent ] Though I am someone that carries
a critique of science and tech, I also have no interest in spirituality
aka the kinder gentler face of religion. I have real problems with the
whole pagan-anarchist thing" RTS today, right circuit? good luck. ----------
Steelhead writes on Saturday June 29 2002 @ 04:13PM PDT: [ reply | parent
] I've always thought of spirituality as the non-hierarchical mirror of
religion rather than a differnt from of the same beast. Just like an economy
of gift is transformed (by authority) into an economy of commodity and
coercion, spirtituality is transformed to religion by the imposition of
authoritarianism. Also, spirituality is self-defined whereas religion is
handed down to you. Direct relationship with whatever you call this strange
experience of being versus institutionally mediated experience. ----------
Craig Stehr writes on Saturday June 29 2002 @ 04:39PM PDT: [ reply | parent
] I agree with Steelhead's comment fully, regarding the defining of "spirituality".
It works for me. efbdtynrtun writes on Saturday June 29 2002 @ 04:00PM
PDT: [ reply | parent ] Well nothing can be "proven." It's not possible
to have "all the facts" all you can do is look at what works for the goals
you've set. If prayer chips through your conditioning better than psychoanalysis
- all power to you. If feeling powerfully affirmed in a pagan ritual allows
you to move with greater confidence in your organizing - good for you!
If forest creatures come to you in your dreams and give you advice - and
it works - right on! --------- a sim writes on Saturday June 29 2002 @
11:55AM PDT: [ reply | parent ] i haven't nearly read all of the anarchist
faq. but i have to say this is one of the best sections. several of the
sections are somewhat uneven. but this one gives a fair, clear and undogmatic
critique of vanguardism. even tho it's really long. =) --------- Dave Antagonism
writes on Sunday June 30 2002 @ 06:35AM PDT: [ reply | parent ] I find
much of anarchism is vanguardist too. The standard critique of Bolshevism
focuses on its attachment to Democratic Centralism and Marxist-Leninism,
not specifically the concept of the relationship of the revolutionary to
the wider class context. In fact much anarchist writing at present focusing
on "out reach" replicates the leninist idea the revolutionary ideas are
brought to the class from without. In fact the harsh critiques of Leninism
are a case in point. Rather than listening to the real experiences of the
multitude who are leninist are engaging in dialogue as equals, they are
dismissed as either a new class in waiting or as dupes. Thus abstract ideas
are more important that lived class reality. cheers Dave --------- anarcho
writes on Sunday June 30 2002 @ 07:56AM PDT: [ reply | parent ] "Rather
than listening to the real experiences of the multitude who are leninist
are engaging in dialogue as equals, they are dismissed as either a new
class in waiting or as dupes." I find this ironic for two reasons. Firstly,
it is the Leninists who are dismissing the "real experiences" of the activists
in the anti-globalisation movement (e.g. the way they organise, for example,
tactics, and so on). Secondly, the "multitudes" are *not* Leninists! Quite
the reverse. "Thus abstract ideas are more important that lived class reality."
I find it funny that "lived class reality" is equated with Leninism, whose
"class reality" is less than it could be... --------- Dave Antagonism writes
on Sunday June 30 2002 @ 08:24PM PDT: [ reply | parent ] Sorry if my post
seemed to be a justification of Leninism. What i wanted to say was that
often in its critiques of Leninism much anarchist thought actual replicates
vangaurdist praxis. My post was badly worded: i did not want to infer that
the multitude as a totality were Leninists, only of some individuals are,
and that much class struggle globally is expressed in Leninist language.
sorry for the confusion cheers Dave ---------- Midwest anarchist writes
on Monday July 01 2002 @ 04:21PM PDT: [ reply | parent ] If "the masses"
(whatever that is supposed to mean) do not need revolutionary leadership,
ideas, etc--if they have all they need already, and anyone who says otherwise
is an elitist who thinks people are "too stupid" to run their own lives--then
what the hell are we all doing anyway? Why does the world need anarchists,
socialists, Leninists, or whatever? I think sometimes we anarchists talk
in circles--we don't admit we have meetings and events--those would have
to be "organized", and that would entail "authoritarian" methods. Instaed,
we claim to have "convergences", which makes it all sound spantaneous and
unplanned. Or, we do not have "organizations", we have "affinity groups".
What a bunch crap. If it is "vanguardist" to plan, to organize, and to
offer some kind of leadership, then we are all vanguardists. And if we
do not believe in planning, organizing, and offering some kind of leadership,
then what @#$% good are we anyway? ----------- Dave Antagonism writes on
Monday July 01 2002 @ 06:53PM PDT: [ reply | parent ] I think that we should
just see anarchism as one expression of the class struggle, and that the
struggle is bigger than any single reified dogma. Anarchist praxis like
all class struggle is generated from the contraditions and antagonisms
with capitalism and thus has lots to offer. what is important is opening
up dialogue within the class, to circulate the experiences of struggle,
to talk to encourge others to talk, to struggle to increase the room from
struggle. If the product of this is that much of the trappings of anarchism
as a dogma have to be dropped , good cheers Dave ---------- security risk
writes on Monday July 01 2002 @ 07:20PM PDT: [ reply | parent ] Well,im
with you with the ideas and etc...but ledarship?Define that please? ---------
Midwest anarchist writes on Monday July 01 2002 @ 08:47PM PDT: [ reply
| parent ] What I mean by leadership is this: If you put forward your ideas
and opinions, there is a chance people will agree and go along with what
you say. Now what are anarchist supposed to do at that point? Are they
supposed to say, "Thanks, but please don't ask us to lead--that would be
elitist?" That is nothing but an abdication of responsibility. I guess
my point is that maybve not all leadership is bad per se. Maybe there is
a difference between someone following someone's lead because they think
that person is right, and following because they are forced, tricked, or
cajoled into doing so. ------------ Flint writes on Monday July 01 2002
@ 10:36PM PDT: [ reply | parent ] Midwest, I think you are right with that
last part. Some anarchists advoate a leadership of ideas, not a leadership
of authority. We (anarchists) obviously think we have some good ideas about
how we (as a class) can revolt against capitalism and the state. We should
advocate and agitate for those ideas. If enough folks agree, we take action.
But just because a single anarchist, or even a group of anarchists had
good ideas in the past shouldn't put people under any obligations to agree
with those ideas in the future. Further, to impose our ideas on others
through coercion (like violence, like the state, like deciet) would be
authoritarian. Some folks like to say "we have no leaders", I prefer "we
are all leaders". An active anarchist minority (or several of them for
that matter) agitating for alot of ideas that aren't imposed on people,
but simply advocated, that doesn't claim a monopoly on struggle; is a very
different thing from the Leninist vanguard. ------------ Sven writes on
Tuesday July 02 2002 @ 09:32AM PDT: [ reply | parent ] >>Some folks like
to say "we have no leaders", I prefer "we are all leaders". << Exactly!
That's the point! :) The real problem might be, however, that many people
are not educated to feel themselves and act as "leaders": that's a *big*
problem, which IMO can only be solved by some form og libertarian education,
i.e. being oneself with one's talents and competences and freely "giving
the example" (is this correct English?) and "donating" one's skills to
others... ----------- Midwest anarchist writes on Tuesday July 02 2002
@ 09:33AM PDT: [ reply | parent ] But in what way can "vanguardist" groups
"impose" their will on others? It is not as if they have their own private
army to keep people in line. And, to be honest, I have seen plenty of groups
denounced on here as "vanguardist" (the much-hated ISO in particular) willingly
cooperate with others without trying to "impose" anything. As far as leadership
goes--I have yet to see an anarchist group that did not have de facto leaders,
no matter how reluctant we may be to admit it. Again, I am not saying this
is bad--most of the anarchist "leaders" I have seen are serious, decent,
honest people. They are looked to as leaders by others because they have
more experience. The only problem with the de facto leadership situation
is that de facto leaders, because they are not "officially" leaders, are
in fact not accountable. This may not be a problem now, when most of these
leaders are cool, but what about later? It seems to me that we might do
well to admit we have leaders, and have some formal structure for making
them accountable to the rest of us. I cannot see how that could be authoritarian.
---------- Flint writes on Tuesday July 02 2002 @ 10:09AM PDT: [ reply
| parent ] Actually, imposing their will on others is exactly what vanguard
parties (the 'successful' ones) do. They try sieze state power through
ballot or bullet. The Red Army wasn't setup for tea parties. The Cheka
was quite busy disposing of the enemies of the Bolsheviks (which included
Bolsheviks). Until they have some sort of atleast proto-state formation,
like a guerilla army; there are real limits to what imposition vanguard
parties can do. That said, they can try to use whatever structures exist
for their own purposes, like say expelling those who don't agree with them
from a labor union, negotiating permits with the police as a way of taking
over a demonstration, deploying their own thug squads. The ISO doesn't
make any secret that they are a vanguardist party, in the tradition of
Lenin. They want state power. The goal of such influences their internal
structure, and how they interact with others. Just because a vanguard party
can't yet impose their will through a private army (or the state) doesn't
mean that they don't want to do it--rather that they just aren't very good
at it yet. :) ---------- Flint writes on Tuesday July 02 2002 @ 10:15AM
PDT: [ reply | parent ] As to formal structures of accountability. Sometimes
that's good, sometimes it's not. There are definately cases where I want
to seee that. Any mass organization (like a labor union, or a community
group or tenant's union) I'm involved in, I want to be directly democratic
as possible. The affinity group I usually run with makes most of it's decisions
through consensus and we have a pretty fair distribution of tasks that
we've tried to rotate. NEFAC tends to place responsibility on whole collectives
to accomplish a task, not just one individual. ----------- Midwest anarchist
writes on Tuesday July 02 2002 @ 11:10AM PDT: [ reply | parent ] I can
see making decision through concensus within a given group--people belonging
to a given group are likely to agree often enough to make consensus feasible.
However, I have seen people try to run coalitions by consensus, and that
is always a disaster. The problem is that any coalition is going to be
made up of people who disagree about a lot of things. Majority rule is
really the only way to run a functioning coalition, in my experience. Yes,
that may not seem as democratic as consensus, but we have to decide--is
the purpose of a coalition to maintain total "freedom", or to accomplish
concrete objectives. Running a coalition by consensus may indeed preserve
individual autonomy--however, such coalitions can rarely stop arguing long
enough to get anything done. Just for the record--I was not defending the
ISO or any other group. All I was saying was that so far, at least in my
city (Cincinnati), I have not seen them act in the thuggish, authoritarian
manner people on here have described. That does not mean that they don't--just
that I have not seen it yet. As far as putting responsibility on the group
as a whole rather than on one individual--I wonder if dividing responsibilities
that broadly is not the same as not holding anyone responsible at all.
e.g, if flyers need to be made, it is usually better to have a small group
of people charged with making them, than to just assume that somehow they
will get made. ------------------------ Retaliation by Howard Zinn posted
by Chuck0 on Saturday September 15 2001 @ 12:50PM PDT The images on television
have been heartbreaking. People on fire leaping to their deaths from a
hundred stories up. People in panic and fear racing from the scene in clouds
of dust and smoke. We knew that there must be thousands of human beings
buried alive, but soon dead under a mountain of debris. We can only imagine
the terror among the passengers of the hijacked planes as they contemplated
the crash, the fire, the end. Those scenes horrified and sickened me. Then
our political leaders came on television, and I was horrified and sickened
again. They spoke of retaliation, of vengeance, of punishment. We are at
war they said. And I thought: they have learned nothing, absolutely nothing,
from the history of the twentieth century, from a hundred years of retaliation,
vengeance, war, a hundred years of terrorism and counter-terrorism, of
violence met with violence in an unending cycle of stupidity. We can all
feel a terrible anger at whoever, in their insane idea that this would
help their cause, killed thousands of innocent people. But what do we do
with that anger? Do we react with panic, strike out violently and blindly
just to show how tough we are? "We shall make no distinction", the President
proclaimed, between terrorists and countries that harbor terrorists". Will
we now bomb Afghanistan, and inevitably kill innocent people, because it
is in the nature of bombing to be indiscriminate, to "make no distinction"?
Will we then be committing terrorism in order to "send a message" to terrorists?
We have done that before. It is the old way of thinking, the old way of
acting. It has never worked. Reagan bombed Libya, and Bush made war on
Iraq, and Clinton bombed Afghanistan and also a pharmaceutical plant in
the Sudan, to "send a message" to terrorists. And then comes this horror
in New York and Washington. Isn't it clear by now that sending a message
to terrorists through violence doesn't work, only leads to more terrorism?
Haven't we learned anything from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Car
bombs planted by Palestinians bring air attacks and tanks by the Israeli
government. That has been going on for years. It doesn't work. And innocent
people die on both sides. Yes, it is an old way of thinking, and we need
new ways. We need to think about the resentment all over the world felt
by people who have been the victims of American military action. In Vietnam,
where we carried out terrorizing bombing attacks, using napalm and cluster
bombs,on peasant villages. In Latin America, where we supported dictators
and death squads in Chile and El Salvador and other countries. In Iraq,
where a million people have died as a result of our economic sanctions,
And, perhaps most important for understanding the current situation, in
the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza, where a million and
more Palestinians live under a cruel military occupation, while our government
supplies Israel with high-tech weapons. We need to imagine that the awful
scenes of death and suffering we are now witnessing on our television screens
have been going on in other parts of the world for a long time, and only
now can we begin to know what people have gone through, often as a result
of our policies. We need to understand how some of those people will go
beyond quiet anger to acts of terrorism. We need new ways of thinking.
A $300 billion dollar military budget has not given us security. Military
bases all over the world, our warships on every ocean, have not given us
security. Land mines, a "missile defense shield", will not give us security.
We need to rethink our position in the world. We need to stop sending weapons
to countries that oppress other people or their own people. We need to
decide that we will not go to war, whatever reason is conjured up by the
politicians or the media, because war in our time is always indiscriminate,
a
war against innocents, a war against children. War is terrorism, magnified
a hundred times. Our security can only come by using our national wealth,
not for guns, planes, bombs, but for the health and welfare of our people
- for free medical care for everyone, education and housing guaranteed
decent wages and a clean environment for all. We can not be secure by limiting
our liberties, as some of our political leaders are demanding , but only
by expanding them. . We should take our example not from our military and
political leaders shouting "retaliate" and "war" but from the doctors and
nurses and medical students and firemen and policemen who have been saving
lives in the midst of mayhem, whose first thoughts are not violence, but
healing, not vengeance but compassion. < The Greatest Argument Against
War by Brian Dominick | Distaste for Civilization? > ---------- writes
on Saturday September 15 2001 @ 01:41PM PDT: [ reply | parent ] How fucking
pathetic! ---------- Thicket writes on Saturday September 15 2001 @ 01:52PM
PDT: [ reply | parent ] How fucking pathetic? Obviously you have no concern
what so ever for human life. Maybe you should join up, so you can go kill
yourself some "sand-niggers". This isn't just about america you FUCK. Fight
war, not wars... ---------- ASAN writes on Saturday September 15 2001 @
10:20PM PDT: [ reply | parent ] First, who's "we" here. Zinn you ought
to know there's a difference between the US government and the population
of this country, even if people are too delusioned to relize this. Second,
pascifism is pathology to quote Ward Churchill. Why should anyone listen
to a plea to just do nothing after they've seen thousands of lives shreded
in front of them? As the reactionary said, "fuck that." Of course, the
point isn't to go after those enemies offered by Bush and company. The
point is to go after Bush and company. The fight between Bush and Bin Laden
is gang war. The end of the war will only come when go after our gang leader
first - then we'll see about Bin Laden. Of course, remember the CIA and
Saudi Arabia created Bin Laden, World Capitalism created both the CIA and
Saudi Arabia - go figure. ASAN --------- Ali writes on Tuesday September
25 2001 @ 11:30AM PDT: [ reply | parent ] Howard Zinn is my God. His "History
of the People..." changed my life and in the past two weeks his words on
militarism, inequality and the nature of our "global" society have come
back to me again and again. I know what I believe. I know what is right.
"We" need to somehow, someway, get "our" leaders to examine their own actions
and how that has contributed to this awful event. Why is our infrastructure/public
health is such a state of dissarray? That's what truly allowed terrorism
to achieve its immediate goal. Why do these "fanatics" like bin Laden have
such willing armies to support them and carry out their orders? Because
there is widespread, justifiable anger and dissaproval towards the US.
For once in our history we need leaders who are not afraid to examine our
faults and begin the process of righting them. Only that will prevent further
atrocities. My heart goes out to all the victims of this tragedy, past
and future, and I pray for peace. ------- Greg Wells writes on Tuesday
January 22 2002 @ 09:04AM PST: [ reply | parent ] War is the failure of
politics. It's refreshing to know that there is a coherent intellectual
opposition to those in power that would use tools as dispicable as propaganda
and patriotism to "justify" militarism. If one examines news and history
critically, they would soon discover that the United States and other capitalist
empires have commited far more, and graver acts of terrorism that any number
of bin Ladens or Qaddafis or other assorted "ragheads" could possibly be
blamed for. --------- Leron Kattan writes on Sunday February 10 2002 @
01:53AM PST: [ reply | parent ] The peace movement must not forget to be
peace. We cannot ask for peace with this type of rhetoric (Howard Zinn's
essay and further comments). Calling Israel a military dictatorsip is not
going to lead to peaceful negotiations. It will only lead to more anymosity.
In the words of Thich Nhat Hanh, "We must write love letters to our enemies."
How can words like, "Fuck you fight war, not wars" bring about peace? How
can we ask for peace while being hostile? "Peace is Every Step" Thich Nhat
Hanh. Peace, Love, and Unconditional Compassion Leron --------- colleen
lavallee writes on Tuesday April 02 2002 @ 09:34AM PST: [ reply | parent
] thnx mr zinn i was fortunate to get to study american history in high
school using "a peoples history". ever since i have been transformed. u
are brilliant thnxxxxxxxxxxxx --------- peter power writes on Monday June
03 2002 @ 02:29PM PDT: [ reply | parent ] thank you mr zinn. as an old
anti war activist turned into corporate wretch, I can appreciate almost
every thing you say but we are soo very deeply entrenched in the mac D
culture that a doomsday scenario plays out better than getting true volunteerism
from these pathetic amerikkkan drivers drinkers t.v watchers and mindless
consumers of all beverages and life forms --------- sphex writes on Wednesday
June 19 2002 @ 08:01AM PDT: [ reply | parent ] Zinn writes, "And I thought:
they [our political leaders] have learned nothing, absolutely nothing,
from the history of the twentieth century ..." I disagree. They have learned
everything they need and they use what they have learned skillfully. If
you continue to insist that they are stupid, then what they do will appear
to be irrational, and you will go psychotic trying to fit a rational frame
about it. If you instead accept that they are very clever, and rational,
then what they do makes sense -- even though you might prefer not to understand.
-------------- posted by American Indian Movement on Sunday June 30 2002
@ 11:41AM PDT Ten Native Youth facing Death Penalty NorCal AIM, Bay Area
AIM and Nevada AIM call an EMERGENCY ALERT AND MEETING On Monday the 24th
of June the Carson City Ten were denied a continuance in court. They have
already been convicted of 1st degree murder in the racist media and the
white supremacist court system is speeding ahead with another railroad.
These youth are not guilty or responsible for a murder. They are heroic
for standing up for our people. On July 22 the first four are going to
trial and if convicted they face the death penalty or double life. We call
upon all Indians, all progressive organizations, all movement members and
allies to support our youth and their families by: 1. Forwarding this message
widely. 2. Providing monetary or legal support. 3. If you live in the area,
attending an emergency meeting this Sunday, June 30th in San Jose,CA, at
the Legal Aid Society at 480 North 1st street at 2pm. (take Hy 101 to San
Jose, exit at 1st Street in downtown San Jose and go North, the building
is before Santa Clara St)Two of the defendants and one of their families
will be in attendance! Park in the back of the building and enter from
the back. 4. Praying for our indigenous families. For more info call: James
Cosner, Bay Area AIM, at 510-836-4321, or 831-419-3895 (cell) Paula and
Russell Redner, NorCal AIM, at 415-648-5936 Rocky and Terry Boice, Nevada
AIM, 775-883-6505 Background information: On Aug. 23 1998 Jessica Evans,
a young Native woman was battered by gang members from a group called the
Eastside tokers. She called the police as and they further disrespected
her and threatened her with arrest. She then told some of her relations
about the incident and they acted to go confront the abusers. A fight broke
out and some people were injured yet not killed. The police arrived after
most had left the scene. In their own reports the one who died was walking
around at the time the police entered the scene. Sammy Resendez, the cofounder
of the eastside tokers, dies the next day and approximately twenty native
youth are rounded up as suspects from the surrounding area. After weeding
out, ten native youth are charged with his killing, including a fourteen
year-old and two young women. The medical report states that he died either
from a head injury or a crushed windpipe. The forensic report is "lost"
and Mr. Resendez' body is promptly sent to Mexico and cremated. The youth
claim innocence of murder and the facts speak for themselves. Now the system
wants to legally lynch all ten. There is much more to this case. Please
get the facts and act. ------------------ writes on Tuesday June 11 2002
@ 09:39AM PDT: [ reply | parent ] First I'd like to say that the whole
IWW incident, which you guys continue to bring up as evidence of how awful
the ISO is, was blown way out of proportion. I'm sure it was like ISO Guy
said: the comrades were merely mistaken. It's easy to make the mistake
that the IWW is "dead" considering the minimal level of activity that the
IWW is involved in. The comrade who gave the talk probably didn't say that
the IWW didn't exist at all, but said something to the effect that it is
hardly a shadow of what it used to be. If I had to express what the IWW
is now compared to what it used to be in a percentage, I would say it is
1%. Out of 20 or 30 demonstrations I went to over the past two years, I
saw the IWW at maybe 3, and it was always the same few guys. Maybe the
reason the Wobblies were so offended by the talk was that there was a grain
of truth to what the ISO member said. They should take the comrade's criticism
to heart and be convicted of the need to be more active and to work towards
growing as an organization. Granted, at first glance of the Industrial
Worker, you might say that the IWW is no more dead than the ISO: it has
about as many branches, but while the IWW is stagnating, the ISO is constantly
growing and expanding. Regardless of the membership figures that Chuck0
pulls out of his ass, the ISO has seen steady growth in the two years that
I've been a member. By steady growth I mean, card-carrying, paper-selling,
dues-paying members that join and stay. The branch doubled in size while
I was there, from around 10 when I started to over 20, at present. The
regional conference that was held last year had about 30 or 40 people in
attendance, and this year the number shot up to 60, with over 100 attending
the panel we held that night. At other regional conferences the results
were considerably better. As for the ISO being a "pain in the ass" in coalitions,
I would say anarchists are equally as guilty if not more. I'm not going
to give another account of how anarchists dominated our anti-war coalition,
Austin Against War, and forced consensus upon it in a very undemocratic
fashion because you'll probably deleted like you did the last time I posted
it. But I will give an account of the Campus Coalition for Peace and Justice,
the campus half of AAW which by comparison was a lot more productive and
lacking sectarianism that was correlated with the lack of anarchists in
the coalition (with the exception of one who wasn't such a hard-liner).
The ISO was welcomed, and we were productive members of the coalition(some
of the most productive in fact). It's no coincedence that AAW was about
25% anarchist and it was engulfed in a conflagration of sectarianism until
it deteriorated into almost nothing while anarchists were absent in the
CCPJ and we actually got things done. There were very few problems until
the question of a national conference was brought up. The one self-professed
"anti-authoritarian" had read on the internet how the ISO was trying to
control the national anti-war conference. He brought all this up outside
of a meeting, and accused the ISO of doing the same in the CCPJ. But most
of the people knew better having seen the ISO in action: we were the most
active in the coalition; we went to almost every table, meeting, rally,
etc. Sure we supported such tyrannical measures as a democratically elected
steering commitee and majority rule, but what else is new? Reverend Chuck0
writes on Wednesday June 12 2002 @ 05:31PM PDT: [ reply | parent ] Let
me explain a few things to you, NatX, since it is pretty obvious that your
local ISO is brainwashing you like they typically do. As almost every activist
knows, the ISO excels at manipulating its members. There are ways the ISO
does this directly and indirectly. What they are telling you is that the
ISO does great work and is accepted within activism. In fact, activists
around the U.S. routinely deride the ISO whenever it comes up in conversations.
The ISO is notorious for manipulating and disrupting groups, although it
always does this with a smiley face. The International Action Center acts
in a similar manner. Whenever they are criticized, the go into "victim"
mode and loudly proclaim that they are just trying to work with everybody.
Of course, anarchists can be annoying at meetings! We're human after all
and get involved in conflicts. But you need to ask yourself a political
question here. Why were the anarchists trying to implement consensus decision-making?
Why has the ISO been engaged in a war against democratic decision-making
in activism since Seattle? The reason why groups use consensus and other
forms and not the ISO's method is because the other methods are democratic
and the ISO's methods are not. The ISO seeks to install hierarchical forms
of decision-making, where decisions are made by leaders in a committee,
which the ISO aims to control. The ISO's activities in this area are well-documented--I
could write a long article about it. As for the ISO's shenanigans in the
student anti-war movement, those are documented too. The ISO conspired
to run simultaneous student anti-war conferences around the country, which
they coordinated with the use of cell phones. The ISO has had no luck in
being influential in the anti-globalization movement, so they seized on
the anti-war movement as soon as 9-11 happened, probably because they correctly
understood that the anti-war movement would quickly be dominated by hierarchical
peace groups. It's pretty disgusting that you try to excuse the ISO's notorious
event on the nonexistence of the IWW, even after I provided the URL to
the page which contains the reaction of IWW members to that sorry public
event. It didn't surprise me when I heard about it, because the ISO has
for years been trying to tell people that anarchists no longer exist. ISO
guy writes on Thursday June 13 2002 @ 12:56PM PDT: [ reply | parent ] Chuck,
I have a question, and I hope you can answer me honestly--do you even believe
the things you say? I would actually find you less creepy if I knew you
were deliberately lying. If you are not, then I have to conclude that you
are the one who has been brainwashed. The things you say about the ISO
are so wildly outlandish that they make the Sparts look honest. Reverend
Chuck0 writes on Thursday June 13 2002 @ 01:18PM PDT: [ reply | parent
] Shit, ISO Guy, you are getting pretty desperate if you've resorted to
saying that I am a liar! Perhaps this is your attempt to hit the ball back
into my court and insinuate that I have some kind of irrational hatred
of the ISO. Come on, ISO Guy, you know that the ISO has a bad reputation
among activists. They really don't need my help, since the ISO is so good
at giving people rope with which to hang the organization. Again, anybody
can visit the page I've put together on the ISO: http://www.infoshop.org/texts/iso.html
I've tried to be fair to the ISO and I've tried to stay away from updating
this page this year. But as anybody can see, that page includes opinions
from a variety of people about the ISO. Don't play the innocent, because
everybody knows the "ISO just wants to work with everybody, why are we
being criticized?" routine. This is not a matter of belief. The ISO does
things. The ISO writes things. The ISO organizes events. It doesn't take
much to criticize the ISO, because they do the same things all over the
place. The ISO infiltrates student groups on campus. It attempts to get
rid of consensus-decisionmaking in coalitions. It sells a ridiculous newspaper.
It organizes public events, usually titled "Socialism versus Anarchism,"
where anarchism is misrepresented by ISO speakers. The ISO has a central
committee and cadres of local leaders. This is all factual and has nothing
to do with "belief." NatX writes on Thursday June 20 2002 @ 01:53AM PDT:
[ reply | parent ] Hey Rev, get off your soap-box and go re-read the message
I posted earlier about the anti-war coalition; oh wait, you can't, because
you deleted it. How's that for authoritarian? I have an idea, why don't
you start moderating this message board by consensus and we'll see how
that works out. Well I'll repeat what I said before, the way things happened
in the coalition was that the anarchists pushed consensus on the rest of
the coalition, and in doing so sparked a lengthy debate on process during
which most of the coalition fizzled off into nothing until it was only
anarchists and socialists left to battle it out. I wanted to take a harder
line against the anarchists and come out right off the bat arguing for
majority rule, but our branch leadership whom you so often decry as authoritarian,
helped to steer me in the right direction saying that we would argue for
majority but if it were popularly decided that consensus would be the process,
we would work within whatever framework necessary. The end result was consensus,
and the way it worked in practice was that any decision of any importance
at all was argued over for hours and then tabled only to be decided by
informal leadership. This is highly reminiscent of something Jo Freeman
said in The Tyranny of Structurelessness; which I have seen on both anarchist
pages and in the International Socialist Review, that failure to openly
elect leadership results in informal unnacountable leadership which is
exactly the sort of leadership anarchists prefer to quote Bakunin: "We
must steer it [the revolution] not by any power but by the collective dictatorship
of all the allies-- a dictatorship without insignia, titles, or official
rights, and all the stronger for having none of the paraphernalia of power.
I'm not criticizing the anarchists for arguing for consensus, but it's
the fact that they didn't argue; they imposed. Bottom line. When it had
been decided that at the next meeting a presentation on the different kinds
of processes would be given. The anarchists showed up not ready to give
a presentation but ready instead to do "consensus training" which they
had decided was the process on behalf of the group. Explain to me how that
was democratic. Were the anarchists simply acting to do what was good for
the group by protecting it from the awful hierarchical socialists? I thought
decisions were supposed to be made by people not on their behalf. Where
were their principles? Notice the inherent contradictions? Don't you think
that consensus meetings would be dominated by the experts in consensus?
Don't you think the fact that certain people whould be "consensus trainers"
and others "consensus trainees" would put them into informal leadership
roles? "No leaders, no followers" is an abstract principle that doesn't
hold up in actual political movements. It turns out into practice to be
"Unelected unnacountable leaders, blind confused, uniformed followers".
Whenever a group starts, a portion of that group always take a leading
role whether they are elected or not; generally it's the people with the
most experience in activism, those who are most developed both organizationally
and politically. You can spot these people because they always have an
idea about how to go forward; whenever an idea needs to be made people
look to them and ask what they think; whenever an important job needs to
be done, they do it. Eventually they become respected enough in the movement
to where they start making decisions for it because no one else does, and
it's not clear how decisions are going to be made. Electing them and holding
them in check by immediate recall makes them accountable for those decisions
and ensures that the decisions made by leadership represents the members.
You like to attack my political immaturity, making me out to be another
lost lamb who wandered into the ISO flock, but I'll remind you that while
politically immature people join the ISO, I bet you twice as many become
anarchists. How hard is it to grasp anarchist "theory"? Is it that complex?
State=hiearchy=authority=bad. I think I got it, now! I'm ready to be a
full-fledged anarchist. I might have been politically immature when I joined
but being in the ISO has educated me and made me into a good activist with
a strong political perpective. I find your elitist, condescending attitude
quite tiresome, the way you assert how brainwashed I am. I never said everyone
is just peachy keen about the ISO but I will say a lot of people like us
and they like working with us, even if they are suspicious of the ISO as
an organization. A friend of mine in the CCPJ told me that ISO people were
the nicest people she has met in the activist community. We have good relations,
for the most part with the Greens, Palestine Solidarity Commitee, and other
leftist groups. From time to time we do get bashed, but it's mostly because
of the reputation of the ISO on a national level and not the actions of
the local branch. The fruits of the labor of sad liars like you is that
people in coalitions have a confused view of the ISO- they come in contact
with actual hardworking ISO members, and at the same time they read things
on the internet about the ISO. They don't know which to believe, and start
becoming suspicious of our methods. For instance, I called for a steering
commitee at the beginning of the coalition, but it wasn't seriously considered
until a green called for the same thing when the system we had was shown
to be innefective without it. Reverend Chuck0 writes on Friday June 21
2002 @ 02:27PM PDT: [ reply | parent ] Hey Nat, I really don't know what
I can say to you, since you seem to prefer the gospel that is handed down
from your party leadership. I'm sure they have filled up your ears with
all kinds of anti-anarchist bullshit. They understand that their brand
of politics has become irrelevant and that they can't hope to compete with
anarchism, which empowers the individual to make decisions for themself,
instead of telling them that a small group of unaccountable ISO leaders
knows what is best. Let me ask you a simple question: why doesn't the ISO
leadership come out and engage in a dialogue with anarchists? The only
ISO members that have bothered to talk to anarchists online are ISO Guy
and yourself. What are the ISO leaders afraid of? They organize public
events on anarchism, yet feel they can't be held accountable by living,
actual anarchists? I'm not sure what happened in the local coalition that
you are talking about, but consensus is the most democratic form of decision-making
around. If the anarchists felt compelled to be more shrill about this with
ISO members present, that's understandable, because the ISO actively seeks
to destroy democratic decision-making in activist coalitions. This is widely
understood to happen and is the primary reason why so many activists hate
the ISO. I really can't believe that you've read Jo Freeman's article.
Freeman, by the way, happened to be an anarchist when she wrote that. So,
let me guess, your local ISO leaders suggested that you throw that book's
title around to discredit anarchist practices? That is so whack, because
that article *supports* anarchist methods of making decisions. Nat, I'm
just not going to address your comments about how consensus was implemented
by anarchists until you can tell me why the ISO alternative is any better.
Oh yeah, the local ISO is filled with nice people. That's a common evasion
technique that we hear from authoritarian leftists when they are under
criticism. Yeah, most of the ISO people I've known were really nice. But
you know what Nate? Nice people join cults. Smart, nice people join cults.
Niceness is IRRELEVANT! The character of ISO members is NOT at issue here.
Their ORGANIZATION is what is at issue. Try as you want to dismiss the
criticisms as being "national," the ISO organizationl problem is replicated
by EVERY local branch. Why else to activists from all over have similar
criticisms of the ISO? Because they have EXPERIENCE WITH THEM LOCALLY.
You can call me a liar if that makes you feel better, but I prefer to stick
to the facts. Perhaps we should throw this thread open to activists to
post their thoughts about working with the ISO locally. Reverend Chuck0
writes on Wednesday June 12 2002 @ 05:51PM PDT: [ reply | parent ] -----
Original Message ----- Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 4:24 PM To: syndicalists@anarchosyndicalism.org
Subject: [syndicalists] defecting from the ISO Comrades, Defecting from
the ISO is like not drinking the red cool-aid. For the longest time I would
read read entries on indymedia and infoshop.org bashing the ISO and all
other heirarchial, leninist, and centralized lefty groups but I couldnt
understand why they would bash such a strong(in numbers) and highly active
organization that is fighting for actual change and revolution. (For I
was ignorant in those days) So the weeks go by, I bring up these entries
that do nothing but bash how horrible the ISO is and one of our chapter
leaders tells me that they are not important and they do not mean anything
b/c the people writting them dont know anything, even if some of the entries
came from ex-ISO members. So, then I am silenced again b/c I thought they
are right. Some more weeks go by, I get the bright idea of standing up
for the anarchist that they like to bash much and I say, "they night not
believe in the same politics as you do, but they are a real group/organization
as us that are fighting for change. Yes, they might have different ways
of organizing and fighting, but they are still a very important groupand
atleast the "militant" ones keep us from getting our heads bashed in at
protests." The reponse was they their tatics are anti-worker and do nothing
but cause damage and create problems for the working-class. Yet again some
weeks go by, I start being more and more of a wrench at the ISO meetings.
I am graced with a lot of calls from our personal little Heirarchy(one
of the committee leaders) saying that I am leading people away from Socialist
politics and especially the ones that are not as strong in the marxist
theory..blah blah blah. I responds saying that I feel like an anarchist
in the closet of a Leninist organization but I will continue to work with
the organization...I get a response saying that anarchist fucked up revolutions
before and our theory will fail b/c it is not centralized and lacks the
marxist/leninist theory. Ignorate to the Cordinating Committee at local
branches and the National Steering Committee, I had no idea that they were
the ones in control of the ISO and not all the members like it should be
and what I though was happening. (hence my ignorance of not knowing the
difference b/w anarchism and centralized socialism.) Anyway my final straw
happened at the A20 mobilzation for Palestine, IMF and whatnot. So, there
we are getting ready to go and they tell me that I am gonna be part of
the Palestinian Liberation Rally on the Eclipse before the marches connect
against Israeli occupation. I told our leader that I wanted to be part
of the IMF/World Bank protest and then meet up with the Palestinian march.
The reponse to that statement by the ISO head guy of our group said, "No,
the national steering committee has decided that we are gonna be part of
the Palestinian Rally." then later down the road of that weekend he confronts
m! e again saying the one of the Steering committee people told him that
I said, "I dont care if they are making decisions I like or that I hate,
the fact that they are making these decision for me is unatural and wrong."
and his response to that was..."well we vote these people into the committee
and intrust them with these powers and ability to cordinate us in this
manner and that is what centeralization is."(sounds alot like what we live
in today.) or something to that effect...then I fucking quit the ISO b/c
they made me do something that I didnt really want to do but what is worse
is the fact they the told me what I needed to do at A20 and not let me
voice my idea and say that I wanted to march against the IMF b/c of this
and that..blah blah....oh yeah and selling papers is so much fun...blah
blah blah. yup ps- the quotes might not be exactly right but they get the
point across of what was said. and the point of this long article is the
fact that the Leninist groups do not read anarchist lit but rather they
read what marx, engels, lenin, trotsky, and the more modern leninist writters
have to say about anarchism. They also like to talk shit about infoshop.org
saying that it is just set up by some kid that isnt smart and just puts
shit up to be cool. He/ISO tend to think that the only website that is
worth a damn is internationalsocialist.org...BLAH. -------------------
Bay Area book lovers play 'follow the reader' in global giveaway with online
tracking Julian Guthrie, Chronicle Staff Writer Sunday, June 30, 2002 People
across the Bay Area are committing random acts of literary kindness, leaving
books in public places for strangers to find and then tracking the book's
fate online. Books have been "released" at places ranging from Pacific
Bell Park to the Japanese Tea Garden, from a cafeteria in a high-powered
Silicon Valley law firm to a Dublin-bound BART train. Many of the books
were picked up, registered on a Web site and later re- released for the
next chance encounter. Along the way, something else is happening: People
are reading books they probably wouldn't have chosen on their own. What
started a year ago in Kansas City, Mo., as a way to share books for free
has grown into a virtual community of book releasers and finders who would
love a world littered with free literature. More than 10,500 people, who
call themselves "bookcrossers," have been united by a love of reading,
serendipity and sleuthing. Setting books free is being likened to a modern-day
message in a bottle. By word of mouth, the Web site BookCrossing.com --
which doesn't charge a fee or accept advertising -- has become the nation's
fourth most popular online reading site, according to the search firm Google.
Since its inception, more than 25,000 books have been released -- mostly
in the United States, but also in England, South Africa, Russia, New Zealand
and the Philippines, among other countries. "I was so excited the day I
found a BookCrossing book that I went home, told my mom about it and jumped
up and down," says 19-year-old Karyn Serface, who lives in Los Gatos. "I
fell in love with it right away. It was very kismet. My whole summer will
be taken up with this." Read more < Economic Inequality in US | Palestine:
Understanding the Dream Comprehending the Nightmare - Starhawk > Green
Anarchist writes on Monday July 01 2002 @ 06:17PM PDT: [ reply | parent
] I am a bookstore employee and internet used bookseller. I am interested
to know what fellow anarchists think of this program. The downside is their
logo is very "corporate" and they have a direct link to the amazon search
engine. On the other side, I have always wondered what happens to the books
I donate to free boxes and free libraries and I donate about 75 books a
week. (Good books in less than great condition.) On another front. I am
currently compromising my values by personally selling on E-bay. I am planning
on selling on Advance Book Exchange (ABE books). They claim to be a collective
of bookstores. I am still looking into their real structure. I have decided,
on principle, not to sell through Amazon or Alibris. I am working to eventually
open a storefront selling used and new books, to promote small press, especially
radical, revolutionary and multicultural press. So what does everyone think
of this "free book" tracking program and the other programs. Anyone have
any good resources for an aspiring anarchist bookseller? , writes on Monday
July 01 2002 @ 08:11PM PDT: [ reply | parent ] cool. not in mourning writes
on Monday July 01 2002 @ 08:59PM PDT: [ reply | parent ] Seems like it
would be very very easy to set up a noncorporate version of this using
free software and donated webspace. BookCrossing.com writes on Monday July
01 2002 @ 09:56PM PDT: [ reply | parent ] BookCrossing.com isn't free to
keep running, and as it grows, it will require more and more resources
(i.e. money) to keep it going. Currently, our software company, Humankind
Systems, is paying the bills. But BookCrossing is only approaching 10,000
members. When we have 100,000 to 500,000 members (not that far off), we'll
need a dedicated staff, and dozens more servers, and extreme bandwidth
and storage requirements, etc. etc. So if we don't plan *now* on ways to
"monetize" the site, whether that's from publishers, or a corporate sponsor,
or additional merchandise sales, etc., then we're doing our current membership,
which expects this site to run forever, a disservice. We've made the decision
that BookCrossing is FREE and ALWAYS WILL BE for the members - and the
flip side of that coin is that we must find other sources of revenue. And
that means marketing, long-term. Which I hope, in a round-about way, answers
your question. :) Green Anarchist writes on Monday July 01 2002 @ 10:02PM
PDT: [ reply | parent ] I wonder about the activist implications of doing
something similar. I think the concept can be really radicalized. Hmmmmm.
Will think about it. Any ideas? Scavenger Type writes on Tuesday July 02
2002 @ 12:11AM PDT: [ reply | parent ] Well you could just leave the book
there maby with a note on it or something. If we did this with radicalist
and leftist books it would be revolutionary. Many people would start reading
leftisy material. So if you finish reading a book and you don't know what
to do with it you could just do this. benhamish writes on Tuesday July
02 2002 @ 12:14AM PDT: [ reply | parent ] i've been leaving books wherever
i happen to finish for them for years, to think that this practice could
be coopted just boggles the mind when you think about it but who the fuck
cares. indymedia tech writes on Wednesday July 03 2002 @ 01:50AM PDT: [
reply | parent ] Ummm, bookcrossing.com, you need to find a more believable
PR line. Did you *try* to do it any other way? I work with indymedia and
we have servers all over the world, with enormous databases running the
sites, larger than most high-end commercial websites have. In addition,
we have gigs and gigs and gigs of user-uploaded audio, video, images, etc.
We didn't have to "monetize" anything ... we had to "collectivize." That's
a big difference. Most of our servers are run by anarchist collectives
and co-ops, and some donations. Just because you took a good idea and tried
to jump on the dot-com bandwagon while committing your time to a project
which does nothing to oppose the capitalist dynamic that we all need to
be fighting right now ... dont expect us to believe your feel-good propaganda. |