user preferences

Wayne Price: On Writing for Anarkismo.net

category international | the left | opinion / analysis author Wednesday December 20, 2006 12:45author by Wayne Price - NEFACauthor email drwdprice at aol dot com Report this post to the editors

Some Personal Comments

Comments on my experience writting regularly for Anarkismo.net, in the light of my political history.

Paul Goodman, 1962: “...The main thing I have to teach my young friends is...the perhaps encouraging, and certainly painful, factual demonstration that a man [Note] can hold such a doctrine and more or less live it during years of vicissitudes, and be still pitching. It is not impossible to ‘make it,’ to be somewhat accepted by the great world; but if you are still conscious, you will be stricken with the same dismay....The hope in face-to-face community that I have expressed in this book is still the only truth I know.” (“Preface”, Drawing the Line; A Pamphlet. NY: Random House; p. ix)
***

This is now the end of 2006. It has been a year and a half since I have begun writing monthly essays for the Anarkismo.net website, the Internet voice of our (pro-organizational anarchism’s) international tendency. The comrades who have organized Anarkismo have given me an opportunity to express my opinions. I am deeply grateful to them for this platform. How many people have read each essay, I have no idea, but at least some essays have been fairly widely distributed, such as the one on the Israeli-Lebanese war. I appreciate those friends who have sent some of my writings to other sites. A few have been translated into several languages.

There is often a lively and interesting discussion following my essays, on Anarkismo and other sites, and I have learned a good deal from these responses. My topics have occasionally been highly controversal among anarchists. This was particularly true for my essays on national liberation. My views have also been attacked by advocates of anti-organizationalist and primitivist varieties of anarchism. They have been critiqued from the point of view of Parecon. Maoists have demanded to know what evidence there is for my statement that Stalin murdered tens of millions of people (!).

Through my years of far-left political activities and theoretical study, including making many mistakes, I have gained some knowledge (if not necessarily wisdom). My conception of my role is this: I would like to pass on what I have learned and am still learning. My brother has challenged me, “Aren’t you just preaching to the choir?” Exactly, I replied. There is so much theoretical and programmatic confusion among anarchists, that it is useful for someone to talk with (if not “preach to”) “the choir.” Not that I expect anyone to take my thoughts as the word from on high. I would like others to think about what I have to say, to compare it to what they have learned elsewhere, and come up with their own conclusions.

As a teenager I became interested in anarchist- pacifism from the works of Paul Goodman and Dwight Macdonald and also the humanist Marxist, Erich Fromm. From them, I learned the value of decentralism and face-to-face democracy which has stayed with me ever since. In college, while in S.D.S., I became convinced of the need for revolution and that anarchist-pacifism was not adequate for such a goal. I became a Trotskyist (and therefore a Leninist and Marxist). Of the Trotskyists, I joined the tendency which advocated “socialism from below” and which rejected Trotsky’s theory that the Soviet Union under Stalin remained a “workers’ state.” I studied Marx (leading a study group on the three volumes of Capital), and Lenin, Trotsky, and Rosa Luxemburg. I have also studied libertarian Marxists, including William Morris, Raya Dunayevskaya, C.L.R. James, Cornelius Castoriadis, and Paul Mattick, Sr.

Organizationally, I was a founding member of the International Socialists, which was the U.S. ally of what is now the Socialist Workers Party in Britain. At the time, Stalinism was very influential, due to the attraction of Ho Chi Minh, Castro, and Mao, who were fighting U.S. imperialism. We anti-Stalinist Trotskyists were pretty marginal, as against the pro-Stalinist (“orthodox”) wing of the Trotskyists, as well as the Maoists. Today the U.S. decendants of the I.S. includes the International Socialist Organization. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the I.S.O. has now become the leading U.S. Trotskyists.

But before this developed, my friends and I had split away from the I.S. to form the Revolutionary Socialist League. We thought that the I.S. was not really revolutionary (a view I still hold about the I.S.O.) and that the solution lay in dissident Trotskyism (which I now reject). The R.S.L. achieved a number of things, but over time, our Trotskyism--and even our Marxism--was attenuated by the women’s liberation movement and the Gay liberation movement, among other matters. We evolved into revolutionary anarchism. (See Ron Taber’s A Look at Leninism, 1988, NY: Aspect Foundation.) I returned to reading anarchist and decentralist theorists.

Eventually the R.S.L. dissolved. About 5 of us participated in the creation of the Love and Rage Revolutionary Anarchist Federation. This also had a number of achievements. But in a time of stagnation, some of its influential members turned toward Maoism. A few of us ex-R.S.L.ers led a faction fight against this turn to Stalinism, a fight which effectively broke up Love and Rage. After a number of years, I joined the Northeastern Federation of Anarchist-Communists. One other ex-R.S.L.er, W.E.B., also joined NEFAC.

Through all these experiences (and I have left out my activities in the antiwar movement and in the teachers’ union), I tried to stay true to the humanistic vision of a liberated socialism from below. Like Paul Goodman, I believe in face-to-face, democratic, community and have looked for ways to achieve it. I did not run the sort of risks which face revolutionaries in other countries, such as imprisonment, torture, or death. At worst I spent some money and sat through a great many boring meetings. I made many mistakes and hopefully learned some important things.

My history has been used by some to attack me personally. It has been charged that I am not really an anarchist, but actually a “closet Trotskyist.” Actually I regard myself as a Marxist-informed anarchist. I identify with the tradition of revolutionary anarchist- communism. But frankly it is not important to me to “prove” that I am an orthodox anarchist (whatever that would be). Usually I call myself a “socialist-anarchist,” as did Malatesta, but I would be perfectly happy to call myself a “decentralist socialist.” Since this is not in use, I could call myself a “libertarian” or “antiauthoritarian” socialist. Or whatever. Similarly, some political opponents (sometimes the same ones) have sneered at my education--I have a doctorate in school psychology--or occupation: I have been a teacher and a school psychologist for many years, punching a time clock and paying union dues--that is, a white collar worker.

Raising such issues is a trick. It is meant to make me the issue instead of my ideas. Rather than debate me, these opponents chose to focus on irrelevancies about me as a person. These are typical methods in bourgeois politics and belong in “debates” between the Democrats and Republicans, not on the left. I admit to taking some ideas from Lenin, Trotsky, and Luxemburg (such as imperialism, the united front, or the mass strike), while rejecting their overall politics. Nor do I agree with Marxism as a total system; I reject Marx’s centralism and inevitablism. What this means can be seen by reading my essays (such as the discussion of the nature of the former Soviet Union). Many important activists and theorists have been Trotskyists before becoming libertarian socialists (of either the anarchist or libertarian Marxist variety). This includes Murray Bookchin, C.L.R. James, Castoriadis, Maurice Brinton, and Daniel Guerin. I have no problem being in their company.

In any case, I intend to go on writing essays at the end of each month for the Anarkismo site, so long as they let me. Goodman’s “hope of face-to-face community” can only be realized through an international revolution of the working class and all oppressed people, to be achieved by the self-organization of the oppressed, including the organizing of anarchists. This is “the only truth I know.”
***
I wish all comrades and friends a Merry Winter Solstice and a Happy New Year!
***

Written for Anarkismo.net

author by RLpublication date Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:33author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Why did the German Revolution failed?
Why did the Spanish Revolution failed?
Why did the Russian Revolution came the closest?

author by Jonnylocks - NYMAA, SDS, IWWpublication date Thu Dec 21, 2006 17:15author email jonnylox at aol dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

Great job with these articles! I for one appreciate them and would like to see them perhaps compiled and published one day.. including some of the best of the comments/responses/debates.

As for our avid anarkismo reading troll down there... perhaps a better question is 'Why did the Russian revolution also fail... the hijacking of which inexorably lead to the deaths of millions?' Answering that question by seriously looking at history.. along with an honest examination of human nature.. may broaden your perspective.

author by Anarchopublication date Thu Dec 21, 2006 19:22author address author phone Report this post to the editors

> Why did the German Revolution failed?

The legacy of the Marxist Social democrats, plus the interference of Lenin's Communist International which made the German Communists split rather than accept the fact that the majority had come to the same conclusions as anarchism.

> Why did the Spanish Revolution failed?

Dare I say, the fact that the CNT was a minority organisation in certain parts of Spain and so they had to change their politics to ensure that the Marxist Socialist parties would be happy? That, and the activities of the Communist Party.

> Why did the Russian Revolution came the closest?

To what, exactly? The Russian revolution was a far greater failure than the German and Spanish revolutions. Unless, of course, Marxists have a different definition of "success"?

Related Link: http://www.anarchistfaq.org
author by Waynepublication date Fri Dec 22, 2006 02:53author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Why did the German Revolution failed?
Why did the Spanish Revolution failed?
Why did the Russian Revolution came the closest?

After the Russian Revolution, Makhno and Arshinov and other Ukrainian and Russian anarchists decided that one reason the anarchists failed in that revolution was their lack of a serious organization. This should be a federation, to include the virtues of decentralization as well as central coordination (see my essay on Organization).

Of course the "success" of the Leninists led to a monstrous state-capitalist totalitarianism which murdered tens of millions of workers and peasants and revolutionaries. The same is true of the successes of the Chinese revolution. Anarchists have not had that sort of "success."

In the Spanish revolution of the thirties, the anarchists did have an organization--the FAI, which led the CNT union, having about half of the working class. As the Friends of Durruti came to see, it was not enough to have an organization, it was also necessary to have the right program. This is why it is important to work on theory and program well before a revolutionary situation (which is what I have been doing, among others, you may note).

author by mitchpublication date Fri Dec 22, 2006 09:40author email wsany at hotmail dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

Well, not much to say about the politics...but good health and good wishes Wayne.

Keep walking the road towards free, non-marxian socialism brother -:)

author by HPWombat - Arawak Citypublication date Fri Dec 22, 2006 10:13author email hpwombat at yahoo dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

If it is not important to prove, then why write something ment to prove you are an anarchist? I'd say it is important, but not because of the label you wear, which has good superficial qualities, but isn't necessary, its just paint on the car.

I really don't understand why everytime I read something by NEFAC and NEFACers old wars are brought up that have little to do with the United States (and Canada) and its current context. They were times worth living, but they had circumstances dealing with an apex of struggle, these are not our circumstances. It would make more sense if such things didn't become an issue to validate or invalidate the theories of NEFAC and NEFACers. I hardly think they would hold me responsible for such classics as the nihilists of Russia or International propaganda by deed.

If we are to talk of an anarchist pluralism today, we must talk of the practical implications of agitating towards an active social tension and those that would unite around this project. This is why I was challenging Wayne's essay on strategy and tactics just a while back, I wasn't sure if there were NEFACers that wanted to create a general strategy shared among radicals that went beyond protesting. Being critical of workplace strategies, I can't find unity with NEFAC here, we disagree with this project. Are there desires to create a Greek situation in NEFAC? This is perhaps the most contemporary presence of pro-federalist anarchists with a praxis I find agreeable that I know of.

If this could be the direction of current NEFAC, then I can see NEFAC working with or sharing a technical unity with other anarchists they typically disagree with.

Related Link: http://midwest.azone.org
author by Waynepublication date Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:45author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Wombat writes: *If it is not important to prove, then why write something meant to prove you are an anarchist?
Answer: I didn't.

*I really don't understand why everytime I read something by NEFAC and NEFACers old wars are brought up that have little to do with the United States (and Canada)
Ans: Everytime? I doubt it. However, I do think that revolutionaries can learn from past wars and revolutions, in fact a great deal, which is highly relevant to our current situation and, hopefully, to a future revolution. You apparently want to reinvent the wheel, to start over from scratch at each war or revolution.

* I hardly think they would hold me responsible for such classics as the nihilists of Russia or International propaganda by deed.
Ans: Ha-ha. Actually there are many anarchists and Marxists today who advocate terrorist methods, just like those days. Maybe you are one of them. If so, I would indeed point to the lessons to be learned from the results of terrorism in those days.

*If we are to talk of an anarchist pluralism today
Ans: Why speak of anarchist pluralism? I am willing to work with other anarchists on common projects, if that is what you mean, but no more than I am willing to work with any other activists and radicals or just ordinary people from communities and workplaces. At the same time, I am for an open and honest discussion of differences among anarchists, so we can see which works the best. This is not a matter of religious tolerance. It is a serious debate among anarchists. It is an attempt to overthrow capitalism before it destroys the earth.

* I wasn't sure if there were NEFACers that wanted to create a general strategy shared among radicals that went beyond protesting.
Ans: Yes we are.

*Being critical of workplace strategies, I can't find unity with NEFAC here,
Ans: We also do community organizing. But yes, if you disagree with a class struggle perspective, you will not agree with our main strategy.

*Are there desires to create a Greek situation in NEFAC?
Ans: Don't know enough about the Greek situation.

author by Nestor - FdCApublication date Fri Dec 22, 2006 16:44author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Hi HPWombat,
Could you expand a little on what you meant by the "Greek situation"?
in solidarity,
nestor

author by prole cat - ctc supporter, atlanta, GA, USApublication date Fri Dec 22, 2006 19:07author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I think Wayne responded ably to Wombat, with one exception: Wayne argued simply that we should learn from history. But Wombat's criticism was that "nefac-ers" (or pro-organizational class struggle anarchists) tend to dwell on a particular era, an era that resembles the current one but little. I don't think HP's suggestion necessarily was that history should be ignored entirely.

Certainly the period from 1910 to the second World War saw more radical organizing and revolutionary upheaval than the latter half of the twentieth century, and the beginnings of the next. This difference is precisely why the afore-mentioned period must be studied- because it was revolutionary! If we are to prepare ourselves to play a productive role in future upheavals, what better times and events to study, than revolutionary ones?

Of course, understanding what preceded and brought about these revolutionary times, is also of great value. The book The Spanish Anarchists by Murray Bookchin comes to mind, an accounting not of the Spanish Civil War, but of the long, largely unheralded decades of anarchist organizing that preceded it. How to organize successfully during non-revolutionary times for future revolutionary upheavals, is of great importance (in addition to how to act during actual revolutionary epochs.) Mitch is to be commended for spurring discussion on another thread, around organizing in the U.S. and Canada during the 1970's. ( http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=4373&condense_comments=false#comment3807 )

This is precisely what we of the platformist pole (if I may be forgiven for presuming to speak for "us") are trying to do today- not spur small sections of society to dramatic and futile action next week, but lay the groundwork for an anarchist sensibility among the working populace, that will be in place when the future critical moments arise. Such mass upheavals will not be created from the activist's fury and righteousness, but will arise in response to organic crises within society at large. Such crises (history and theory inform us) recur periodically, and are the inevitable result of the inherent instability and exploitative nature of capitalist society.

Having said all that, I would agree somewhat, that there is danger in focusing so resolutely on the lessons of the early 20th century, that we fail to account for ways in which the present and future may differ. The crying need for alternative technology (that was largely unrecognized a hundred years ago) is likely the most prominent example. We can hardly look to the past for guidance in such instances, beyond general principles. Might a coming era produce mass upheavals that occur outside of any prior framework (unions, antiwar movements, etc.)? I think it would be a mistake to dwell overmuch on such distant and perhaps remote possibilities, but at the same time, wise to keep our eyes open to the possibilities of such tendencies developing. Perhaps the coming era will pit the anarchists, not against the Marxists, but against the primitivists in a struggle to influence the ideological direction of a mass uprising over fouled air, water, and weather. Or perhaps not (who can say?); but if such a situation did arise, I fear we (platformists) would be caught flatfooted, and be marginalized. We have an excellent critique of primitivism, but with the notable exception of a few articles Wayne has penned, not a concretely mapped alternative.

All we can be sure of, is that the future will be similar to the past, but not identical.

Finally, Wayne is correct to point to the importance of building a common perspective within a core of dedicated revolutionaries. There are other important tasks as well; swelling the ranks of this core, by presenting ideas already agreed upon in simple, unpretentious language to folks with preexisting radical tendencies (where I devote most of my time), and also building bridges between our ranks and the more advanced elements outside of revolutionary circles (including, but by all means not limited to, the unions).

author by HPWombat - Arawak Citypublication date Sat Dec 23, 2006 06:45author email hpwombat at yahoo dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

Wayne, I really don't know what you are talking about in regards to "reinventing the wheel", prole cat is right, I was not suggesting anything of the sort, even from my previous post it should be apparant that I was talking about the differences of circumstance from the Russian and Spanish Revolutions, which I called an "apex of struggle". I am not going to condescend by sourcing its meaning, unless asked to.

When you study an apex of struggle, I am critical of the use of this history with such little practical point. How do we learn to create the beginnings of an active social tension from an era that saw the height of social tension? This would be a better question to answer. An alliance with an anti-war protest group has little similarity to an alliance in the middle of a brutal civil war and the consequences are much higher.

I don't see anything I can agree with about NEFAC's current praxis other its approval of a variety of tactics as far as protests are concerned. Despite claiming to be anarchists, I've heard more than one platformist influenced anarchist claim they had more in common with the left than with the contemporary radical anarchist tendencies that reject the left.

This is where the Greek situation comes in. Resently and not so resently in Greece pro-federation anarchists have been using similar tactics to the insurrectionary anarchists of italy, molotov cocktails and the whole nine yards. Though I don't see the cocktail flying anytime soon in the U.S., the sentiment is here with people that want a momentum of direct actions that anarchists and others the world over embrace. Is Wayne and/or NEFAC interested in the practice of the Greeks and finding what can be learned here? The contemporaries of Greece might hold more in common with anarchists and NEFAC now than the struggles of the early to mid 20th Century. If y'all were, I can see NEFAC in an anarchist pluralism,

I am aware anarchists question NEFAC all the time, my question is not to expose your leftism, I already know you embrace such things, my desires are to see where I can work with you Wayne and with NEFAC and how can a North American anarchist pluralism develop, if it can, with NEFAC participation with other anarchists. You are the author of that "firmness in principle, flexibility in tactics", does flexibility extend to post and anti-left anarchists, or only to the left?

I'll provide more context, the midwest is working towards a network, our tendencies are a blend of syndicalism, anti-civilization green anarchy, insurrectionary anarchy, militant anti-racism and others. Some of the midwest are working with the IWW, I am willing to give critical solidarity here, as I am to anyone willing to help others. I won't extend that solidarity into sharing strategies on labor struggle. Of greater emphasis is our ARA, with the Toledo riots being one aspect that most in the Midwest feel for (Toledo was a revolt and propaganda by deed). Virtually everyone is at least superficially united around the idea of militant confrontation of nazis and fascists. Autonomous Spaces and Direct actions also seem to be an inspiring for many and I hope this desire will continue to expand. I don't want to sound as if I understand the midwest as much as I hope to, we are in another beginning, the third or fourth I've participated in.

Related Link: http://midwest.azone.org
author by Waynepublication date Sun Dec 24, 2006 09:40author address author phone Report this post to the editors

(1) It should go without saying that I am not a spokesperson for NEFAC. I express my own opinions, although they are generally in line with those of the overall federation, I think, with the exception of my support for national liberation (for an anti-nationalist anti-imperialism).

(2) It should also go without saying that I think we need to examine and re-examine the recent past as well as the current social situation, and predict, as best as we can, the future we will be facing. I have repeatedly tried to do this, if one goes through my writings.

(3) But I also believe that we should not start from scratch, that it is extremely important to review the history of working class and other struggles, to see where they succeeded and how they failed. Certain things, such as the existence of capitalism and the state, have not changed but only been modified. And certain things will be repeated. We are now far from a revolutionary crisis, although the objective crisis is plainly maturing for all to see who are willing to see it. But there WILL BE further revolutionary crises and we need to PREPARE for them, in part by examining past revolutionary crises.

For example, Lula is not the first social democrat elected to office nor is Hugo Chavez the first statist populist, but many radicals seem to think they are (and defend their naive responses by noting that Brazil and Venezuela today have many differences from the European past, which is certainly true).

(4) Similarly, hostility to working class organizing, rejection of the left, advocacy of isolated uprisings, and other ideas raised by Wombat, are not new ideas either, although they are widespread today. They have a history--one of failure. A refusal to face that history only sets up the oppressed for further failures. (I am asserting this here, not proving it, obviously. )

(5) Whether my harping on the "irrelevant" past of revolutions and wars is unrelated to today--I suggest looking at my last essay which specifically related lessons from the Spanish and Russian revolutions to recent events in Venezuela and Nepal.

(6) As to the Greek situation, I recommend the statement by the Federation of Anarchists of Greece which denounces the very tactics which Wombat admires. http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=2198&search_text=Greek%20anarchiststhe

author by prole cat - ctc Supporter, atl GA USApublication date Mon Dec 25, 2006 20:13author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Wayne wrote: "It should also go without saying…"

Wayne,

Among ourselves, it goes without saying, certainly. But since the criticism that class struggle anarchists are mired in a dead past is a common one, and comes not only (I think) from post leftists, I thought the point worth expanding on at some length. Less for your or HP's benefit- you and I already agree on these matters, and I don't think we will find a lot of common ground with the post left tendency- than for the benefit of the newer, interested but less vocal readers. From what I understand from another thread, there are quite a few of those by now!

salud,
pc

author by HPWombat - Arawak Citypublication date Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:05author email hpwombat at yahoo dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

1) I am quite aware you are not, nor is there a spokesperson Wayne. If there was, it would not be my desire to address my questions to them. This is why I aimed my question at both yourself and at NEFAC, so should NEFAC not have an official position on what I was talking about, you could answer for yourself or inform me of others in NEFAC that may agree with my implications.

2) Wayne, I never made a point contrary to the use of history. It seems what I've said has yet again gone past you and you failed to understand the complexity of what I was talking about.

3) You are obviously not responding to me with this point, in fact it seems you have decided to not engage me directly, but rather an unseen audience. This does seem to make it easier to avoid answering hard questions by pretending we are in a large auditorium.

4) There wasn't a claim to anything new in my strategies, this point is also without basis and out of the context of any point.

5) Who are you quoting Wayne? Really? Who are you quoting? The only statement of irrelevance made has been by you and you seem to of won that debate with yourself. You might hurt "your" feelings if you keep rubbing your win in "your" face.

6) Probably your best point because I actually think that you are right. I thought the pro-federation anarchists of greece were the ones doing all the cool shit over there, but I guess it wasn't them. Here is a link to an article about them: http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20061224124221816

I thought the Greek radicals were pro-federation anarchists, making pro-federation anarchists viable...I guess I was wrong. Though I am sad that the neo-platformists cannot ever find social revolt, I am glad that the Greek radicals responsible for so much cool shit aren't a part of something I find questionable like union organizing.

Related Link: http://midwest.azone.org
author by HPWombat - Arawak Citypublication date Tue Dec 26, 2006 11:30author email hpwombat at yahoo dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

Hello prole cat,

I figured I would respond to your earlier comment.

The period mentioned, 1910 to WW2, is not the only revolutionary period. In fact, I've studied at some length the struggles of the 1860s-1890s and they contain a pertinence that was marginal by WW1. Propaganda by deed caused the growth of the anarchists and increased activity throughout all social stratums, groups of tens and twenties grew to hundreds, hundreds to thousands in this period. The anarchist communism of 1910 was very different in 1890.

You state that you study 1910-WW2 because they were revolutionary times, I study 1860s-90s for the same reason. Indeed, what better times to study than revolutionary times.

The Spanish Anarchists by Bookchin exposes that the working class anarchists were also anarchists in favor of propaganda by deed. It has been a while since I've read this book though, so I can't quote anything from it.

Studying this period when the working class organs were in a period of growth internationally unpresented in any other time does seem to imply that small uprisings are of little use when a large organ can be deployed for revolutionary purposes. But even looking at the growth of Spain assassinations and small uprisings were very much a part of Spain upto the point of the Spanish Civil War. Why these small uprisings are unimportant but the large strikes and mobilizations of the unions are legitimate, I don't know. I can see concern coming from the platformists that small uprisings could be crushed, but to just dismiss them seems contrary to the spirit of revolt anarchy is supposed to embrace. Our revolt is now, we can organize while we practice, there isn't a dichotomy between the two, no revolt is futile, no matter its size.

I find it alarming that your responses on technology would pit you against the anarcho-primitivists. You fear the outcome of a primitivist world, I would not. The self-organization and autonomy of people is a principle of all anarchists. We reject compromise with the present social order, not an order that is free of domination. Why is there a black-white divide in a future where self-organization is prominent.

Related Link: http://midwest.azone.org
author by Wayne - NEFACpublication date Wed Dec 27, 2006 05:05author address author phone Report this post to the editors

As PC indicates, our political tendency has very little in common with that of HP Wombat. In neither methods nor goals do we agree. Given the briefness required by these emailed comments, it is impossible for me to really "engage" him or her in a really productive dialogue. Perhaps that is too bad, but there it is. Let me summarize our differences:

(1) On methods, HPW appears to support small groups of anarchists attacking police stations (as in Greece) or setting off bombs in public places (as in the 19th Century "propaganda by the deed") or assassinating politicians or businesspeople ("prop. by the deed" and pre-revolutionary Spain) or leading small and easily put down (and massacred) uprisings (Spain and Italy) and similar methods.

It is bizarre to read someone advocating (or just sympathic to) such methods in today's atmosphere. After 9/11, we see that such methods only lead to increased power to the state, increased support of the state by the people (who feel threatened rather than identify with the terrorists), and increased repression. These are not effective methods.

Politically such methods are liberalism turned violent. A small, isolated, group acts politically FOR the people, just as electoral politicians are political for the people. It is elitist and authoritarian. No wonder these methods were used by the Maoist Weatherpeople or other Stalinist and nationalist radicals and by Jihadists today.

Our method, in contrast, is to work toward popular struggle, mass action, and working class movement. This is why we are for union organizing. (The capitalist class would be delighted if all radicals and anarchists followed HPW's advice and rejected union organizing.) We advocate popular resistance while openly advocating our own revolutionary anarchist program.

(2) On goals, HPW advocates, or at least defends, primitivism. This aims at the end of civilization, of industry, and of agriculture. It could only happen with the death of millions. While HPW makes a point of how anarchist he or she is, in fact such an antihuman goal contradicts the goals of all the historical anarchists, from Proudhon to Bakunin to Kropotkin to Goldman to Goodman to Bookchin, until, well, the formation of the primitivist trend (which mainly developed out of Marxism, not anarchism).

I am completely opposed to capitalist industrialism, but I think this can be replaced with a new way of using technology, under socialist-anarchism, as has been advocated by many anarchists.

(3) To conclude: I am for working with people like HPW on limited goals and tasks. I am sure of his sincerity and good will. But our overall methods and goals are widely different indeed (the above points could be greately expanded on, but there is that pesky space limitation I mentioned).

author by HPWombat - Arawak Citypublication date Thu Dec 28, 2006 14:40author email hpwombat at yahoo dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

I lost my original post somehow, so I figured I would post some of my thoughts.

I support social revolt. Some of what Wayne says I support I do given the context. Emile Henry's bombing of a public area was built on the execution of several deedists and the slaughter of the Paris Commune. We are not striving towards a compromising situation, we are stiving for an uncompromising one, this is what defines social revolt. I disagree with how this is protrayed by Wayne, whose analysis is very abstract and focused only on outcomes, the present cannot predict the future or the weight of action. Our actions are the present, their outcomes are the past. I am not suggesting "liberalism gone violent" whatever that is supposed to mean, I am suggesting aggression with the social order, which has nothing to do with liberalism. I consider this an attack on my ideas, which is funny coming from a philosophy that advocates so many veins that Marxian parties advocate and have advocated that its claims of anarchist credibility are far more questionable than the primitivists, which have remained true to the practices of anarchy, while union advocates like Wayne ignore the critiques of work, technology, civilization, specialization, institutions, the working class, essentialism and on and on.

I disagree with Wayne's position on climate. The climate is right to talk of such things, the left is not offering solutions that break the pacified stasis of the present. We are offering solutions that break away from the accepted, which only offer more of the same.

I support large popular insurrections that don't depend on institutional organizing methods. I support wildcat strikes and general strikes that break with their union bosses, which will always seek a place for compromise in the end. I support tendencies that don't put people in situations where they are placed in a divided interest between the safe and accepted (reform and political concessions) vs. finding a way to continue and spread the fight. I will mess up everyone's good times making an extra buck. I will mess up everyone's desires to continue living a life separated from direct experience, where the mundane and the bureaucratic are normalized with the poisons and brutality of social control. For the family members out there, ask yourself, do you want to rise up because you have kids and want something more than a hollow life often medicated to accept the givens or do you want to fight for something more so that their children and grandchildren can experience something where control isn't a circumstance of life.

I will support a pluralism with Wayne and those that agree with him when we can be united on some of the ideas of creating class tension in society. Like Wayne I don't see possible unity for anarchists that embrace the methods of the left and anarchists that don't. We simply don't have shared desires, projects, methods, strategies or tactics. We only share the name of anarchist, we interpret mutual aid, cooperation and the liberation of desire differently, which are core anarchist principles, so even here we are rivals based on method and interpretation.

author by Paddy Rua - WSMpublication date Thu Dec 28, 2006 16:54author address author phone Report this post to the editors

So, the State kills some deedists and you go to the first cafe around the corner and throw a bomb to blow to pieces anyone there? What Emile Henry did was not only stupid. It was wrong, despicable, as despicable as the Israeli army bombing a whole civilian quarter because the abduction of some soldiers. And to try to get "inspiration" from that awful action (no matter how lyrical were his letters justifying a monstruous action) shows an utter disregard for human life, comparable to that of Bush and the likes.

You are right: fortunately, we only share the name of anarchists. As Malatesta said, we don't want any deals with those who would be able to burn the whole world and everyone in the name of an abstract "idea". I'm glad we only share a common name.

author by HPWombat - Arawak Citypublication date Thu Dec 28, 2006 21:24author email hpwombat at yahoo dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

So the state killed some deedists, like the Chicago Martyrs, you know the Spies and Parsons of the Black International? These people were quite willing to strangle police spies and toss them out the window, these are your martyrs. Their version of protesting was to gather a protest at rich people's houses and stone their buildings, then fight the cops when they showed up, usually with a few scattered arms. Yeah, Emma Goldman supported these people, so did Kropotkin (the biggest theorist of propaganda by deed and most prominent supporter of the Haymarket Martyrs) and they founded May Day for these people. Yet today these people are "despicable" as well as those that acted in solidarity with them. Remember to study revolt, even the parts made obscure by history thought ignored.

Another funny thing from this comment is the Malatesta quote. Malatesta supported propaganda by deed during this period. Its funny how Wayne and this person here can only focus on an out of context abstraction like a public bombing from the 19th century as the end all be all of propaganda by deed and anarchists that seek no compromise, yet their glorious history is somehow not linked to the very same actions. These were the dominant anarchists of the 1870s-90s...this is what created the glorious 1910s and 1930s. Makhno was a killer too and he used asymmetric warfare, just like the friends of Durruti and other more infamous actors. Sometimes you don't have a majority but the fight is worth it. If we followed the present platformists, Makhno would've had to organize labor unions before the largely peasant population could of thought of revolt. And Glorious Spain, let's ignore the violent history of Spain and only concentrate on the institutional behaviors of the CNT and its political decisions. At least this is how I'm lead to believe Wayne and his supporters would have it. Yeah, let's insult Emile Henry and 19th century anarchy more. Let's not ever consider direct action or revolt outside of a labor strike. Let's just keep aiming for that reform that will somehow turn into revolt, despite the foundations of reform being concessions to prevent strikes and riots, which is how they are still used today.

But what about Henry? Henry's father was a communard, who saw over 50,000 slaughtered (a state sponsored utter disregard for life) for just wanting a better life and to be left to their own devices. Henry's Father was exiled for his participation. This defined Henry's growth. Henry himself can explain the why's of the bombing action himself. Directed towards the jury that assigned his execution:

"Momentarily attracted by socialism, I wasted no time in distancing myself from that party. My love of liberty was too great, my regard for individual initiative too great, my repudiation for feathering one’s nest too definite for me to enlist in the numbered army of the fourth estate. Also, I saw that, essentially, socialism changes the established order not one jot. It retains the authoritarian principle, and this principle, despite what supposed free-thinkers may say about it, is nothing but an ancient relic of the belief in a higher power.

(...)In the merciless war that we have declared on the bourgeoisie, we ask no mercy. We mete out death and we must face it. For that reason I await your verdict with indifference. I know that mine will not be the last head you will sever (...) You will add more names to the bloody roll call of our dead.

Hanged in Chicago, beheaded in Germany, garroted in Xerez, shot in Barcelona, guillotined in Montbrison and in Paris, our dead are many; but you have not been able to destroy anarchy. Its roots go deep: its spouts from the bosom of a rotten society that is falling apart; it is a violent backlash against the established order; it stands for the aspirations to equality and liberty which have entered the lists against the current authoritarianism. It is everywhere. That is what makes it indomitable, and it will end by defeating you and killing you."

I could keep responding, but hopefully I've made my point that it hurts my feelings to see someone piss on a martyr in an off-hand remark. It makes little sense for anarchists to rip on classic anarchists. We wouldn't be called anarchists or anarchist communists without them, we'd just be decentralist socialists or social revolutionaries. So please, have a little forethought and use your critical/analytical skills.

Related Link: http://midwest.azone.org
author by Paddy Rua - WSMpublication date Fri Dec 29, 2006 00:56author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Ha! Now I get where you are coming from. You really don't know how to read! When did I say the Chicago Martyrs where despicable?. When? I only made the comment about Emile Henry for I think it is unbelievable someone on the 21st century claiming his "deed" as heroic. Yes, he is despicable. There's a big, massive, difference between "strangling a police spy" or stoning rich people's houses (to use your own examples) and throwing a bomb to a cafe. The last one is despicable, anti-anarchist and deeply immoral. And coward as well (a lyricial and well written defense letter will not change the facts).

I know that part of our history quite well, and unlike your claims, it is not unknown or ignored. Itr has been largely acknowledged and studied in depth by numerous historians (from Bruce Nelson and Paul Avrich to Daniel Guérin & J. Maitron). Seemingly you should go back and study it, for Linggs was not the same as Spies, as Parsons was not the same as Engel. And all of them, by the way advocated 'formal' organisation to be of paramount importance -they themselves were busy organising unions and political circles.

Have you ever read Malatesta? You will soon realise that the time he defended 'propaganda by the deed' was quite a short one -and the only naive action they carried with a small number of other anarchists was to take over a rural village and declare anarchist-communism (!). Most of his life (and obviously his most mature phase) he was an enemy of 'vanguardist' action and advocated class organisation of the people. He even went further to call propaganda by the deed "as stupid as useless" (though admitting the heroism of some of its martyrs). That's one of the reasons why in 1900 he sufferend an attack -curiously, in the US.

The definition of propaganda by the deed, as well was quite different in the beginning by the way -read the article of Paul Brousse on the International bulletin, published recently on Robert Graham's anthology "anarchism", in which he defines it by stating that action (all actions, not only "violent" ones) spoke louder than words. So they were not (neither Malatesta or any of the early internationalists as Cafiero) focusing only on an insurrectionary tactic, but on a number of possible actions. Again, read comrade before you speak about people you don't know well: Go to Cafiero's article "The Action". He advocates from the posion to the vote. Everything as long as it serves the cause. Not in an indiscriminate fashion.

"These were the dominant anarchists of the 1870s-90s...this is what created the glorious 1910s and 1930s"

Again you knowledge of history is just too poor to make those claims: propaganda by the deed is part of a decadent movement that collapses during that "glorious time" to give way to the anarchists involved in organising and deeply involved in class struggle. The 1910s and 1930s are the product, mainly, of the entering of the anarchists en masse into the labour movement (brilliant examples of those days are Big Bill Haywood, Joe Hill, Monatte, Pelloutier, Pouget)

When you talk of Makhno you reveal again your own ignorance: actually, the first activities of Makhno in the Ukraine after his release from prisons was to organise the Soviets and a number of trade unions around Gulyai Polye, not to put indiscrimenatly bombs around. It was this activity that gave him the initial popularity that latter gave him the nickname of Batko. It is only after the invasion of the Austro-Germans that they resort to insurrection. As long as they did not need it, they did not use it. They were not dogmatical in their approach and they adjusted their tactics to the needs of the moment, instead of foolishly sticking to one single tactic.

Spain? Durruti and Ascaso weren't organisers above all? Not only in Spain, but also in Latin America, they help set up numerous unions. They all acknowledged the importance of an organised working class above all. Oh, but we should be lead to believe that a couple of terrorist actions were more relevant on the 19th of july than a whole union of a million and a half people.

All of the examples you quote didn't actually fear to fight for reforms (the 8 hour a day doesn't ring a bell my friend?) and were ready, as recent anarchist communists, to use different tactics when needed -take for example the Uruguayan FAU and the experience of the OPR-33 armed struggle there. But you need to be very serious and responsible in choosing tactics, because struggle is no video game, here your actions do have a consequence in human cost and what we want is to change society, not to play "indians and cowboys". Our comrades have participated in bulding a movement and have resorted to all the tactics available and necessary to obtain victory, and we need no macho bomb talk to display heroism.

Please comrade, avoid talking on things you don't know well. They do no favour to your own arguments. And don't try to make us believe that you are action man, and we are all waiting. We want smart action, effective action, and it is for us to decide whether we want a serious revolutionary movement, that can actually change society, or if we want revolutionary fireworks...

author by HPWombat - Arawak Citypublication date Fri Dec 29, 2006 03:38author email hpwombat at yahoo dot comauthor address author phone Report this post to the editors

I really don't know how to read? Curious, I thought I knew how to read and write, I guess I'm just a yokel. Thanks for clarifying that I was stupid and not Henry, you are really nice and couth.

The big difference of Paddy's "this far and no farther" is: "strangling a police spy" or stoning rich people's houses vs. throwing a bomb to a cafe.

Wow, the moralism is getting thin, I'm glad I can narrow it down to just strangling people, which can take minutes per person, but oh it is so worth it. Yeah, humor, it tastes good in ice cream.

You bring up formal organization when the critique didn't exist, when anarchists were breaking with socialism during the heights of the franchise. I really don't see this as valid. I suppose I could go and blame Bakunin for not being an anarchist communist with this logic.

It is from Malatesta that Propaganda by Deed became popular in the first place, it was first practiced within the 1st International by the Italian Federation with Malatesta's heavy influence. I am not limiting struggle, so how ever you want to interpret his deeds as justified and others as not is up to you. I don't seek moral terms to limit revolt.

You throw quotes around "vanguard", like Malatesta had a position on propaganda by deed being vanguardist, I'm curious if you have links or quotes to go with this, as I would love to see his position in later years. I've seen Most and Kropotkin, but I didn't realize that Malatesta's will broke like so many others of this period. I'd also like some sourcing on "stupid as useless" which I don't doubt he said.

Cafiero, yeah I've heard of him, never read your reference, don't have access to it, is it online? I'm quite certain that a variety of possibilities were discussed by these individuals. I don't see your implications.

You correctly state that the anarchist labor movement of the 1910s was a direct result of anarchists leaving propaganda by deed in this period. I disagree with this picture painting you've gotten yourself into. Your moral opinion of this period is not analysis and if you are going to keep throwing moral words around, how can I learn to read properly?

So, Batko organized the peasants into a union? Let me check what I said... and you say that Batko was fine with his small urban force...good for Batko...but what about the peasants...oh yeah, they had an insurrection and didn't organize into a union. Did Batko instigate the insurrection for the dumb peasants, sounds like it according to you. I hope its not the case, because then ole' Batko is a vanguardist in the very real understanding of the word.

Though I learned something about Durruti, I was not talking about Durruti, but rather the "friends of Durruti" and their involvements. I don't know the history like y'all, they are your favorites, but I do know that the friends continued to fight after Franco was seen as an official sovereign, but then, you can school me more on that.

Ha, now you are looking for me to somehow be a throwback to the 19th century. I'm talking about propaganda by deed and classic anarchists and you say that some wanted reforms. I never claimed otherwise. Do you really expect me to hold a classic 19th century ideology? I'm examining the history for circumstances of ruptures and the social impact of propaganda by deed. This is where the critical/analytical skills come in handy, because I don't advocate some romantic view of history, I advocate an application of theory to practice.

Also Paddy, if you want an action man, I'm all hunk. Seriously though, don't ever action bait me in a public forum again. It shows a lack of respect for others' security. It is very macho, like the oneupmanship you've thrown at me in this thread and the machoness you wish I were displaying with bomb talk.

Related Link: http://midwest.azone.org
author by Tom Wetzel - WSA (personal capacity)publication date Fri Dec 29, 2006 05:33author address author phone Report this post to the editors

19th century anarchism was contradictory and confused in many ways. and one reason for this was its tendency to borrow ideas from both bourgeois liberal individualism and socialism. the liberal individualist influence led to the confused notion of "abolishing all government", with no clear proposal concerning how a society is to govern itself overall after getting rid of the state. this leads to the failure to adequately appreciate the need for the working class, the mass of the people, to construct a new grassroots governing structure, rooted in the assemblies, to replace the state. the preference for unanimity for decision-making among some (but not all) anarchists also is deriveed from this liberal individualist influence because it is tantamount to a claim of each ego to veto any decision it doesn't agree with. But majority decision-making itself creates no structure of oppression, whereas anarchism is supposed to be against structures of oppression.

in the early 20th centuries anarchists used the concept of a "vanguard" -- Emma Goldman spoke of radical activists being "the advance guard of social progress" or similar language. The idea is that consciousness in class society is uneven, and some have clearer notions of, more commitment to, a society beyond capitalism, others don't think this way. Some, motivated by these ideas, become committed activists and organizers. This is a "vanguard" in a sociological sense. But this doesn't mean they have to act in a "vanguardist" way. That happens when a group tries to gain power by constructing hierarchies, or in other modes of action that substitute themselves for the democracy of mass organizations and movements. "propaganda by the deed" is substitutionist and is vanguargist for that reason.

Kropotkin did at one time endorse propaganda by the deed, and at the time of the Russian revolution the Russian anarcho-communists, many of them, had evolved this into a fixation on small group actions by the anarchists themselves, especially seizing buildings. They were criticized by the Russian syndicalists, like Maximov for this because of their failure to consider the impacts on other people, as when seizure of the American ambassador's car brought government repression down on all anarchists. "Propagand by deed" rationales also led to corruption of the Russian anarchist movement because individuals began to use it justify plain stealing to live.

wombat mentions: "the critiques of work, technology, civilization, specialization, institutions, the working class, essentialism and on and on."

But anarchists traditionally criticized the class system and the institution of wage labor. Work, as something that we for the benefit of each other, was not something they were opposed to. Human society isn't feasible without work in this sense. Similarly with the rejection of "technology". Technology is human knowhow for making things useful to people. It's part of human nature, as beings who can envision products before making them, to devise and develop such knowhow. To be against "technology" in the abstract lets capitalism off the hook by failing to notice how destructive impacts of actual technologies is due to the logic of capitalism. Nor are anarchists against "institutions". Workers self-management and neighborhood assemblies are only two examples of "institutions" anarchists have advocated. Wombat is talking only about the deviant and quite recent primitivist trend, a product of American middle class dropout culture, in my observation. The critique of "essentialism" is a product of post-modernism, which is a recent acadmic trend, and quite elitist in its obscurantist terminology.

author by Paddy Rua - WSMpublication date Fri Dec 29, 2006 07:05author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Any person with a bit of common sense would realize that a "police spy" is not the same as a person who just entered a cafe to have a dring and a bit of a craic. Certainly, your own inability to see the difference says loads. Violence against the police might be in particular circumstances of reppression or persecusion an act of defence or attack against the State; violence against a civilian is stupid, pointless and cowardly. One target might be legitimate (only in extremely specific cases) while the other cannot be (in no case).

Maybe a shooting spree in a McDonalds is a nice way to do something for anarchy's sake according to you? That would be as despicable as Henry's deed: no matter he wrote a nice letter to justify such a horrendous action.

Now, you want to know about Malatesta's positions... Well the extensive quotations below are from around 1895, just before being shot by another fanatical on a speaking tour in 1900 in the US. You would be delighted to hear what the man has to say. Judging by the date, it didn't take him that long to realize how wrong propaganda by the deed turned to be (smart people learn from practice and mistakes -others never do!)

In his article "Socialism & Anarchism" (if you read Spanish, you can get it in "Escritos", Errico Malatesta, Fundación Anselmo Lorenzo, Madrid 2002. The pages of this particular article are 23-32. I'll go through the bother of translating it for you as I don't know any internet link to this text, but surely anyone could get it), Malatesta says:

"We have got to the point in which many praise the 'comrades' for actions that they would despise if done by the bourgeoisie, and seemingly their only criterium to distinguish good from evil is as follows: if the author of a deed calls himself or not ana anarchist" (p.28). It is followed by the need to have a moral opposed to the individualistic one of the bourgeoisie, but we should find a morality in love and struggle to guide us (yes. moralism gets thicker now!). Following to the defense of a strong moral among revolutionaries (something you compeltely dismiss), he states, in p.30:

"Another source of serious mistakes has been the way in which many have interepreted the theory of violence (...) among some there's a tendency to swap means with ends (...) and, as demonstrated by recent events, many anarchists have not escaped the risks involved in violent struggle. Angry with persecutions, driven crazy with the examples of ferocity given daily by the bourgeoisie, they have started to imitate the example of the bourgeois (...) And then, to justify their deeds (...) they have formulated the weirdest of the theories, the most fanatical one, the most authoritarian, and without noticing the contradictions, they are showing it as the newest innovation in anarchism (...) Now they are looking for responsible ones about the current staet of affairs not only among the conscious bourgeois that do evil deeds knowing it is wrong, but also among those bourgeois who are so for they were born that way, without ever questioning their existence. But they've found them as well among the mass of workers for they are putting up with oppression without rebelling , so therefore, they constitute their main support, and they decided for them all... death penalty (...) Those who have reason in denying a judge the right to lock someone up even for a single minute, proclaim themselves the judges of life aqnd death of others(...)" (p.31)

Then he comments on the Barcelona bomb to a religious procession and how some anarchists in Italy thought that action was 'heroic': "Not a reason of struggle, not an excuse, nothing. It is heroism to kill women, children, men, all defenseless. Just because they were catholic!This is worse than vengeance, this is the morbid delirium of some bloody mystic, it is the bloody holocaust in the altar of some god... or of some idea, that at the end of the day, act as the very same thing. It is Torquemada or Robespierre!"

"Though current circumstances oblige us to use force (...) let's prepare ourselves to use it energically. But let's not make any pointless victims, not even among our enemies"(p.31)

After this he criticises the pacifists, because by preaching the passive suffering they prolong the suffering of humanity...

"(...) Curiously, both the terrorists and the followers of Tolstoy , precisely because them both are mystics, arrive to the same practical conclusion. They wouldn't mind if half of the humanity is destroyed as long as they can make their idea triumph; they would let all of humanity under a heavy yoke as long as not to violate a principle" (p.32)

This is quite a famous text, quotes of it can be found in the anthology of Vernon Richards on Malatesta, and I'm surprised that you didn't know it...

If you claim to have no moral terms, Malatesta would say loads of you... throughout all the text he remarks the importance of morals in struggle (that you dismiss simply as moralism). And so would have a lot to say another brilliant Italian militant, Louigi Fabbri. Have a read on his text "Bourgeois Influences on Anarchism". You might find it very telling on violence, morals and so on. He deals extensively with propaganda by the deed, just in case. It is not a difficult to find pamphlet.

"I've seen Most and Kropotkin, but I didn't realize that Malatesta's will broke like so many others of this period"

I'm telling you... people learn from mistakes. If they are serious of course, in advancing towards substantial change and are not happy enough with a revolutionary hobby.

"I'd also like some sourcing on "stupid as useless" which I don't doubt he said."

Can't remember now, read that ages ago, but the extensive quotation above will give you a good insight on his ideas on the matter.

About Cafiero, well, that reference is said in the most misquoted sentence in anarchist history ever. His article "the action" has been often wrongly attributed to Kropotkin and it was first published in Le Revolte, at the end of 1880. It was reprinted in the Raven Quarterly, no.6, 1988. It goes, the whole thing, as follows:

"Our action must be permanent rebellion, by word, by writing, by dagger, by gun, by dynamite, sometimes even by ballot when it is the case of voting for an ineligible candidate like Blanqui or Trinquet."

He's opposing parliamentary action and this has been taken often as the declaration of war of the 'propaganda by the deed', but in context (with the rest of the article) and well read, what he is saying is that nothing could be dismissed as long as it is useful to advance in the cause of the people... Often, this quotation alone has been misinterpreted. The implication, is that the definition of propaganda by the deed was broader at the time than simple bomb... including everything up to the ballot! As opposed to purely ideologicalo propaganda. Sometimes is good to take this into account but when many of the early anarchists were defending the propaganda by the deed, they had precisely this in mind.

"So, Batko organized the peasants into a union? Let me check what I said... and you say that Batko was fine with his small urban force..."

The soviet he helped organised included, of course, the peasants in great numbers. And most of the urban workers in Gulyay Polye were peasants at the same time, and this town was no small urban centre by those day standards (around 30,000 people). All of that is well explained in Alexander Skirda's "The Cossack of Anarchy". You might find some more information, as well, in Paul Avrich's work on the Russian Anarchists.

The peasants were no dumb and there had been a serious work of many years (since 1905) to organise and educate by themselves. The insurrection was not spontaneous, but happened among an organised people, with their own free soviet.

And though you could consider good Batko a 'vanguard' -representative of a sector of the people with a more developed plan of action and political ideas, that prove to be useful when needed by revolution- he was not 'vanguardist' -derogatory term for those who ignore the 'masses'.

"Though I learned something about Durruti, I was not talking about Durruti, but rather the "friends of Durruti" and their involvements."

They were really far away from the deedists or whatever you call them. Have a look at Guillamon.

"I don't know the history like y'all, they are your favorites,"

You don't have to! There are allways certain things we do know, and others we don't. It's impossible to know it all! Just avoid putting bad examples because you don't know much about it and refer to your own ideas as such.

"but I do know that the friends continued to fight after Franco was seen as an official sovereign, but then, you can school me more on that."

Well, the story is a bit more complex, but all of the Resistance to Franco were CNT militants, well organised, that at no time denied the need to organise and complement armed actions with the struggle of the workers themselves. But there Resistance and the means they used were suited for their circumstances. It is not the same to resist a bourgeois democracy, than to resist a fascist dictatorship. From Italy to Latin America, in those cases, armed struggle has been enthusiastically supported by all anarchist-communists.

That's it. And do not confuse my extremely dark sense of humour and bad temper with lack of respect.

author by Waynepublication date Fri Dec 29, 2006 08:28author address author phone Report this post to the editors

For a fuller discussion of the nature of Insurrectionism, see
Notes on the article “Anarchism, Insurrections and Insurrectionalism” by José Antonio Gutiérrez D. on this site, at http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=4542

author by javierpublication date Mon Dec 31, 2007 02:56author address author phone Report this post to the editors

maybe a bit late but I have to say it, many thanks comrade, your texts have been very interesting and stimulating, we need more works of this kind

happy year and keep up the fight!

Number of comments per page
  
 
This page can be viewed in
English Italiano Deutsch
© 2005-2024 Anarkismo.net. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Anarkismo.net. [ Disclaimer | Privacy ]