Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact
  • Hi Guest,
    We have now moved the boards to the new server hardware.
    Search will be impaired while it re-indexes the posts.
    See the thread in the Feedback forum for updates and feedback.
    Lazy Llama

Does anarchism have a serious future?

Joe Reilly said:
Only on this thread Ray, in the real world it's the other way round.

Still, on this thread, everyone is blinded by ideology except you, right?
Convenient.
 
Chuck Wilson said:
Ray I just had a look at your site and found it interesting. I can understand your diffrences with the trot left what I don't understand is this ..take away the labels...why wouldn't the IWCA form of organisation and orientation be acceptable to your group?

To be clear, its not my site, as I'm no longer a WSM member, though I'd still agree with pretty much everything there. I don't know enough about the IWCA to comment really - I know they ran in council elections, which I'd generally disagree with, but that they seem to be trying to get a mandating system going for their councillors, which is interesting.
 
Ray said:
To be clear, its not my site, as I'm no longer a WSM member, though I'd still agree with pretty much everything there. I don't know enough about the IWCA to comment really - I know they ran in council elections, which I'd generally disagree with, but that they seem to be trying to get a mandating system going for their councillors, which is interesting.

Aren't elections even for anarchists a tactical question rather than a principle?
The IWCA website is a good one to look around and keep up to date with, the cutting edge section is really thought provoking:
www.iwca.info/indewx.htm
 
Quote:To Joe reilly
What? Your last sentence makes no sense. Looks like this conversation is degenerating into a yes it is, no it isn't session with you as the main culprit. Let's see in another ten years where Red Action is and where British anarchism is. I know who I'd put my money on.


Joe, send me the appliocation form as I know where my bets lies... :)
 
butchersapron said:
So then are you going apply that evidence to marx/marxism then and draw the only logoical conclusion that it has no serious future? If not, why not?

I see no evidence of marxism as an ideology existing much less having a future do you? What I mean is the people who define themselves first and foremost as marxist (stalinists, leninists trots etc) have for decades shown themselves to be entirely incapable of looking at objective reality and as a result entirely incapable of dealing in any useful way with contemporary issues and changing landscape. And because they refuse to deal with facts except through their own idelogical prism it stands to reason they can or will never come up with solutions. In the ideas department absolutely fucking useless. My argument is that anarchism suffers from a similar handicap for identical reasons.
 
Yes, Joe, we all understand your argument, it's coming across quite clearly - it says all ideologies are bad, anarchism is an ideology thefore it's also bad. And that you're uniquely starting from a non-ideological reading of Marx. Well done. The last free man on earth. Freed by Marx.

What about those of us broadly supportive of the IWCA approach - are we equally blinded by ideology? An approach that we were actually arguing for as one of the last remaining chances to get out of the shit the working class was in, whilst you were still a leninist incidentally.
 
butchersapron said:
Yes, Joe, we all understand your argument, it's coming across quite clearly - it says all ideologies are bad, anarchism is an ideology thefore it's also bad. And that you're uniquely starting from a non-ideological reading of Marx. Well done. The last free man on earth. Freed by Marx.

What about those of us broadly supportive of the IWCA approach - are we equally blinded by ideology? An approach that we were actually arguing for as one of the last remaining chances to get out of the shit the working class was in, whilst you were still a leninist incidentally.

Admit it. You just dont want to face facts. The old guff about 'starting from a non-idelogical reading of Marx' is just something you've made up. I never said anything of the sort; you and your chums who did all that pigeon-holing for me.

Ps. A word to the wise: as someone who has been 'broadly supportive of the IWCA' on here your last sentence is ill-informed and frankly embarassing.
 
Ok, have you never been a Leninist then Joe? Straight question. I may well have been misinformed. I notice that you chose to skip over the question that preceded that last sentence though...

As for the first point, again, do re-read the thread Joe, the posts are there for you and any other interested parties to read for themselves.
 
Joe Reilly said:
It is most convenient. And the advantages are evident.

Its a good thing that no ideology-blinded person could ever make the mistake of believing that they were free from ideology, isn't it? Think of the confusion it would cause...
 
Chuck Wilson said:
Aren't elections even for anarchists a tactical question rather than a principle?

Missed this, sorry.
I think its a question of principle, rather than tactics*. Anarchists are opposed to representative democracy, and want to replace it with direct democracy. Elections are a form of representative democracy. The IWCA's attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole is interesting, but I suspect that sooner or later the long term and short term goals will come into conflict.


* some anarchists might disagree, but I have the International Anarchist Tribunal on my side.
 
Ray said:
Missed this, sorry.
I think its a question of principle, rather than tactics*. Anarchists are opposed to representative democracy, and want to replace it with direct democracy. Elections are a form of representative democracy. The IWCA's attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole is interesting, but I suspect that sooner or later the long term and short term goals will come into conflict.


* some anarchists might disagree, but I have the International Anarchist Tribunal on my side.

Does this mean that delegates can only be selected by lot? Does it also mean that no exchange of views and opinions takes place at an assembley of delegates? Isn't the point of delegation not to stop a delegate breaking their mandate in the light of new information/circumstances, but rather to make they immediately responsible by means of recall if they break the mandate (or for that matter if they are found to have misrepresented the views of those mandating them). The point being that delegate democracy and elections are not incompatible (since some people will make better delegates than others and elections are a way of choosing between prospective delegates); there isn't a square peg and a round hole.

Louis Mac
 
Louis MacNeice said:
Does this mean that delegates can only be selected by lot?

No, it means they have no power to make decisions outside their mandate.

Louis MacNeice said:
Does it also mean that no exchange of views and opinions takes place at an assembley of delegates?

No, not at all. But the delegates can't approve of anything on their own, they can only bring it back to the bodies which mandated them.

Louis MacNeice said:
Isn't the point of delegation not to stop a delegate breaking their mandate in the light of new information/circumstances, but rather to make they immediately responsible by means of recall if they break the mandate (or for that matter if they are found to have misrepresented the views of those mandating them). The point being that delegate democracy and elections are not incompatible (since some people will make better delegates than others and elections are a way of choosing between prospective delegates); there isn't a square peg and a round hole.

The point of representative democracy is to choose someone to make decisions for you. The point of direct democracy is to choose someone to carry out your decisions.
The square peg and round hole problem is this. Suppose a community elects someone from the IWCA on to the council, and mandates them to vote for X. The councillor goes to the council meeting, and votes against X.
In a direct democracy situation, the delegate would be deselected, and (if possible) the decision overturned. But (AFAIK) there is no real way for the councillor's constituents to do this. They can have all the angry meetings they like, but they can't strip someone of their seat until the next election. So, square peg, round hole.
 
Ray said:
No, it means they have no power to make decisions outside their mandate.



No, not at all. But the delegates can't approve of anything on their own, they can only bring it back to the bodies which mandated them.



The point of representative democracy is to choose someone to make decisions for you. The point of direct democracy is to choose someone to carry out your decisions.
The square peg and round hole problem is this. Suppose a community elects someone from the IWCA on to the council, and mandates them to vote for X. The councillor goes to the council meeting, and votes against X.
In a direct democracy situation, the delegate would be deselected, and (if possible) the decision overturned. But (AFAIK) there is no real way for the councillor's constituents to do this. QUOTE]

Yes but your forgetting the role of the IWCA itself. If a councillor voted against IWCA policy then the councillor would be deselected and (if possible) the decision overturned. A radical party like the IWCA also has the option of legally binding any candidate to abide by organisation decisions once elected - or - standown.
 
butchersapron said:
Ok, have you never been a Leninist then Joe? Straight question. I may well have been misinformed. I notice that you chose to skip over the question that preceded that last sentence though...
QUOTE]

'Are you blinded by idelogy in your support for the IWCA?'

Well, I don't know if blinded is the right word but almost certainly your support for the IWCA is reliant on it, in your eyes, meeting certain anarchist criteria.

Using the same criteria, other anarchists reject the IWCA for not being anarchist enough. As for the Leninist jibe - RA have almost from the very beginning been called anarchists by the Leninists and leninists by the anarchos: a barrier against fraternisation presumably.

As is well known the initial thinking behind the 'IWCA approach' came from within militant anti-fascism stimulated by the Isle of Dogs campaign in 1993 and given impetus by the retreat of the BNP from the streets in 1994.

By and large the anarchists in AFA (including DAM) rejected the analysis forwarded and more or less boycotted further discussions where they had influence. So if indeed the 'IWCA approach' was being discussed among anarchists elsewhere it wasn't very evident within AFA at the time.
 
Joe Reilly said:
Yes but your forgetting the role of the IWCA itself. If a councillor voted against IWCA policy then the councillor would be deselected and (if possible) the decision overturned. A radical party like the IWCA also has the option of legally binding any candidate to abide by organisation decisions once elected - or - standown.

Here you assume that 'IWCA policy' -- a national policy -- is exactly the same thing as a specific community's mandate. The point of direct democracy is to keep delegates in line through constant contact with the people who have mandated them -- you can't replace this with a party's whip, no matter how 'radical' the party.
 
Random said:
Here you assume that 'IWCA policy' is exactly the same thing as a community's mandate. The point of direct democracy is to keep delegates in line through constant living contact with bodies of the people who have mandated them -- you can't replace this with a party's whip, no matter how 'radical' the party.

I personally agree with as direct a democracy as is possible. But not standing for elections in working wards and thus allowing middle class parties to dominate (on a minority vote) and then push through a neo-liberal agenda is more than a bit of a cop out.
The problems of elected officials being kept in check by the organisation and the organisation being in tune with the local population are all areas that need to be worked on to ensure the entire enterprise becomes/remains organic.

But none of the potential probems should be used as an excuse for standing on the sidelines issuing edicts. Simply making phrases and doing nothing is no longer an option.
 
Joe Reilly said:
I personally agree with as direct a democracy as is possible. But not standing for elections in working wards and thus allowing middle class parties to dominate (on a minority vote) and then push through a neo-liberal agenda is more than a bit of a cop out.
The problems of elected officials being kept in check by the organisation and the organisation being in tune with the local population are all areas that need to be worked on to ensure the entire enterprise becomes/remains organic.

But none of the potential probems should be used as an excuse for standing on the sidelines issuing edicts. Simply making phrases and doing nothing is no longer an option.
Your doing it again. No anarchist would support "simply making phrases and doing nothing" as you know quite well.
 
redsquirrel said:
Your doing it again. No anarchist would support "simply making phrases and doing nothing" as you know quite well.

I think your being over sensistive. This was general comment not directed at anarchists per se...
 
Joe Reilly said:
I personally agree with as direct a democracy as is possible. But not standing for elections in working wards and thus allowing middle class parties to dominate (on a minority vote) and then push through a neo-liberal agenda is more than a bit of a cop out.
The problems of elected officials being kept in check by the organisation and the organisation being in tune with the local population are all areas that need to be worked on to ensure the entire enterprise becomes/remains organic.

But none of the potential probems should be used as an excuse for standing on the sidelines issuing edicts. Simply making phrases and doing nothing is no longer an option.

Fair enough. It seemed to me that you thought IWCA party policy could already work out these issues. I agree that they need sorting and the sorting has to be done through solid action.
 
Random said:
Fair enough. It seemed to me that you thought IWCA party policy could already work out these issues. I agree that they need sorting and the sorting has to be done through solid action.

A lot of thought has gone into the issue within the IWCA, however it needs the solid practice and example of having candidates elected to provide a practical basis for working through the possible pitfalls.

To shun the existing electoral process, as imperfect, means also to boycott working class concerns on housing, drugs, gentrification, policing, etc which is the context of the landscape, neo-liberalism, BNP and so on, cannot surely be justified any longer by anyone who claims to be politically radical.
 
Joe Reilly said:
A lot of thought has gone into the issue within the IWCA, however it needs the solid practice and example of having candidates elected to provide a practical basis for working through the possible pitfalls.

To shun the existing electoral process, as imperfect, means also to boycott working class concerns on housing, drugs, gentrification, policing, etc which is the context of the landscape, neo-liberalism, BNP and so on, cannot surely be justified any longer by anyone who claims to be politically radical.

while i agree that standing in local elections can be useful, i'm certainly not against getting councillors elected - i don't think you can say that those opposed to such a strategy are not justified to call themselves radical is pure hyperbole - there are other ways - for instance building strong, local, independent residents and tenants associations - which can campaign on a wide range off issues of importance to local people (personally i'd like to see them organised on a class basis as well) and can remain independent of the council/labour party/police etc if the people involved want them to be

the electoral issue can be left open, individual local groups should be trusted to decide whether to stand or not - my own choice would for a fucntioning campaigning group which already has a presence in a ward/on an estate to survey the residents six months before the local elections to see whether people thought standing/voting in elections was worthwhile - and if not, why not - and what alternatives would they suggest, for instance community assemblies
 
The attempts at recallability for IWCA candidates is something I think is interesting, and if it worked practically, I'd certainly not oppose contesting elections in a similar way to R&B's post, with community assemblies discussing the issue then mandating the councillor. However, my main problem is that the tactic seems to be aimed exclusively at borough/city/town-level councils, which apart from their basis in representative democracy, are quite large bureaucracies run by unelected managers and which have their own power structures existing alongside that of the elected councillors, probably much stronger, and difficult for a councillor (or even a majority of councillors long term) to have much effect on.

What I'd like to see is people contesting (or setting up) community/parish/local councils, which don't have paid bureaucracies, but which have some, if only a few, legal powers - especially on transport, planning, meeting and community facilities and a few other things. This is the lowest current level of democracy in the UK with policy making powers, and could potentially allow local assemblies/federated residents' associations a degree of power over their own wards or similar size areas, and could easily be run on an entirely direct democratic basis with the elected postions quite flexible for rotation and recallability.
 
With reference to the debate on direct democracy and accountability - here are a couple of letters from the Oxford Mail, which show other ways in which the IWCA councillors work at making sure they don't become distant from the community which elected them, by joining in the self-seeking and parasitic behaviour of many of the city councillors:

" Oxford Mail 29th Nov 2004

SIR - I find Lord Mayor Bryan Keen's attempts to score political points off the backs of those who gave their lives in two world wars, by targeting councillors who did not accompany him to this year's Remembrance Sunday
event, distasteful ( Oxford Mail November 25).

I was driving public transport that day, but if I had not been working I might have chosen to remember the war dead quietly at home with my family, as councillor Lee Cole traditionally does, or attended the civic event with councillor Claire Kent who watched her daughter march in the parade and paid her respects as an anonymous face in the crowd.

Either way, I like to think I would have displayed the same quiet dignity as my Independent Working Class Association colleagues who neither see attendance as a feather in their caps come election time, nor as a chance to occupy the moral high ground from which to attack those 'less worthy' who wish to mark the event privately.

Mr Keen complains that IWCA councillors choose not to wear the robes of office and lord it up over the public at civic functions.

He is entitled to his opinion, but is wrong to assume that our noses will be in the trough alongside other councillors at his Christmas drinks reception.

We never have or will attend council social functions because we cannot justify the waste of council money.

STUART CRAFT (Councillor)
Oxford City Council
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oxford Mail 8th Dec 2004

Underhand tactics

SIR - My first six months on Oxford City Council have been an eye opener.
Only a fool would have expected Labour Party members to be happy at the
ascent of the Independent Working Class Association and the end of the era
of safe seats.
Yet I must admit being taken aback at the underhand tactics the party
regularly employs against us.

Maybe I am naïve, but I expected at least a cursory amount of debate on the
actual political issues.

I have seen nothing so far, but lazy, negative campaigning and vindictive
black propaganda.

The latest smear, peddled by John Sanders (Oxford Mail November 29), is that
the IWCA is against social housing. This almost laughable lie, which is
being repeated in Labour publications around the city, is being hung on the
fact that Lee Cole and I recently voted against building 45 social housing
units on the Trap Grounds in north Oxford.

This decision, as we explained at the time, was made, after much
deliberation and research, primarily because the plot is on a flood plain
which, we feel, is likely to cause future problems for tenants.

It is worth noting that this plot has been avoided by the developer for the
majority private housing on the site.

We have also explained in our own publications and on your letters page that
we support, in principle, social housing proposed for Grenoble Road, and the
proposed urban extension of Oxford.

But why bother with the truth when a lie would serve better?

CLAIRE KENT (Councillor)
IWCA
Oxford City Council "

Cheers - Louis Mac
 
catch said:
The attempts at recallability for IWCA candidates is something I think is interesting, and if it worked practically, I'd certainly not oppose contesting elections in a similar way to R&B's post, with community assemblies discussing the issue then mandating the councillor. However, my main problem is that the tactic seems to be aimed exclusively at borough/city/town-level councils, which apart from their basis in representative democracy, are quite large bureaucracies run by unelected managers and which have their own power structures existing alongside that of the elected councillors, probably much stronger, and difficult for a councillor (or even a majority of councillors long term) to have much effect on.

What I'd like to see is people contesting (or setting up) community/parish/local councils, which don't have paid bureaucracies, but which have some, if only a few, legal powers - especially on transport, planning, meeting and community facilities and a few other things. This is the lowest current level of democracy in the UK with policy making powers, and could potentially allow local assemblies/federated residents' associations a degree of power over their own wards or similar size areas, and could easily be run on an entirely direct democratic basis with the elected postions quite flexible for rotation and recallability.

This I think is where we part company. The primary IWCA reason for being is to provide a platform for working class concerns. By contrast your priority seems to be with finding a way to implant anarchism through a variety of organisational foibles. And whatever else you might say about it spontaneous or organic it certianly isn't.
 
Joe Reilly said:
This I think is where we part company. The primary IWCA reason for being is to provide a platform for working class concerns. By contrast your priority seems to be with finding a way to implant anarchism through a variety of organisational foibles. And whatever else you might say about it spontaneous or organic it certianly isn't.

actually i agree to some extent - our political activity should be about trying to put forward a working class agenda - if they best way to do that is through anarchist organisational forms great - but if not we have to look at alternatives

i think that some anarchists do have to realise that (not catch necerssarily - but certainly many who were at the community organising meeting at the bookfair)
 
rednblack said:
while i agree that standing in local elections can be useful, i'm certainly not against getting councillors elected - i don't think you can say that those opposed to such a strategy are not justified to call themselves radical is pure hyperbole - there are other ways - for instance building strong, local, independent residents and tenants associations - which can campaign on a wide range off issues of importance to local people (personally i'd like to see them organised on a class basis as well) and can remain independent of the council/labour party/police etc if the people involved want them to be

the electoral issue can be left open, individual local groups should be trusted to decide whether to stand or not - my own choice would for a fucntioning campaigning group which already has a presence in a ward/on an estate to survey the residents six months before the local elections to see whether people thought standing/voting in elections was worthwhile - and if not, why not - and what alternatives would they suggest, for instance community assemblies

The task the IWCA has set itself is to place the working class back in the political mainstream. It has proven it can be done. Essentially these recipes are a retreat from all of that.
 
Back
Top Bottom