The ConDem’s are continuing the grand tradition of all governments in proving anarchists right. Our so-called representatives are able to ignore their manifestos, are free to break their solemn pre-election pledges and vote as they like – all in the interests of capital.

The Lib-Dems are just the latest of a long line of politicians who say one thing during elections and then turn round and do the exact opposite once in office. The Tories, as expected, are imposing another top-down reorganisation of the NHS in England in order to privatise it after proclaiming the NHS was safe in their hands in the election. In America, Republican governors are trying to strip unionised workers of their rights – after failing to mention any of this in their election.

Anarchists are not surprised. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the father of anarchism, was right – nothing resembles a monarchy more than centralised democracy for “the Representatives, once elected, are the masters; all the rest obey. They are subjects, to be governed and to be taxed.” A nation as one unit picking its rulers every few years is no democracy. Every government confirms Proudhon’s dismissal of laws: “Spider webs for the rich and powerful, steel chains for the weak and poor, fishing nets in the hands of the Government.”

Is there an alternative to a system which reduces liberty to the ability ‘to pick rulers’ every four or five years?

The Nature of the State
First, we need to understand what the state is and why it is structured as it is.

Any logical and straightforward theory of the State,  argued Michael Bakunin, is essentially founded upon the principle of authority, that is the eminently theological, metaphysical, and political idea that the masses, always incapable of governing themselves, must at all times submit to the beneficent yoke of a wisdom and a justice imposed upon them, in some way or other, from above.

The reason why the state is structured hierarchically is not hard to understand given its role. “In a society based on the principle of inequality of conditions,” Proudhon argued, government is “a system of insurance for the class which exploits and owns against that which is exploited and owns nothing.” It is “inevitably enchained to capital and directed against the proletariat.” For if the people did govern themselves then it is unlikely they would tolerate economic rule by the capitalist class:

“To attack the central power, to strip it of its prerogatives, to decentralise, to dissolve authority, would have been to abandon to the people the control of its affairs, to run the risk of a truly popular revolution. That is why the bourgeoisie sought to reinforce the central government even more.”

Thus anarchists are against the state because it is an instrument of class rule, a social structure organised to ensure centralised, hierarchical top-down power and the exclusion of the people. We deny the State because we affirm that the people, that society, that the mass, can and ought to govern itself by itself and we affirm that which the founders of States have never believed in, the personality and autonomy of the masses. So “no establishment of authority, no organisation of the collective force from without, is henceforth possible for us . . . the only way to organise democratic government is to abolish government.”

So anarchy implies self-managed associations. Yet we cannot live isolated lives nor can we all assemble to discuss large-scale issues and problems. Anarchist theory has long had an answer to how we co-ordinate joint activity – decentralisation requires federalism. Just as individuals federate to form groups, so groups federate together to manage joint interests and issues. We aim to replace representative democracy with self-managed associations federated by means of mandated and recallable delegates. Only in this way can we achieve anarchy by governing ourselves.

In short, anarchists recognise that social organisation does not equal the state. To be free, libertarians have always argued, we need to end the state and the capitalist system it protects. We argue that social and economic federalism is the means replace the state with a social system based on, and protective of, liberty.

Proudhon and the 1848 Revolution
The argument that genuine democracy (self-government) necessitates mandating and recalling delegates was first raised within the socialist movement by Proudhon. In March 1848, in his second pamphlet of the 1848 revolution he argued that mandating and recalling elected people was essential for genuine social self-government: “In the end, we are all voters; we can choose the most worthy. We can do more; we can follow them step-by-step in their legislative acts and their votes; we will make them transmit our arguments and our documents; we will suggest our will to them, and when we are discontented, we will recall and dismiss them.

“The choice of talents, the imperative mandate, and permanent revocability are the most immediate and incontestable consequences of the electoral principle. It is the inevitable program of all democracy.”

Proudhon noted that few democrats actually embraced this position, something which has not changed. In November 1848 he returned to this theme in an election manifesto: “Besides universal suffrage and as a consequence of universal suffrage, we want implementation of the imperative mandate. Politicians balk at it! Which means that in their eyes, the people, in electing representatives, do not appoint mandatories but rather abjure their sovereignty!… That is assuredly not socialism: it is not even democracy.”  With tens of thousands of working class people reading his articles, Proudhon popularised the necessity of mandates and recall within the popular movement.

Bakunin and the Paris Commune
The revolutionary anarchist Michael Bakunin continued in the path Proudhon forged. Like the French anarchist he argued for a decentralised, federated communal socialism based on delegate rather than representative democracy:

“the Alliance of all labour associations . . . will constitute the Commune . . . there will be a standing federation of the barricades and a Revolutionary Communal Council . . . [made up of] delegates . . . invested with binding mandates and accountable and revocable at all times… Since it is the people which must make the revolution everywhere, and since the ultimate direction of it must at all times be vested in the people organised into a free federation of agricultural and industrial organisations . . . organised from the bottom up through revolutionary delegation.”

These ideas were not for some future revolution. They had to be applied now, in the labour movement. The construction workers’ union, argued Bakunin, “simply left all decision-making to their committees” and in “this manner power gravitated to the committees, and by a species of fiction characteristic of all governments the committees substituted their own will and their own ideas for that of the membership.” To combat this bureaucracy, the union “sections could only defend their rights and their autonomy in only one way: the workers called general membership meetings.” In “these popular assemblies” the issues were “amply discussed and the most progressive opinion prevailed.” Elected delegates would report “regularly to the membership” and be subject to “instant recall.”

Bakunin’s vision of a federation of workers’ councils based on mandated and recallable delegates dates from 1868. It makes a mockery of Lenin’s claims, trotted out to this day by his followers, that while Marxists see the need for an “organisation of the armed workers, after the type of the Commune” anarchists “have a very vague idea of what the proletariat will put in its place.” In reality, anarchists had a very firm idea of how a free socialist system would be organised – decades before Lenin saw the importance soviets in 1917 and years before the Paris Commune of 1871.

The Paris Commune’s “Declaration to the French People” proclaimed that one of the “inherent rights of the Commune” was election of officials under “the permanent right of control and revocation” and the “permanent intervention of citizens in communal affairs.” Unity would be achieved by “the voluntary association of all local initiatives” in a “delegation of federated Communes” based on “the realisation and the practice of the same principles” applied locally.

Marx, for his part, wrote one of his best works on the revolt: The Civil War in France. The Commune “was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms” and the “rough sketch of national organisation” produced by the Communards specified a federation of communes based on delegates “at any time revocable and bound by the mandat imperatif (formal instructions) of his constituents.” These ideas obviously reflect the ideas Proudhon and his colleagues had raised over 20 years previously. This is unsurprising, given that his followers (the Mutualists) played a key part in the 1871 revolt (indeed, the “rough sketch” was written by a Mutualist).

Yet even if we ignore, as Marx did, the Mutualists, the Commune’s libertarian ideas can be seen if we compare Proudhon’s arguments from 1848 and Marx’s reporting 23 years later. Thus we find Marx proclaiming the Commune “was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time.” For Proudhon it was “not enough to say that one is opposed to the presidency unless one also does away with ministries, the eternal focus of political ambition. It is up to the National Assembly, through organisation of its committees, to exercise executive power, just the way it exercises legislative power through its joint deliberations and votes.”

So it is important when reading Marx’s The Civil War in France that much of it is simply reporting. He may have been agreeing with the actions of the Communards, but that does not change the awkward fact that he is not presenting his notions of social organisation but rather summarising the actions of people heavily influenced by his arch rival Proudhon. This means that when Marxists point to that work as evidence for Marxism’s “democratic essence” it misses the point – it is a libertarian-infused work because it is describing a libertarian-infused revolt! Bakunin quite rightly proclaimed that the Paris Commune was, in part, a “practical demonstration” of libertarian socialist ideas, “a bold, clearly formulated negation of the State.” As one anarchist summarised:

“comparison will show that the programme set out [by the Commune] is . . . the system of Federalism, which Bakunin had been advocating for years, and which had first been enunciated by Proudhon. The Proudhonists . . . exercised considerable influence in the Commune. This ‘political form’ was therefore not ‘at last’ discovered; it had been discovered years ago; and now it was proven to be correct by the very fact that in the crisis the Paris workers adopted it almost automatically, under the pressure of circumstance, rather than as the result of theory, as being the form most suitable to express working class aspirations.”

A Marxist aside
The Paris Commune, it must be noted, brought the contradictions of the Marxist attacks on anarchism to the surface. Thus we find Engels attacking anarchists for holding certain position yet praising the 1871 revolution when it implement exactly the same ideas. For example, in his deeply inaccurate diatribe “The Bakuninists at Work”, he was keen to distort the federalist ideas of anarchism, dismissing “the so-called principles of anarchy, free federation of independent groups.” Compare this to his praise for the Paris Commune which, he gushed, refuted Blanquist notions when it “appealed to [the provinces] to form a free federation of all French Communes . . . a national organisation which for the first time was really created by the nation itself.”

Both Marx praised the Commune for implementing binding mandates yet this did not  stop Engels attacking anarchist support for them as being part of Bakunin’s plans to control the IWMA. For “a secret society,” he argued, “there is nothing more convenient than the imperative mandate” as all its members vote one way, while the others will “contradict one another.” Without these mandates, “the common sense of the independent delegates will swiftly unite them in a common party against the party of the secret society.” Obviously the notion that delegates from a group should reflect the wishes of that group was lost on Engels. He even questioned the utility of this system for “if all electors gave their delegates imperative mandates concerning all points in the agenda, meetings and debates of the delegates would be superfluous.”

Clearly a “free federation” of Communes and binding mandates are bad when anarchists advocate them but excellent when workers in revolt implement them! Why this was the case Engels failed to explain.

Trotskyists regularly pay lip-service to the Commune and the imperative mandate. SWP’s Chris Harman argued that the “whole experience of the workers’ movement internationally teaches that only by regular elections, combined with the right of recall by shop-floor meetings can rank-and-file delegates be made really responsible to those who elect them.” (Bureaucracy and Revolution in Eastern Europe, pp. 238-9)

Needless to say, Harman fails to note that it was Proudhon and Bakunin, not Marx, who first recognised the importance of recall and argued for it in the workers’ movement. He also does not square his words with Bolshevik practice (such as packing, gerrymandering and disbanding soviets with non-Bolshevik majorities) which rejected this experience once they were in power. Or, for that matter, Trotsky’s 1936 summary that the “revolutionary dictatorship of a proletarian party” is “an objective necessity” and that the “revolutionary party (vanguard) which renounces its own dictatorship surrenders the masses to the counter-revolution.”

It is easy to work out why…

Conclusions
Lenin argued that what the proletariat will put in that state’s place “is suggested by the highly instructive material furnished by the Paris Commune.” Anarchists would agree – adding that we had been advocating these ideas before 1871 and our ideas had directly influenced the revolt.  So it is fair to say that it was Marx, not the world, who had “at last discovered” the political form “under which to work out the economic emancipation of labour” in 1871. The French working class, however, had been aware of the necessity for a decentralised federation of communes based on mandated and recallable delegates since at least 1848.

It could be argued that while anarchists were the first to integrate imperative mandates and recall into socialist theory and systematically advocate it, the likes of Proudhon and Bakunin were just repeating ideas already current in radical working class circles. Perhaps, but this should not be used to diminish their contributions nor their early recognition of the importance of these concepts. Particularly as everyday statism confirms our critique and life confirms our alternative.

There is an alternative to the ritualistic picking of masters every few years. We can organise ourselves to govern our own affairs and, by means of mandating and recalling delegates, ensure that we create a social organisation based on liberty. Until we do, we will be ruled by the few in the interests of the few – that we get to pick the person who will misrepresent us just adds insult to injury!

Iain Makay

This article originally appeared in the November edition of Freedom newspaper see here
Freedom newspaper can be purchased directly from our shop or available at any good radical bookshop/social centre.

Freedom Bookshop
Angel Alley
84b Whitechapel High Street
London E1 7QX
Alternatively take out a yearly subscription and have the paper delivered to you.

Freedom newspaper:

• Latest issue
• Back issues
• Subscribe
• Freedom stockists

“The Left, anarchists, myself and all of us are against western military intervention and a no-fly zone. Some of those arguments are worn out already  ‘we did it because we wanted Libya’s oil’. But political positions have real consequences… without such intervention we shall watch thousands die in Benghazi and the triumph of a nutter which will setback uprisings in other Arab dictatorships. We will have maintained our impeccable anti-imperialist integrity against the cries of soon to be annihilated rebels now asking for a no-fly zone” [1]

Here we have Ian, deliberating with himself basically on not wanting to see the anti-Gaddafi rebels go down in blood but realizing the consequences of western military intervention. This is fair enough as thinking out loud, but how many thoughts did Ian have as to nature of what was being proposed as against the Gaddafi regime? The rebels were not just living their lives or minding their own business, but posing a military and political challenge. What were they offering? This is crucial in any discussion, not whether my enemy’s enemy is my friend, but is my enemy’s enemy worse than my enemy or the same?  The Benghazi based rebellion is rooted in Islamist and monarchist opposition to Gaddafi. Does this effort further the struggle of the working class to gain power for itself?  Can we take a side in a war which always ultimately may be against us and people of our political stance, and the working class as a class acting its own interests? Can NATO ever spearhead a progressive revolution? Really?

“LIBYAN REBELS APPEAL FOR NO FLY ZONE – WE SHOULD BE ARMING THEM”

“If you don’t want to do something, you rely on the diplomatic side. It is not enough when people are dying,” said Iman Bugaighis, spokeswoman for the revolutionary council. “We need more than diplomacy. We need a no-fly zone but we need more than that. We need air strikes. I think they know where to bomb if they want to bomb. They know how to intervene. It’s urgent.”

The rebels have appealed for weapons supplies, saying they are being outgunned by Gaddafi’s forces. However, Bugaighis said the revolutionary administration remains opposed to foreign troops intervening in Libya on the ground’

This is a game changer in my opinion. We should at the very least provide weapons to the rebels and I would be quite happy to see western planes bombing the fuck out of Saif Gaddafi and his cronies. How can revolutionaries in the uk gainsay what rebels fighting and dying are crying out for? Quite easily is the answer – far better to keep your revolutionary credentials than soil your hands with reality – the reality that the rebels will die unless we support them. Not that tough a choice is it – but spare me the crocodile tears comrades. Contrast with the Left’s calls for support for republican Spain during the Spanish Civil War.” [2]

By this item Ian is now doing a number of quite strange things. I for one would never and have never talked about “my government” “Our soldiers” “Our police” I don’t do it and it isn’t hard because it’s not my government, my soldiers, my police. They all belong to the ruling class, the class me and the rest of the working class is at war with. The ruling class is not in class terms, in cultural terms, in physical terms anything to do with me. So when did Ian become part of it? If he talks about “we” should arm the rebels and impose a no fly zone, it is clear he isn’t talking about anarchists, he is talking about the armed bodies of men, the STATES bodies of armed men, RAF and NATO, and he calls them “we” as if “We” have one interest. ‘The No Fly Zone’ in itself was a word con on a reluctant UN concerned not to get involved in a civil war and take a side. The No Fly Zone example which came to mind was the one imposed earlier on Saddam, which basically grounded his aircraft and stopped him being able to move disproportionate military power against his opponents. To my recollection until the actual invasion of Iraq that’s all it did. The UN clearly was led to believe that’s what would happen here with the Gaddafi air force being unable to operate, to give the rebels a fighting chance. That’s not what happened of course, and the ‘No Fly Zone’ became a ‘no move zone’ as NATO went on the offensive as the Rebel’s air force, deployed against all Gaddafi’s ground operations head quarters and areas of support.

It is  also utterly obscene and offensive to relate the socialist/communist and some times anarchist government of Spain who were trying to live in a progressive pro working class, communistic society in Spain, with Libyan rebels many of whom are trying to impose some form of fundamentalist theocratic Islamic state, or at the very best and this isn’t even a strong minority view, a bourgeois democracy in which Sharia law is a great part of the countries jurisprudence and the rights and liberties of women and non Muslims probably made worse than it was.

The Morning Star Thurs Nov 10th (p13) reported on the Al-Qaida flag flying over the main Benghazi Courthouse, not that having the flag flying next to the new ‘official’ Libyan flag of the former kind,  demonstrates the level of political support, but the fact no-one dared take it down might. But lets be quite clear here, the nature of the forces and their goals is almost unimportant compared to the main issue that of calling for and supporting NATO’s military agenda in Libya. Would this be different if the rebels were an anarchist communist revolutionary force? It most certainly would not, but such a force a) wouldn’t call in NATO and b) if they did, like Spain it would be ignored for the most obvious of reasons.

Secondly the FAILURE of Spain in the civil war was that it, the government, made appeals as a National Sovereign Government, in order to appeal to national states which were their own class enemies, for help, instead of as agents of the Spanish working class over the heads of bourgeois national governments to the workers of the world for direct class struggle, class assistance and defense as part of those workers own struggles against capitalism. Did we seriously think the British and American ruling class would ride to the rescue of anarchism in Spain when threatened by fascism? So that the Spanish revolution could continue and expropriate the capitalist class and spread revolution throughout Europe? Of course not, and the failure to recognize that, to see this as a class issue, and not a bourgeois democratic issue caused their defeat along with out right treachery from Stalin.

Bourgeois blood is thicker than democratic water
So why would NATO, why DID NATO go into Libya? Because they were concerned that people were going to be massacred? Well its odd isn’t it? They didn’t have any no fly zones when Israel was bombing Lebanon back to the stone age, Israel was massacring the helpless people of Gaza, when the Palestinians rise up to stop the illegal land grabs and Zionist genocide in the West Bank, did anyone see any SAS or NATO planes ? Did anyone see them in Bahrain, or Dubai? No, now why would that be? Ian if he stops and thinks knows damn well why. Because blood isn’t the question here, bodies aren’t the question here; Imperialism doesn’t give monkeys about that. Gaddafi was another peg in the board game against formally anti imperialist leaders in the Middle East who proved a threat to Israel and US and Western oil interests. Certainly some progressive elements some directly democratic supporters maybe even some socialistic advocated have joined this rebellion, but they do not characterize its trajectory as we have already seen.  Let us hope their fate will not be, as we seen it in Iran with the murder of the leftist democratic secular and Communist forces, and then the unions. Whichever way this shapes up, our demand can only be No War But Class War. Had Ian being talking of drumming up an international brigade of leftist and progressive volunteers to overthrow Gaddafi and help create a more socialistic and progressive social system, we good support at least the good intentions.

The base bottom line for any support to this revolution, a  democratic secular society which guarantees the rights of women, non Muslims, non-believers, trade unions and workers would have been crucial. Under no circumstances however do we (and that means the working class, and progressive political forces of the left) ever call for action by our hated class enemy NATO or its blood soaked regimes. The 1926 general strike was in part defeated by the CPGB call and resolve “All power to the TUC General Council” which conceded our power, the power of the class to the Bureaucrats, who promptly used it to sell us out and bring around our defeat. Stupid though that slogan was, here we have Ian Bone, a self declared Anarchist calling for if not all power to the NATO jets and the generals, then license to NATO jets and generals to prosecute the war. Once you’ve brought them in, and they wouldn’t be in unless their own interests were being served, they will set the agenda, and that agenda is not about bringing about a progressive society in Libya.

By Ian’s last blog, [3] he is quoting the Maoists, as a straw man to represent the forces calling for defence of Gaddafi. We especially as Anarchists can’t ‘defend’ or ‘support’ Gaddafi, we wanted Gaddafi brought down, but not by force either to his right or by the Taliban, or fascism or Israeli invasion or NATO bombing. Our bottom line is a progressive working class force or even a progressive democratic secular force of the Libyan people, this is not that. Al-Qaida and the Libyan Taliban are clear front runners in this rebellion; Abdehakim Belhaj is leader of the ‘rebel council’ of Tripoli and a world famous veteran of Al-Qaida and its Libyan section the ‘Libyan Islamic Fighting Group’. Besides which were this rebellion ‘the voice of the people’ if it had indeed popular mass support it could easily have toppled Gaddafi’s ramshackle forces themselves.

This is a sectarian, largely fundamentalist force, highly sectional and sectarian which with the NATO jets and SAS and French Special forces on the ground dressed in Arab tribal gear, has rolled along an opportunist body  acting in the interests of western imperialism.  They perhaps don’t even know that yet, and the dog can turn as it did in Afghanistan when US imperialism did the same thing there in overthrowing a progressive socialistic government, and then their Soviet allies, inventing the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the process. They were in at the Iranian revolution to help nail the left and ensure the conquest of the Mullah’s , then stage the war with Iraq , the rising of the Shiite’s and pro Iranian Iraqi’s. The provocation and set up of Kuwait, the Serb wars etc To be consistent you would have to become the one eyed cheer leader of NATO and Western intervention around the world. Then you would have to move back through history, and see like Kropotkin that the first world war was right, defending “poor little Belgium” against the bloody crazed Hun, then the Crimea War was right, poor little Turkey and that big Russian bear, maybe Ian, these were all game breakers and we are just waking up to it. Pass the Poppies, and the Union Jacks. After all if any of ‘our boys’ which we have called into action get killed fighting in a cause we support, we should surely honour them, perhaps we could draft a red and black poppy for the occasion?

So what are the Wars in which we take a side? I would side with anti imperialist wars of national liberation where the aim is the establishment of a system or at least the circumstances in which a progressive, egalitarian, secular society can be built. I would call for a victory to all pro working class tendencies within an overall liberation struggle and the defeat of Imperialism. In such circumstances calling for active physical support and mobilising international working class units would be politically fine by me providing it was practical in a military sense.   Where there is an anti imperialist struggle say for example Saddam versus the US/UN I wouldn’t support either side, and would condemn any imperialist intervention, while calling for the internal overthrow of Saddam by socialistic communistic anarchistic forces, and demanding non intervention by the super powers. This is the same with Iran. Against any NATO or Israeli strikes or provocations of Iran, while calling for the revolutionary overthrow of the regime by progressive egalitarian socialistic secular forces. In this case we are unlikely to be outflanked by any anti Iranian regime which is MORE repressive than they already have.

So we come to Sunday (Nov 6th Northern Anarchist Network, conference at The Bridge Hotel Newcastle Upon Tyne). This is when I for one first come across this pro-NATO Libyan Anarchist Interventionist tendency. I am told by the people who support this line that I am doing them an injustice by saying they ‘support NATO’. In fact they only support NATO bombing and NATO prosecution of the war against Gaddafi. Sorry I don’t see the distinction. You clearly can’t be against NATO while calling for it to act.

It is clear that the people supporting this line had been largely inspired by Ian’s blog. That’s not too much of a leap of presumption since the main speaker used exactly the same quotes and word for word justifications as Ian had as did the other two main NAN supporters. But there was more, in quite an odd irony, (I think) and quoting the same sort of list found in the Mail and Telegraph and BBC et al of Gaddafi’s ‘crimes’ were reported how he (Gaddafi) armed the IRA! Now here we have a paradox, because the Islamist insurgents while quite justified calling for and getting the entire NATO air force and some special forces to fight directly on their side against Gaddafi, the IRA fighting against British Imperialism and occupation of Ireland are not allowed to get Semtex and AKs from Gaddafi. Indeed the main speakers at this meeting have always been major critics of the IRA, which contrary to the group being supported now offered a socialistic democratic secular non sectarian programme of a New Ireland based on workers and small farmers (Eire Nua Programme) on a 32 county republic. “We” in the Anarchist left couldn’t then get our hands dirty, and support such a struggle because it was for ‘ a state’ and had strong nationalist elements in it. The bombs then of course were on OUR doorsteps and attacking ‘our’ state. Now however, it is justified to support anti-Gaddafi NATO led forces with a heavily theocratic and right wing programme.

NAN’s convener added something to Ian’s designation of the people opposed to these views as typified by the Maoists, by declaring with rage, the Stop the War Coalition marched against the NATO bombing of Libya with people calling for victory to Gaddafi! Which he then equates with the Blackshirts marching in London. Well leave aside that we all marched against the war in Iraq with people calling for the victory of God! wearing niqabs, and Tories and Libdems, and even Communists of the Mao variety. Who is NAN and the NATO anarchist tendency marching with? ALL the bourgeois political parties, the EDL, the Mullahs, Israel, NATO, all the US political parties, every right wing cause and party in Europe, so comrade, it’s the Kettle calling the frying pan . I know how the pro Gaddafi team gets mixed up in an anti war march, but how the Fuck did You, and NAN and Ian Bone get mixed up in a pro war, pro NATO one (sorry Pro NATO bombing not pro NATO, if you insist there is a difference) ?  I must make point I am reminded that all of NAN’s supporters were not at that meeting and this line is offered by only some of them and is not the policy or perspective of the whole group. Only three supporters of NAN were at this meeting so that’s a fair point I acknowledge. Out of maybe fifteen North East Anarchists at that meeting only of one spoke against this line and a number have spoken then and since in support of it.

I’m getting on a bit now, and I’ve been in this movement as long as Ian, but I have never ever seen self declared Anarchists end up so wrong footed and totally confused on an issue in my entire life. It ranks with the US Trots who ended up deciding that the USSR posed the greatest danger to socialism in the world and the USA would have to be supported to stop it. So we had self declared Trots, communists, joining  the US army , standing on platforms and supporting calls for the Atomic Bombing of Russia and China, supporting the Korean war, the massacre of millions and millions of reds of all sorts in Indonesia and Kenya, Congo, Angola and the Vietnam war, etc etc. It’s a slippery slope comrades, or as someone else said a long long time ago, the road to hell is paved with good intention, but at least I now at last can answer how it was old Kropotkin ended up supporting the first world war.

 David Douglass

Footnotes:
[1] http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/libyan-rebels-facing-military-defeat-do-we-have-a-problem/
[2] http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2011/03/12/libyan-rebels-appeal-for-no-fly-zone-we-should-be-arming-them/
[3] http://ianbone.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/hands-off-libya-victory-to-gaddafi

Similar articles appear in the new monthly edition of Freedom newspaper see here
Freedom newspaper can be purchased directly from our shop or available at any good radical bookshop/social centre.

Freedom Bookshop
Angel Alley
84b Whitechapel High Street
London E1 7QX
Alternatively take out a yearly subscription and have the paper delivered to you.

Freedom newspaper:

• Latest issue
• Back issues
• Subscribe
• Freedom stockists

The police killing of Mark Duggan resulted in four nights of rioting across England. The immediate trigger was the killing itself, and the disrespect shown by the police to Mark’s family and friends. But the riots rapidly broadened to expressions of a more general anger and alienation; an anger that was all too often unfocused and striking out at the nearest target of opportunity. This resulted in widespread destruction of resources in already deprived neighbourhoods and some anti-social attacks on bystanders. Despite this, the roots of the riots lie in the economic and political conditions of these districts, and not in ‘poor parenting’ or ‘mindless criminality’. These conditions were created by the very politicians and business elite who now call for a return to normality and repression.

The riots happened at a particular moment, a moment when capitalism is in deep crisis. Indeed the riots occurred at the same time as yet another crash in global markets. The two competed with each other to be the lead story on the news. This is not a coincidence; the crash, and the cuts unleashed to impose its costs on ordinary people, mean not only rocketing unemployment but also the slashing of public services. And while the focus is on the estimated £200 million of destruction caused by the rioting, this pales into insignificance in comparison with the huge destruction of wealth taking place on the stock exchanges. Likewise, while the media focus has been on the hundreds of workers and small business owners who will face unemployment because of the destruction of their workplaces, the system that bred the riot has refused work to millions – around one million people between the ages of 16 and 24 are unemployed in the UK today.

The killing of Mark Duggan
The immediate cause of the riots was the killing of Mark Duggan by armed police on Thursday August 4th, as he was travelling home in a minicab. The police initially tried to spin the story that they had killed Mark during a shoot-out but it has since emerged that the bullet that hit a police officer’s radio was in fact fired by the officer who shot Duggan dead, and that there is no evidence that Mark Duggan opened fire at police officers. Over a week after the shooting the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) finally admitted that “It seems possible that we may have verbally led journalists to believe that shots were exchanged.”

Demanding answers and the start of the riot
Semone Wilson and other family members went to Tottenham police station at 17.00 on Saturday August 8th, along with local community leaders, to seeks answers to questions about the killing. The police failed to provide a senior officer to answer their questions and, some three and a half hours later, rioting started as the protest dispersed, apparently after riot police had beaten a 16-year-old woman in front of the crowd.

In the riots that followed that night, two police cars and a bus were set on fire and several shops were attacked. The rioting spread from Tottenham to Enfield and Brixton. Police reported they had arrested 55 people and claimed 26 officers were injured. At this point the Duggan family distanced themselves from the rioting.

The spread of the rioting
Rioting spread all across England over the following three nights, with significant disturbances being reported in Birmingham, Salford, Liverpool, Nottingham, Leicester, Manchester, Wolverhampton, West Bromwich, Gloucester, Chatham, Oxford, and Bristol. The police were quickly overwhelmed, and were lucky that for the most part the riots focused on looting and avoiding the police rather than direct confrontation and attacks on the police. This was not true everywhere. In Nottingham no less than five police stations were attacked at various points, but in most places the rioters dispersed when sizeable numbers of police appeared, to melt away and resume looting elsewhere.

The form of most of the riots made it very hard for the police to contain them. In a traditional riot that is directed at the police, the riot typically sees large massed lines of static, heavily protected riot police in solid ranks facing off against the rioters who rain down projectiles from a distance. Both sides may advance, retreat and attempt to outflank each other, but this pattern means that the destruction and looting is relatively contained. But most of the riots that broke out after the first night were focused on looting and avoiding the police, rather than directly confronting them.

Choosing sides?
In Homage to Catalonia, George Orwell provided a useful general starting point for how anarchists view riots, writing “I have no particular love for the idealised “worker” as he appears in the bourgeois Communist’s mind, but when I see an actual flesh-and-blood worker in conflict with his natural enemy, the policeman, I do not have to ask myself which side I am on.” What happened in London and spread elsewhere was not some idealised glorious proletarian uprising, but the very real explosion of anger that occurs when years of poverty, police repression, and racism finally reach bursting point.

Some terrible things have happened during the riots, but the politicians who weep crocodile tears for the burning of shops and the anti-social muggings and beatings are the very same people who bombed Iraq back into the stone age, and organised the war and occupation that killed hundreds of thousands. It is not necessary to see the rioters as some example of idealised workers revolting in order to see the hypocrisy and lies of the politicians and media organisations who rushed to portray the events as unusually horrific, rather than a consequence of a deeply divided society. This is not to suggest that the ‘answer’ to the riots is more pool tables in community halls to keep the youth off the street. That sort of sticking-plaster solution may well be applied in the aftermath to address the symptoms, but the cause is the deep inequality that is part and parcel of capitalism. This divide has terrible effects on the individuals who are trapped at the bottom of the wealth pyramid, often in conditions of inter-generational poverty, unemployment, and exclusion.

The politics of riots
The politicians are keen to deny any political aspect of the riot, and indeed are trying to intimidate anyone who points out the obvious by accusing them of supporting arson and muggings. In this respect, this riot is quite different to the student riots of last winter and the anti-cuts riot in March. Then, the politicians were keen to suggest all the trouble was down to anarchists and other ‘outside agitators’. This time they are keen to prevent any discussion of the reasons why there were four nights of severe rioting.

That said in many districts, the often random nature of what was attacked demonstrated a lack of collective politics beyond the desire to lash. It was not that people were disorganised. The riots did see considerable organising to loot those goods the rioters had been told to desire but often can’t afford, but otherwise there was a tendency to lash out at the very limited authority figures that are within easy reach. There are obvious parallels with the French banlieue riots of late 2005, when local schools and community centres were destroyed for similar reasons.

But, as we have seen, at least some had a clear political understanding of what they were up against, and there were also attacks on police vehicles and even police stations, the latter requiring collective organisation and co-ordination. Five police stations were attacked in Nottingham, with police vehicles being destroyed in Nottingham, Bristol, and Tottenham itself.

The politics of fear
The reports we have had of anarchist involvement in the rioting have tended to be of anarchists trying to stop the destruction of local shops, but this seems to have been quite localised. But reports we have received are also at odds with the picture painted by the mainstream media, of a feral mob attacking everyone and everything in sight. Instead we have been told that bystanders and spectators are generally being ignored. There are clearly exceptions to this (there is YouTube footage of people being mugged), but given that tens of thousands have been involved in rioting and looting it seems these incidents are the exception rather than the rule, but an exception that is being used to spread fear and panic.

Alex, who we interviewed, had gone to witness the riot in his work clothes. Much of the sensationalist media coverage would have led you to believe he would inevitably be set upon and mugged but while acknowledging that things were not the same everywhere, Alex reported “The kids robbed the shops because that’s where the stuff is. They attacked the cops because they’d stop them. It was simultaneous, it was not two groups of people, one with a beef against the cops and another with light fingers – it was one group of mainly young people. They didn’t attack each other, rape people, mug people – I was able to walk freely amongst them in my shirt and slacks straight from work; lots of people who were obviously not rioting walked with the crowd in daylight – many have said the mood turned later on but actually I stayed with it with a friend, who was also not dressed to fit in, until after midnight.”

Consequences of ‘scum’
The ‘feral mob’ is a standard media story produced whenever there is large-scale breakdown of law and order. There is a need for responsibility in choosing to accept and repeat such stories, because the fear they provoke creates the atmosphere where the police can use extreme repression. The media, the spin doctors, and the talking heads have been busy advancing the idea that the people who rioted are merely thugs and criminals, in an attempt to dehumanise them. This is a dangerous phenomenon: once the rioters have been successfully made into sub-humans in the public consciousness, the opportunity for new levels of repression opens up.

The impact this process is having can be seen in the results of the YouGov poll carried out for the Sun. It found that 33% thought “police should be able to use firearms/live ammunition” and support for ‘less lethal’ options was far higher: “9 out of 10 respondents (90%) thought that the police should be able to use water cannon in the course of dealing with rioters. The potential use of other tactics also proved very popular with mounted police (84%), curfews (82%), tear gas (78%), tasers (72%) and plastic bullets (65%) all attracting support from a large majority”.

This idiocy is all the more remarkable when we remember that the trigger for these riots was the police killing of Mark Duggan. Apparently the solution to murderous police violence is to be more murderous police violence. A ‘solution’ that, of course, will just result in further rounds of rioting, just as it did under Thatcher in the 1980s.

This dehumanisation has other consequences. With 1500 arrested, it is now clear that huge numbers are going to be criminalised and jailed by a state desperate to reassert its authority. The first court cases that are being heard have made it clear that the judges are taking their central role of protecting capitalism and the state very seriously. Insanely harsh sentences are being imposed, like the 22 year old woman jailed for 6 months after she was caught with 10 packs of chewing gum.

Alongside this, the police are to get additional powers and, it can be expected, will step up attempts to control public space. There is talk of evicting anyone convicted (along with their family) from council accommodation and stopping any benefits they claim. The first eviction papers have already been served in Clapham, on a tenant whose son has been charged with participating in the riots.  Even in right-wing terms this is sheer lunacy, how exactly would a homeless ex-prisoner with no income be expected to live? Just how alienated might such a person feel from the rest of society? What happens when, in a few months, hundreds of them are released with no home to return to, no benefits, and it being next to impossible to find work? The state expects to get away with this because so much of the population has joined in the dehumanisation of the rioters. The end result will inevitably be even deeper exclusion and resentment and, with this response, next time there will be an even more unfocused lashing out.

Riots are often contradictory
The reality is riots are often unfocused expressions of anger. People are smart enough to know that they have no stake in society as it currently is set up. What they have witnessed is inter-generational poverty and lack of opportunities. As it happened to their fore-fathers, it is happening to them. Social mobility is a myth which no-one is buying, because it is the capitalist equivalent of a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. The game is rigged and they always end up losing. The political system does not cater, care, or listen to the people who riot. No-one is listening to them, no-one is speaking for them, and certainly no-one is planning to invest in their future. When you can’t see a future for yourself, and when you have not seen a future for your parents or your grandparents materialise, torching a building or looting a shop is a cry to be heard, a cry for survival.

In March 1968 Martin Luther King delivered that speech to a hostile audience at an American High School during which he talked of the violent riots that had shaken US cities during the proceeding summers, riots that were to culminate in an orgy of destruction following his own assassination a short time later. He was a pacifist but he still proclaimed that
‎”…it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard.”

What will change?
The political masters are playing a dangerous game. They want to spin these riots as nothing but ‘mindless’ thuggery. But people have been watching the streets of various cities become the platform for change over the last six months, from Tunis to Cairo, from Damascus to Madrid. Our rulers certainly do not want to see these riots turn into that – a massive display of public defiance and civil unrest against the existing system, a system where inequality and injustice are rampant, and the desperate NEED for something else. Yet it is our duty as citizens of the world to turn these displays of anger into a directed political fight for change.

The riots have lain down a marker around which everyone is choosing a side. Do you want the ‘security’ of the all powerful Big Brother state that can keep the rich safe in their beds while the poor are literally thrown on the street or if they resist into prison? A state that can make sure that those who cannot afford the pretty baubles will be kept at a distance, restricted to staring through plate glass or serving those who have the readies to pay? Perhaps with enough water cannon, baton rounds, and CCTV the status quo can be preserved.

To return to MLK, if a riot is not the answer, then what is? With confidence, we say it is certainly not more of the same. If we want freedom then we must organise to fight for freedom and convince others to fight alongside us. Together we have the power. The question is, will we organise to use it?

An extended version of this article can be found here: http://www.wsm.ie/c/london-riots-causes-consequences-anarchist

This article originally appeared in the new monthly October edition of Freedom newspaper see here
Freedom newspaper can be purchased directly from our shop or available at any good radical bookshop/social centre.

Freedom Bookshop
Angel Alley
84b Whitechapel High Street
London E1 7QX
Alternatively take out a yearly subscription and have the paper delivered to you.

Freedom newspaper:

• Latest issue
• Back issues
• Subscribe
• Freedom stockists

In the previous edition, I outlined briefly the various components of Kropotkin’s political ideology.  In this final instalment I will detail the four main philosophies guiding radical environmental groups in existence today along with their views on revolutionary change and sabotage tactics, and finally conclude with some of Kropotkin’s own views on the use of sabotage and ‘propaganda by deed’ as a means of achieving social revolution.  But let us first look at the four main philosophies of radical ecology: deep ecology, social ecology, eco-feminism, and bioregionalism.

In 1973, Norwegian philosopher, Arne Naess, developed the philosophy of deep ecology which is characterized by a more holistic approach to nature, exemplified by the preservation ethic as well as the writings of Aldo Leopold and Rachel Carson.  Douglas Long writes in his book, Ecoterrorism, of Naess stating: “Naess called for a fundamental change in human consciousness that acknowledged the intrinsic value of all natural things, the biocentric equality of all species, and the ‘submergence of the human self in a larger natural self.’ [1]

Deep ecology rejects an anthropocentric view of the world and states that humans are not the center of life on earth, but instead, only make up a small part of it, and that all living things have an equal right to live and blossom.  Naess believed that anyone who subscribed to this biocentric view was obliged to try and implement necessary changes to basic economic, technological, and ideological structures.

Now, to move on to the second philosophy of the four: eco-feminism.  Eco-feminism was developed in the 1970’s from a synthesis of feminist and environmental philosophies and tactical ideas.  The term was coined in 1974 to represent women’s potential for bringing about an ecological revolution to ensure human survival on the planet.  The view of eco-feminism, as stated by Long, is “based on the analysis of environmental problems from the perspective of the feminist critique of patriarchal systems, as well as on attempts to offer alternative systems intended to liberate both women and nature from oppression.” [2]

Now let us move on to the third philosophy: social ecology.  Primarily, social ecology was the invention of American anarchist philosopher, Murray Bookchin, who was inspired by Kropotkin and other various anarchists.  “Bookchin concluded that environmental problems could not be solved in a free-market, capitalist society, because such hierarchical and authoritarian social, economic, and political structures allow humans to dominate others and nature.” [3] Bookchin argues that, instead of dominating nature, humans should emulate it, which, characterized by a form of cooperation, or mutual aid, among organisms that furthers evolutionary goals.

Finally, we move to bioregionalism.  Long writes that bioregionalism “is a synthesis of countercultural philosophies such as: back-to-the-land communalism, social anarchism, appropriate technology, and feminism.”[4] It is considered by its proponents to be a means through which Bookchin’s theory of social ecology can be implemented.

Now that we have covered the four main philosophies guiding radical environmental thought, it is important to point out that all four of these views all advocate some sort of revolution.  They all go further than simply advocating for more governmental regulation.  All of them advocate dramatic changes in lifestyle, as well as socio-economic and political structures.

Now we must move on to describe various eco-terrorist groups and their methods of realize their goals.  Before going into detail on various eco-terrorist groups, it would be wise to give a definition of just exactly what eco-terrorism is.  The FBI defines it thusly: “The use or the threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally oriented, sub national group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature.”[5]

The first group we’ll cover is the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, hereafter referred to as SSCS.  The former Greenpeace member, Paul Watson founded SSCS along with other activists because they believed activists such as themselves needed more tools and tactics than simply the civil disobedience that Greenpeace had been practicing.  Watson and the other members of SSCS believe activists need to utilize tactics such as sabotage to achieve their goals.  Quoting from the SSCS website, it reads: “Sea Shepherd uses innovative direct-action tactics to investigate, document, and take action when necessary to expose and confront illegal activities on the high seas.”[6]

Earth First! was formed in 1979, and their website reads: “We believe in using all the tools in the tool box, ranging from grassroots organizing and involvement in the legal process to civil disobedience and monkey wrenching.” [7] From Earth First! came the next and final group we shall examine, the Earth Liberation Front.

The Earth Liberation Front/Animal Liberation Front, hereafter referred to as ELF/ALF was founded in Brighton, England in 1992 by several Earth First! activists who refused to abandon sabotage as a tactic when others wished to mainstream the movement.  Long writes: “Extremists who act in the name of the ELF/ALF operate in secrecy and in small independent cells with no identifiable leader or hierarchy.  There are no membership lists, no annual fees, and no magazines or journals.”[8] Through the 1990’s and early into the first decade of the twenty-first century the FBI had declared the ELF/ALF to be the most dangerous domestic terrorist threat to the United States.

Now we must move on to detail Kropotkin’s views on terrorism.

Kropotkin proclaims his views on terrorism quite clearly and succinctly in his autobiography, Memoirs of a Revolutionist.  He writes: “Terrorism was called into existence by certain special conditions of the political struggle at a given historical moment.  It has lived, and has died.  It may revive and die out again.” [9] Terrorism itself is seen as a natural occurrence, and in fact may be necessary for change.  So, anarchists then should not fear utilizing terroristic means to achieve their desired ends.  As far as Kropotkin was concerned, if the state utilized violence to maintain its authority, the people had a right to use violence to take away that authority.

Caroline Cahm, in her book, Kropotkin and the Rise of Revolutionary Anarchism: 1872-1886 quotes Kropotkin saying: “…an act of revolt should be a serious act of war—not a dramatic gesture,” [10] and “preliminary acts of revolt were necessary before a full-scale revolution could take place.” [11] Cahm goes on to say “anarchists…sought to awaken the popular spirit of revolt for the violent expropriation of property and the disorganization of the state, by theoretical propaganda and above all by insurrectional acts.” [12] Cahm quotes Kropotkin further stating: “The act accomplished in one locality becomes itself the most powerful means of propaganda.”[13] And finally, Cahm quotes Kropotkin saying: “This would be a living act of propaganda: ‘The idea will not be written down, put in a newspaper or picture, any more than it will be sculptured in marble, carved in stone or cast in bronze: it will walk in flesh and blood, living before the people.” [14]

One can see from this then that Kropotkin’s ideas for spreading anarchist propaganda by deed, as well as by theoretical means, should always ultimately be directed towards a future revolution, and that those who participate in these acts of revolt will be the ones who shape the direction that the revolution will take.  Of course, the very name, ’propaganda by deed,’ that Kropotkin developed and advocated lies very much within the definition of eco-terrorism that the FBI provides as stated above.  In Kropotkin’s eyes, the terroristic act is propaganda.  By carrying out a terroristic act, you illuminate problems within the existing system by shining a spotlight on the specific issue, and the act also demonstrates to the people what and how they can act themselves.

To reference this to popular culture, the film, V for Vendetta depicts a masked hero living in London in the not too distant future, in which England has dissolved into a fascist state.  The main character, V—who is labelled a terrorist by the fascist authorities—has the goal of blowing up the parliament building because it is a symbol of political power.  In one scene, V goes into a speech to Natalie Portman’s character, Evi Hammond, about how the building is a symbol, as is the act of destroying it.  V professes that by blowing up parliament, this in turn can inspire hope among the masses, showing them the deficiencies of the existing system, and a possible path forward to change.  This is propaganda by deed.

So, in summation, what modern environmental groups do to further their goals is no different than what Kropotkin and V were advocating by suggesting acts of revolt as a means to propagate their ideas.  So, I hope I have succeeded in adequately detailing the correlations between Kropotkin’s theories and the theories and practices of the various radical environmental eco-terrorist groups of today.  Kropotkin’s influence goes well beyond the philosophical contributions that Bookchin and other ecologists have proved, and perhaps his most chilling contributions to the radical environmental movement are his ideas for revolution, and insurrectional acts, which I have attempted to detail in the preceding pages.

In writing this paper, I have not tried to make any ethical judgments about any of the people or ideas presented here, and I have tried to limit my own biases as much as possible, though, given the historical climate we find ourselves in, with respect to climate change and the continued despoliation of nature, I find it difficult to believe that eco-terrorist acts and groups will disappear anytime in the near future, or, if anything, only intensify.  And I believe it is there which lays the importance of any future study in this area.  In order to understand the aspirations of a certain group with political and ideological goals, it is necessary to understand where these aspirations have their roots, and that is perhaps how one can better understand how to address the issues raised by eco-terrorists who really are a product of the evolutionary chain of anarchist thought.  So, simply to neglect having an adequate understanding of how something develops is unproductive for finding solutions, and because, to quote another radical work, “in reality, everything involves everything else.”[15]

Trent Trepanier

Footnotes:
[1] Douglas Long, Ecoterrorism, p. 20.
[2] Long, Ecoterrorism, p. 21.
[3] Ibid. p. 22.
[4] Long, Ecoterrorism, p. 22.
[5] Ibid. p. 3-4.
[6] Information attained at SSCS website: www.seashepherd.org
[7] Information attained from Earth First! website: www.earthfirst.org
[8] Long, Ecoterrorism, pp. 45-6.
[9] Kropotkin, Memoirs, p. 297.
[10] Cahm, Revolutionary Anarchism, p. 103.
[11] Ibid. pp. 106-7.
[12] Ibid. p. 111.
[13] Ibid. p. 126.
[14] Ibid. p. 84.
[15] The Invisible Committee, The Coming Insurrection, p. 97.

Related articles:

Peter Kropotkin & Radical Environmentalism (Part 1)

Article originally appeared in Freedom #7216
Freedom newspaper can be purchased directly from our shop or available at any good radical bookshop/social centre.

Freedom Bookshop
Angel Alley
84b Whitechapel High Street
London E1 7QX
Alternatively take out a yearly subscription and have the paper delivered to you.

» SUBSCRIBE HERE

Next to Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin is the most famous and important of anarchist theorists, and was one of the first to advocate the theory known as Anarchist Communism.  His lifelong love of science and nature led him to develop his political theory which he saw as the most sensible, and perhaps more importantly, the most natural form of social and political organization.  In developing what he thought to be the most natural means of human organization, in terms of studying human needs and the most rational and equitable means of satisfying them, he laid out some of the basic ideas that would later be developed into the philosophy of Social Ecology, as well as other schools of ecological thought.

I will try to demonstrate how the tactics that Kropotkin developed in his time working within the anarchist movement have come to be used by radical environmental groups, often called ‘eco-terrorists.’  Apart from detailing the tactical methods which eco-terrorist groups have inherited from Kropotkin, I will also attempt to show how Kropotkin’s philosophical writings on anarchism and evolutionary theory have come to be incredibly influential within the environmental community.  In doing this I hope to show the theoretical framework that eco-terrorist groups are working in, because I believe it is essential to understand the development of these theories into the modern period as a way of both understanding, and addressing the issues we face as a global community today.

To begin, however, we must start by laying out some of the concepts that went into Kropotkin’s thinking in order to grasp a better understanding of his overall philosophy.  Firstly, there is the influence that nihilism had upon him.  Kropotkin wrote of the nihilists: “The life of civilized people is full of little conventional lies.  Persons who hate each other, meeting in the street, make their faces radiant with a happy smile; the nihilist remained unmoved, and smiled only for those whom he was really glad to meet.” [1]

The first sentence of this quote alone describes perfectly the nihilist view of society: whatever is accepted, reject; a perfect recipe for a rebel such as Kropotkin.  It also, however, shows an incredible display of honesty.  A nihilist would say one should not sugar coat something simply because it is the societal norm to do so.  One should instead do it because one generally feels that that is the appropriate action to take.  This level of honesty can also be seen in examples of Kropotkin’s life, as even his harshest critics could not deny the amount of honesty and gratitude that he radiated.

This break from traditions and norms are a critical aspect of modern anarchist thought.  The anarchist conception of freedom is very heavily situated upon radical notions of individualism that does not “bend before any authority except that of reason,” [2] and nihilism also views life as ultimately meaningless, without a higher purpose or meaning to life.  If one were then to hold a nihilistic conception of the world, things such as societal norms and traditions, as well as religious doctrines would lose much of their relevance.

Another conceptual aspect of Kropotkin’s thinking is that of our natural ability as humans to rebel.  Kropotkin’s fellow Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin writes: “Yes, our first ancestors, our Adams and our Eves, were, if not gorillas, very near relatives of gorillas, omnivorous, intelligent and ferocious beasts, endowed in a higher degree than the animals of any other species with two precious faculties—the power to think and the desire to rebel.” [3]

In this quote, Bakunin reveals elements that would become absolutely paramount in Kropotkin’s thinking, and the theories he develops: the concept of evolution (of which more will be said shortly), and combining our natural capacities for intellect with our natural desire to rebel.  In Bakunin’s view, humans are essentially animals.  We are not some entity distinct or outside of nature, but instead we are in nature.  We make up one portion of the ecosystem, and while Bakunin was not thinking as complex about this issue, Kropotkin develops it further, and the environmentalist groups that will be discussed later will grab a hold of this as a central theme in their respective philosophies.

For Bakunin and Kropotkin then, rebellion is something that comes as naturally to us as a species as breathing and thinking.  Or, better yet, our natural capacity for rebellion—which is for Bakunin and Kropotkin the rebellion towards freedom—is the evolutionary product of our natural capacity for thinking.  We naturally want to rebel against the status quo towards complete freedom, which for Bakunin and Kropotkin is anarchism.

This natural tendency of rebellion towards freedom obviously implies a very progressive view of history.  Kropotkin, however, would extend this to claim that every occurrence in nature is naturally a progressive occurrence, such as is found in dialectical materialism.  Let me explain: sixty-five million years ago, an asteroid crashed just off the coast of the Yucatan Peninsula of modern day Mexico.  This event heralded the end of the dinosaurs, as well as seventy percent of all the life forms on earth at the time.  So, as cataclysmic as this event was, it provided for the conditions necessary for mammals to evolve, and now here you are with a paper in your hands reading about it.  Kropotkin saw revolutions in just the same way: a possibly violent event which ultimately would bring about some sort of progress.  This shows the very dialectical way of thinking which guided Kropotkin throughout his life.

One last critical aspect of Kropotkin’s thought, before we move on to his political theory, is the theory of evolution.  Kropotkin wrote a work, Mutual Aid: a Factor of Evolution, and in the work he states: “Mutual Aid would be considered, not only as an argument in favour of a pre-human origin of moral instincts, but also as a law of Nature and a factor of evolution.”[4]  This mention of mutual aid being the fundamental factor of moral instincts is crucial to Kropotkin’s ethical and practical arguments for anarchism.  In a political pamphlet published in 1909 entitled, Anarchist Morality, Kropotkin asserts: “The feeling of solidarity is the leading characteristic of all animals living in society.”[5] He goes on to say: “Thousands of similar facts might be quoted, whole books might be written, to show how identical are the conceptions of good and evil amongst men and the other animals.”[6]

George Woodcock writes in an introduction to the Kropotkin anthology, Evolution and Environment: “Kropotkin considered that the application of evolutionary theories to the development of human societies provided a basis in reality as well as in science for his ideal of a liberated society.”[7]  This view that science and technology can play a prominent role in liberating society is a concept that will be returned to with the introduction of Murray Bookchin and his theory of Social Ecology, but for now we move to his political theory.

Kropotkin writes of anarchist communism as “a synthesis of the two chief aims pursued by humanity since the dawn of its history—economic freedom and political freedom.”[8]  He goes on to claim: “We are communists.  But our communism is not that of the authoritarian school: it is anarchist communism, communism without government, free communism.” [9]

Kropotkin’s work, Mutual Aid, is critical for understanding why he felt humans could carry out this type of society.  In Kropotkin’s view, humans are animals, ultimately no different than any other on the planet, and given his argument for mutual aid in the evolutionary process; he argues that, if given the chance, humans would naturally order society in this way.  So, it is in fact unnatural, in Kropotkin’s view, for humans to subjugate one another and instead are capable of incredible amounts of empathy and aid.

Given Marx’s claim that history has been one of class struggles, where one class utilizes the state apparatus to oppress opposing classes, Kropotkin argues that if humans are ever able to take control of the means of production, they will have no need for the state.  Here, Kropotkin and other anarchists differ from Marxists in one crucial aspect: tactics.  Marxists believe the state should be seized in the revolution and utilized to bring about communism, and anarchists believe it should be destroyed in the very process of the revolution.  The goal is the same but the strategies are vastly different.

I have attempted to elucidate briefly the theoretical aspects of Kropotkin’s thinking, and next issue I will illustrate how radical environmental groups have been influenced by these ideas.  For a more complete view of his ideas I would strongly suggest delving into his body of works on the subject such as: The Conquest of Bread, Fields, Factories, and Workshops, Mutual Aid: a Factor of Evolution, as well as the anthology Anarchism: A Collection of Revolutionary Writings.

Trent Trepanier

Footnotes:
[1] Peter Kropotkin, Memoirs of a Revolutionist, p. 298.
[2] Ibid. p. 297.
[3] Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State, p. 9.
[4] Peter Kropotkin, Mutual Aid: a Factor in Evolution, p. 4.
[5] Peter Kropotkin, Anarchism: a Collection of Revolutionary Writings, p. 95. Quoted from Anarchist Morality.
[6] Ibid. p. 90.
[7] Peter Kropotkin, Evolution and Environment, p. 12.
[8] Peter Kropotkin, Anarchism: a Collection of Revolutionary Writings, p. 61. Quoted from Anarchist Communism.
[9] Ibid. p. 61.

Related articles:

Peter Kropotkin & Radical Environmentalism (Part 2)

Article originally appeared in Freedom #7215
Freedom newspaper can be purchased directly from our shop or available at any good radical bookshop/social centre.

Freedom Bookshop
Angel Alley
84b Whitechapel High Street
London E1 7QX
Alternatively take out a yearly subscription and have the paper delivered to you.

» SUBSCRIBE HERE

Much is made of the historical connections between anarchism and the Philippines. Not least from the formidable work of Benedict Anderson and his book Under Three Flags which documents the relationship between anarchism and anti-colonialism filtered through the life and works of Jose Rizal, one of the leading figures in the Filipino independence struggle in what Anderson describes as “that dense intertwining of anarchist internationalism and radical anti-colonialism”.

The political novelist José Rizal, who was executed in 1896 by the Spanish authorities in the Philippines at the age of 35, along with his contemporary the pioneering folklorist, labour activist and writer Isabelo de los Reyes were a major influence on anarchist ideas being brought to the islands.

De los Reyes was imprisoned in Manila after the violent uprisings of 1896 and later deported to Spain where he was incarcerated, together with Catalan anarchists, in the infamous Montjuic Castle prison in Barcelona.  It was there de los Reyes met and befriended the anarchist Ramon Sempau. On his return to Manila in 1901, now under US occupation, he brought with him books by Proudhon, Marx, Kropotkin, and Malatesta. Shortly after, he organised print workers and successfully held strikes, imbuing them with anarcho-syndicalist ideas that led to the creation of the Union Obrera Democrática (UOD) in 1902. It was the first modern trade union federation in the country and its founding congress adopted the principles of two books – Life and Works of Karl Marx and Among Farmers by Errico Malatesta, as the political foundation of the movement. At its peak in 1903 the organisation counted 150 affiliated unions, with around 150,000 members in eight provinces of Luzon. After the UOD staged a massive demonstration, the civil governor put them under police surveillance, branding them as “radicals, subversives and anarchists”.

Since the publication of Under Three Flags in 2005 the Philippines has seen an upsurge in anarchist activities. There are groups such as the As A Whole collective, anarchists and artists who run an infoshop in Davao City, Mindanao and activities involve holding rallies against corporate exploitation and were part of a successful activist campaign that resulted in a complete ban of aerial pesticide spraying on banana plantations. The group also established a space called Saydee’s Kitchen, from which they are offering free meals twice a week, feeding up to 100 youth and elderly.

But the latest anarchist project Mindsetbreaker Press and Distribution who are an underground anarchist publishing and distribution entity based in the Philippines and are looking for support and solidarity in their endeavours. We’ll let the Mindsetbreaker Press comrades tell you about themselves.

Project description
Mindsetbreaker Press operationally started in early 2010 as an individual project that focuses mainly on translating anarchist literature (English text) into local languages that will be more applicable and relevant to the rather complex scenario of political, social and economic currents of the Philippines. As time goes on, the press eventually grew in number after establishing personal collaboration with some friends involved in the anarchist social network and activism. The press is now run by four people specifically working on publishing and distribution campaign besides other existing projects being carried out by members.

Current members of the project were involved in different projects before and presently, individually and collectively. Some run social centres or infoshops, make zine and alternative publications, organizing issue-base radical events and shows, protest and demonstrations, leafleting for campaigns, opening free shop and free food on the streets, forums, networking and hosting informational sites, working with communities (farmers, fisher folks and indigenous people) fight capitalist and state development intrusion (Mining, Freeport, Agribusiness, etc.). These actions had been carried out independent from state intervention, businesses, mainstream media, NGO’s and religious institutions.

Taking a glimpse
Since the country was colonized by western interests; for example 300 years of Spanish occupation, Japan invasion for a while and later American influence, arguably, it might be simple enough to understand as to why the archipelago had ultimately endure such complication that result indifferences of perspectives, priorities and interests among its own population. Moreover, it is a very poor country chained in debt; persuaded within the mockery of mere survival. Poverty rate, famine and corruption are visibly high. Likewise, conservatism and religious influence (i.e. Catholicism) is not so new. So everyday repression by the state (Armed Forces of the Philippines and Philippine National Police) is rampant targeting petty crimes, outcasts and insurgents in the guise like ; covering terrorism images on the media or straightforwardly branding innocent people to be involved in an armed-party guerrilla groups (Maoist-left) to justify legal murder. In general, some may have seen it as an unprecedented effect due to economic constraints being pushed around and realistically being felt everyday that leads to further injustice and abuse unbearable.

Aims and goals
The aim of the project is to provide radical ideas on the streets and universities particularly counter- informational and alternative awareness that we feel rich in diversity and open for arguments/discourse whilst give coherence to the practical situation of the locality and time. This comes in paper form through republishing the works of various radical authors we choose to and later hand it out to people in massive amount. Furthermore, the main important goal of the project besides re-publishing the works of various authors; is to support local anarchist writers (individual and collective) who are struggling to circulate their works to different sectors in society;(i.e. students, farmers, indigenous people, fisher folks, vendors, workers (employed or unemployed), squatters, women and men, gays, lesbian,, youth, etc); not limited only to subculture and scenes. Other than that, we pick up few titles written by local comrades we knew and one local writer is currently involved on the project. We hope to establish venues and deepen our understanding about anarchist ideas; hopes, dreams and its practicality not remote only to several people, individual and groups but different sectors of society currently struggling everyday living. This includes us, ourselves not above anyone else.

Few of the local titles cover history and politics about the Philippines base on contemporary anarchist perspectives.

By distributing large amount of anarchist literature on the streets and universities on regular basis is seen as first time in history in the Philippines since obtaining money for print-out is sometimes difficult. Anti-authoritarian ideas never reaches many people of different sectors who are working hard everyday .Basic needs like food on the table are oftentimes the utmost concern for everyone. The present economy will never be useful only usher death and destruction. Every valuable resource that provides life is plundered; monopolized by capital through trade agreements.

Current activities
After republishing the English version of What is Anarchist Communism, our plan is to circulate the paper to several universities throughout Manila. These are four different universities such as Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP), University of the Philippines (UP) and other progressive schools like Ateneo de Manila and Technological University of the Philippines (TUP). PUP and UP are quiet better known for many years as to having authoritarian leftist concentration; organising to manufacture students into blind submission and authoritarian ideology (Marxist and Maoist). This is always dangerous and absurd aiming to overthrow the existing state to grab power in the guise of proletarian management, sovereignty and nationalism to rule people.

“The National Democratic Front (NDF) became the most influential bloc within the Philippine left during the Marcos years. It was directly influenced by the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), reinforced by its growing armed group (The New People’s Army) that was able to form battalions in many strategic regions in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. The radicalism displayed by the organizations initiated by the CPP attracted many sectors, primarily the youth”- Gasera Journal

We tend to hand out 1000 copies of published material each university in the hope for students to self-organize themselves and take action against all forms of authority; most especially freshman youth and secondary years were authoritarian left organisers masked in disguised in order to capture their mind. We also hear that there are some organizers enrolled there not by studying but organizing students into such ideological lines.

In addition, we’d begun translating the Alexander Berkman into Tagalog. This is the usual language in the archipelago where many people could able to understand or speak. The tagalog version of Berkman are intended for people who are not comfortable with English most especially large sectors of society mostly the poor and marginalize class..

Next, besides re-publishing foreign literatures, we are very motivated to produce our own local materials and support local writers’ base on personal consent before carrying out their works under our project, as an underground anarchist publishing and distribution entity. There are 7 titles finally approved after meeting with people and local writers we knew, one is actually now a member of the project and is a regular voluntary writer.

The few titles being approved includes Gasera Journal (collection of local anarchist writings about history and politics in the Philippines, Indokumentado #1(autonomous ideas, experiences, activism and movement in the archipelago) Anarki: Akin ang buhay ko, Sosyal si Simo at si Sima(anarcho-syndicalist perspective) , Archipelagic Confederation : Alternative political structure beyond representation and state politics, Punkista zine (punk subculture and political) and Mindsetbreaker zine(documentation of different social and ecological struggles, campaigns and actions in the Philippines). Other than that, we will do info tour in different schools along with the titles we carry as the main topic aim to open up discussions and discourses.

As a publishing and distribution entity, we mobilize and publicize literatures through organizing forums and discourses about every topic we carry like history, politics, and anarchism etc. initially aimed at schools. Creating awareness events and literature tables.

We want the project to become long term as possible that will be more specific on publishing and distribution campaign. There is other related stuff we want to work on besides publishing the entire Berkman book like doing info tour in different universities along with the literatures we carry as main topic to discuss about, most especially local writings; essays and articles. Besides, we want to encourage local writers to keep doing what they are doing, even most people sometimes entrapped with the bitterness of time available due to economic conditions.

As an underground press, we are here to openly reach different people and stand our ground not only limited to subculture and scenes. And ultimately become a worthwhile initiative to keep projects running and contribute services to other people, so they can start one; themselves. This might reflect not only limited to ideas but action and building solidarity.

We believe that every issue that affect our lives are interconnected; be it social or ecological catastrophes we have seen today, small scale or large, society or individual. It does not come from us but manifests through domineering hierarchical structures and centralized order; maintained by the state and religion, morality; the spectre of capitalism aimed towards greed and profit and was organized founded and carried out from the ashes of ruthless terror and bloodshed many centuries had passed by that we blindly inherited today .

We believe no borders and wilfully continue fighting against it until it’s destruction alongside with sexism, homophobia, racism and other forms of oppression that was created and needs to be challenged. This might come outside our inner conventional wants and desires that we are dealing with everyday to cope up with our ability to interact within society or the question on how we are brought to; by combating such convention inside ourselves.
Yours in trouble,

Mindsetbreaker Press and Distribution
Address: 157 Ilaya E.Mendoza St. Buting Pasig City, Philippines 1600
Email: mindsetbreakerpress@riseup.net

For more information on Saydee’s Kitchen initiative: http://saydeeskitchen.webs.com/

like this article

This article originally appeared in the #7216 edition of Freedom newspaper see here
Freedom newspaper can be purchased directly from our shop or available at any good radical bookshop/social centre.

Freedom Bookshop
Angel Alley
84b Whitechapel High Street
London E1 7QX
Alternatively take out a yearly subscription and have the paper delivered to you.

Freedom newspaper:

• Latest issue
• Back issues
• Subscribe
• Freedom stockists

A number of anarchist journals and websites have criticised my own and my comrades’ activism in recent months and weeks. Criticism from the right is easy to dismiss. When it comes from comrades I know and respect, I need to take it seriously and come up with a considered response.

The tabloids have depicted me as a ‘top anarchist’ or ‘anarchist ringleader’. The truth is that I count myself a marxist. But like any consistent marxist, my goal is a stateless society. My political beliefs are based on my understanding of human origins and prehistory. For 95 per cent of our existence, our species lived as egalitarian hunter-gatherers, without any kind of state, showing in practice that anarchism works. My interest has been to elucidate precisely how such a lifestyle came into existence and how it worked. Hunter-gatherers are not free in the sense of ‘lawless’. They certainly uphold norms and principles of conduct, particularly with respect to sex. But these norms are enforced bottom-up, not top-down. It seems to me that we have much to learn from hunter-gatherers who still practice anarchism/communism today.[¹]

Do I think the state can be used as a revolutionary instrument today? No, I do not. The state is intrinsically tied up with territorialism, with borders, with passports, with war. In my view it has to be smashed and replaced with self-organized forms of resistance cutting across all borders. Earlier marxists used to think in terms of stages, leaving abolition of the state to some future date following a successful revolution. In today’s world, this makes no sense. The revolution is intrinsically internationalist from the start, so talk about retaining the territorial state in any form is just reactionary. That’s my view. Whether it makes me an anarchist, I leave for others to decide.

Am I a ‘leader’, as the tabloids keep describing me? I am active and prominent in ‘The Government of the Dead’, a small street theatre troupe. We do have our supporters, but I doubt any of them consider me their leader. What’s happening here, I think, is a sense of humour failure. The tabloids strive to prevent any element of theatrical comedy from coming across, since it challenges their narrative about ‘anarchist thugs’. But if you consider the outcome – in ‘The Sun’ newspaper, for example – what you have is a so-called ‘anarchist leader’ who looks like a top-hatted zombie making a complete clown of himself, apparently on purpose. This is surely preferable to the media creating a believable leader. In my view, we don’t need any more Lenins, any more Great Helmsmen. In the spirit of Rabelais and Bakhtin, my theatrical project has been to dissolve any such idea in peals of laughter.

I respect those comrades who say we should never speak to the media. I also respect those who limit their media contacts to liberal middle class publications such as The Guardian or The Independent. But ‘The Government of the Dead’ has its own particular project, which is to help break through the wall of censorship erected by the mainstream media. Our project is to break out of the middle class bubble altogether and reach the working class.

Of course it would be nice if we could persuade the Sun or the Evening Standard to publish a positive piece on the need for revolution and the creative potential of anarchism. But that’s cloud cuckoo land. So we have to think of other ways. Accepting that we will be called ‘extremists’, ‘thugs’ etc. etc., can we persuade the tabloids to publish the crucial information? Sometimes things go wrong, but we’ve had our successes, too. In an Evening Standard article published just before the TUC march, we managed to insert a map of the route with all the planned feeder marches, encouraging people to expect an interesting day and not just an A-to-B march. Yes, the headline was ‘anarchist extremists plan to hi-jack TUC march’, but it seems likely that such detailed and informative coverage, however ‘negative’, may in practice have had a positive effect on the day. Ordinary people who read newspapers are not stupid: they can read through the lines.

Let me now come to the royal wedding. As far as I can see, every section of the anarchist movement was determined to do very little on that day. ‘The Government of the Dead’ planned some street theatre with a plywood guillotine. Inevitably, the tabloids insisted on describing us as ‘anarchist thugs’. They even reported supposed words of mine to foster that impression. I would ask comrades to remember that the mass media systematically lie. They attributed words to me that I never said, and would never have dreamed of saying.

On the day following the wedding, crime reporter Rebecca Camber of the Daily Mail (April 30, p. 26) reported not only that ‘hundreds of anarchists’ had planned to ‘wreck’ the event but that on the morning itself ‘masked thugs gathered in central London’ only to be ‘thwarted’ by police as they rounded up 99 ‘troublemakers’. So who were these ‘masked thugs’ seen gathering in their hundreds in Central London? Was there a single arrest of anyone wearing a mask? Those who arrived that morning in Soho Square were a few dozen young people including small children wearing zombie outfits and face-paint. None looked remotely like a ‘masked thug’.

Engaging with the media is always going to be a gamble. There will be costs as well as benefits. I accept that many anarchists have felt upset, particularly when it seemed there was a direct link between sensational coverage and subsequent police repression. Following the G20 protests, I was well aware that the media frenzy prior to our ‘Storm the Banks’ action was being blamed in some quarters for the climate in which Ian Tomlinson got killed. Immediately following that tragic event, I helped form the United Campaign Against Police Violence, working with the Tomlinson family among many others whose loved ones had died while in police custody. Yes, I had moments of doubt. Suppose we hadn’t ‘stormed the banks’. Suppose we’d all stayed at home. Wouldn’t Ian still be alive? It was all very difficult, to say the least. But as I said at the time, none of the violence on that day came from our side. We didn’t assault anyone; we didn’t kill Ian Tomlinson. Please lay the blame where it belongs: with the police! If we allowed state violence to persuade us all to stay in our beds, wouldn’t we be on a slippery slope toward a police state? We need to take inspiration from our counterparts in Syria – comrades who are still protesting despite being shot in the streets and even in their homes.

The Solidarity Federation, like Freedom Press, made their position clear in advance of the royal wedding. ‘We’re not planning anything’, they said on their blog. The Solidarity Federation insisted that it was business as usual – they would continue to focus their energy and resources on the working class. Other anarchists announced that the monarchy is irrelevant – ‘an embarrassing throwback to a bygone era.’ These are legitimate views. But if the monarchy is irrelevant, why did the state resort to such an unprecedented clampdown, arresting dozens of us for merely thinking of doing something on the day? The explanation, surely, is that this feudal spectacle remains vital to the maintenance of capitalist class rule in Britain.

Some people have accused me of wanting to replace monarchist pageantry with some other self-promoting media spectacle. Actually, the project is to dissolve all such spectacle, opening the door to celebratory street parties, occupations, picket lines and, in general, popular revolution as ‘the carnival of the oppressed’. Glimpses of this have begun breaking out during moments of victory across the Arab world and more recently across Greece and Spain. Humour, dance and theatre maximise the difficulties for the media in portraying us as thugs. Anyway, liberation should be fun. As Emma Goldman said: ‘If I can’t dance in your revolution, it’s not my revolution’.

To me, it seems ironic that some anarchist organizations mirror many of the worst aspects of their Leninist and Trotskyist counterparts. They jealously guard their sectarian boundaries, promote their supposedly ‘correct’ theories, insist on being worthy and boring, insist that their radical ideas are the vital ingredient that the working class needs. The truth is that the working class doesn’t need any of this. Workers need information about their own solidarity, their own unity in action, their own ability to stand up to the bosses and liberate themselves, their own human creativity and potential. As workers become collectively empowered, they’ll work out their own theories, making use, perhaps, of some of the ideas we activists can provide. Against that background, any insight which helps expose division and weakness in the enemy camp is useful; anything which fosters the impression that the ruling class is invincible is reactionary.

Let me conclude by saying that the worst possible kind of theory is the sort which says that everything is a ruling class conspiracy, that the police have got it all sewn up, that the system of mass media censorship is totalitarian and invincible, that there’s nothing we can do. A case in point is a recent Freedom article expressing the paranoid idea that Chris Knight and his comrades are actually part of a huge, well-organised police/media conspiracy designed specifically to justify repression of anarchists.

Well, believe that if you like. In fact, though, the ruling class aren’t so devilish clever. The deeper their crisis, the worse their mistakes. I pose this question: Why did the state feel obliged to make those pre-emptive arrests before and during the wedding? Was it a sign of strength? Or of weakness? Despite being arrested and imprisoned, few of us feel in any way intimidated or cowed. As far as the ‘Guillotine Three’ are concerned, we’ve found it hard to stop laughing. We are now in the process of building a movement to defend the right to protest in the face of a regime which appears more intolerant and insecure by the day.

If workers have accepted capitalist society, it’s because the system has offered limited freedoms and improvements in living standards. If it can’t offer either any more, people will be looking for alternatives. We’re heading for interesting times. Let’s stop attacking one another and focus on winning the revolution!

Chris Knight

[¹] By the way, I am not a primitivist. If you want to understand more about the relevance of hunter-gatherers to revolutionary politics today, see the Radical Anthropology Group website (radicalanthropologygroup.org), the lunarchy website (lunarchy.org) or my shorter articles on libcom.

Original Freedom news articles criticising Chris Knight:

• A right royal cock-up
• G20 policing in the dock

Article originally appeared in Freedom #7212
Freedom newspaper can be purchased directly from our shop or available at any good radical bookshop/social centre.

Freedom Bookshop
Angel Alley
84b Whitechapel High Street
London E1 7QX
Alternatively take out a yearly subscription (only £20) and have the paper delivered to you.

» SUBSCRIBE HERE

Freedom talks to a representative from Spain’s Real Democracy Now movement

We meet outside Angel tube station on the rarest of sunny bank holiday Mondays. After grabbing a coffee we find somewhere quiet to talk about the incredible events that are happening in Spain and how they made their way across the Channel to the heart of London.

Having met Hugo briefly the previous day at the assembly outside the Spanish Embassy I ask him for formal introductions  and a little background:

“Hi, I’m Hugo from Tenerife Spain, and have been living in London for three years, I’m a member of  Democracia Real YA!, here in London. I am not a speaker of the movement but I’m a member of the press committee, we don’t have any kind of leadership, we don’t have leaders, it’s a very flat [horizontal] assembly movement, I’m not talking as a speaker, but as a citizen of one of the committees of the assembly, we don’t exercise any kind of leadership, we would prefer to build an assembly movement where every person participates to build the leadership of all the organisations all together”.

“The movement started around 2010-2011 on the internet. Basically the origin of the movement were people connected to hackers, people against a law to limit the use of internet by the socialist government – it’s called Ley Sinde, [Sinde's Law], Sinde is the name of the Minister of Culture in the current government of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. These became more and more political movements since 2010 when the government of Zapatero introduced brutal cuts in the budget, to the welfare state in proportions that we’ve never seen before. They angered and upset a lot of people, a lot of supporters of the socialist party who voted for them because they represented the centre left, but moved towards a more neo-liberal vision of the economic situation. So a lot of people started to feel completely defrauded by the government of Zapatero”.

“And it’s at this moment there are a lot of small movements that are connecting, linking with each other.  It wasn’t spontaneous in the way that it was yes one day the people decide to go to the streets, meet on the square and they say ‘okay let’s go to Puerta del Sol together’. It was a campamento, it was a movement working before that, but now they give the name to all these protests – Democracia Real YA! ’15M’ because that was the first day everything started it was the first campamento”.

I ask how he himself got involved in the movement.

“I started to receive emails and messages around January or February and to be honest I didn’t expect any big political issue about that, I was expecting a normal protest. I was in Madrid days before and I started to feel ‘everything is going on’, there’s a lot of people talking, I receive more and more messages by Facebook about this thing. A lot of people talking okay let’s go to do something”.

“It was around the elections that we reached the figure of five million unemployed and this was the council and local elections on 22nd May, it started to fuel the motives and the reasons for people to go to the streets. At the beginning it to go on the protest on the 15th May, but there wasn’t any expectation, or any plan, at least that I know, to go to do a camp. It was in the Puerta del Sol square in the centre of Madrid on the night of the 15th of May a group of more or less 200 people decided after the protest to camp there. And they were removed by the police. After that people used Twitter and Facebook, again, using the same way of communicating as all the revolutions in North  Africa, and this is probably the most similar thing to the North Africa rebellions, it was – people are connected and said ‘okay let’s go to camp again and let’s go to support all the comrades arrested by the police’. Because these were absolutely normal people. Not are not members of any political organisations, they are not members of any trade unions, they’re normal people; unemployed, students, normal workers, that went there to protest against the general situation”.

“One of mistakes the media made is it thinks that all these protests happening in Spain is just a protest against the socialist government.  It’s not just that, obviously that is one part, but the other part is it’s a problem with the political system in general. Since Spain got the democratic system in 1977 after Franco’s death we settled with a system that is a proportional corrective system that has the two main parties swapping the power constantly. The feeling of a lot of people is the system is more or less a closed system where we cannot chose our candidates; we have a closed list that the party gives to us. So one of the big questions we are asking of society is let’s go to reform the electoral law”.

“But two or three main issues that are very new in all of this – first of all since the democratic system came into being in the seventies for the first time the political class have been removed from the centre of the political space, and all the media attention put there a normal citizen, a part of the society, an important part of the society that says: we are angry, we are upset, we are the indignants. We need to try to do something with that, because we cannot be more passive people saying ‘okay we don’t have any options, we can vote conservatives, we can vote socialist’. So we need to give options. We need to give the option to people to say I don’t like the system”.

“The original idea was to make a movement inclusive, so any person can participate and can join the movement. It’s not a left movement, it’s not a conservative movement, it is a movement were a normal citizen can come to the assembly and say ‘I like this kind of thing; I don’t like this kind of thing’. It is an assembly movement and we organise it by committees and by commissions that just do the work that the assembly decides. The assembly decides it’s going to do this action, so there is a lot of committees and commissions working for that, but in the end the assembly is the supreme body of all these movements. It is quite exciting and fantastic and it’s the first time we are doing these kind of things in our lives but at the same time it’s quite chaotic. And we are learning”.

“The other big thing is we were doing this for two and three weeks in Spain so we were learning about democracy. Because democracy is not just about talk, democracy is to listen carefully to what all the people are talking about. And even if you don’t agree with what this person is saying, listen to the options, listen to the ideas that the other person gives to you. Because democracy is about building something, counting everyone in society. And this is not easy”.

We go on to talk about how the movement was transported over to the UK.

“What is this movement in the political Spanish situation? It doesn’t have any kind of background of a strong political organisation or trade unions or anything like that. It came about through the internet in the beginning and after a lot of people came to join the movement. And after the first successful day on 15th may and the reaction of the police upset a lot of people so on Monday 16th a lot of people took to the streets in many places around the country, not just Madrid”.

“This time here in London there was about 30 people at the embassy on Sunday 15th, but I didn’t know anything about that because I didn’t know any of these people. And the next day on Monday it was double and by Thursday there were 200 and we held an assembly. And it was amazing because, this is the other big new thing about the movement that in a normal protest in Spain we sing songs, we chant many kinds of slogans, but we never sit on the floor and in an organised way we start to talk and make an assembly. And it was new, and it was exciting, it was something that – what happens now?  We can decide things, we can do things, and we can raise it between each other and we don’t know each other – I didn’t know any of the people. And suddenly we were discussing and talking”.

“The thing is the last 35 years just these two parties – socialist and conservative swapping the power, and we had a system that felt miserable to give any kind of normal life to Spanish society. At the same time we have this banking crisis, which is the origin of the crisis, we are putting a lot of money since 2008-9 into the banking system to avoid its collapse but now we have to cut all social services because we need to support a big public debt. Now we’re going to have to cut health services and education”.

“But it’s the whole political body and we need to change that. So people go to the street and say we need to change that. But what’s the change that we need? What’s the change that we would like? It’s going to be quite different. And this is one of the difficulties. But now everyone, everybody, greens, reds, communists whatever, altogether let’s go to reform the system to give the voice to normal people, the normal citizen. The four points of consensus that we are reaching now in all the assemblies in Spain are basically:

1. Reform of the electoral law, that gives a more plural democratic system, and to represent other options.

2. More transparency in the political system. So we can check what the politicians do. For example we can check what political parties spend and where they receive their money.

3. Allow people to enter into the political system to check what their politicians do. We don’t know who the politicians are we’re voting for on the list, these guys never answer to the citizen,

4. Separation between power of the state, between the executive, judiciary and parliament”.

“Now we are reaching after two or three weeks of the movement, because it’s quite new, the possibility to get a consensus on these four points, reform of electoral law and to get a much better democratic system using direct democracy much more than now. For example local councils and the budget can be discussed in open assemblies in every borough and people can makes decisions about libraries and hospitals, and can have that opportunity to vote”.

“Finally something happened. Thousands of people go to the streets and say ‘no stop with that, we are absolutely indignant with that’, and we need to react and we need to change that. It’s not going to be easy, but it’s going to be absolutely exciting  It’s very new, and as it’s happening in North Arabic countries, it’s something that when people are in the streets you never  know which direction it going to take”.

“In Spain we are facing a very similar problem to Italy or Greece, especially to Italy with corrupt politicians, and we are talking here with Spanish and Italian people to do things together, because we are sharing the same situation, we need to establish links. Real Democracy Now, London needs to get connections with other groups in Europe facing the same situation because this problem about democracy is not just in Spain, it’s not just in North Africa, it’s a global problem, people are asking for real democracy in many, many countries”.

Related articles:

• Anarchists and the 15-M Movement: Reflections and Proposals
• London Assembly of 15M movement

Article originally appeared in Freedom #7211
Freedom newspaper can be purchased directly from our shop or available at any good radical bookshop/social centre.

Freedom Bookshop
Angel Alley
84b Whitechapel High Street
London E1 7QX
Alternatively take out a yearly subscription and have the paper delivered to you.

» SUBSCRIBE HERE

Mark Bergfeld is an education activist who has played a vital part in mobilizing – and being a part of – the student movement in London, which took every political radical by surprise last November, and ignited the anti-cuts movement here in general. In this interview Mark shares with Freedom his thoughts on the subject, the current state of the movement, as well as the coming big action on J30.

• Can you speak about the inception of the Education Activist Network (EAN) and your involvement in it?

In early 2010, we saw a small yet significant number of campus struggles. At Kings College London, UCU members were at the forefront of fighting against redundancies. At Sussex, the students took the lead on fighting against cuts to courses and jobs. In Leeds, as many as 700 jobs were at threat. The particularities in these struggles had to be addressed. At KCL, lecturers were battling a vicious management. They understood that they needed the students’ solidarity and thus linked up in weekly joint-organising meetings. At Sussex, the students had mass demonstrations of a thousand plus. Yet, the lecturers lacked the confidence to take strike action. Thus, students started building a strike fund and actually managed to convince the UCU branch to go on strike. In Leeds, lecturers voted for strike action but the Students’ Union ran a horrible ‘scab’ campaign.

Thus, a number of lecturers and students decided that we needed a national network to address the ‘unevenness’ by facilitating, sharing ones experiences, co-ordinating days of action and building concrete solidarity to those fighting. I have been involved on many levels in the network. At this moment, we are building for the court hearings of students, 30 June and are starting to build for the demonstration at the Tory Party Conference in October.

• EAN has done some good job in providing a forum for students of all stripes to come together by creating almost weekly assemblies. What was the idea behind these assemblies?

Whilst the movement was at its highpoint, there were many questions that we had to tackle head-on. The question of police violence and repression became a central feature of our assemblies and forums. Now, that the street mobilizations have receded we also have to re-orient the network as well as win an argument in the students’ movement that we cannot simply call for a re-run of the events of last November/December but must re-define what student-worker solidarity means. The Education Activist Network is not a formal organisation but a network. Many different organisations, campaigning groups and workers and students need to be linked up in the struggle for education. We provide such a forum to people with our meetings.

• Do you think EAN has done enough to physically reach out to all students, especially outside the University of London-UCL-LSE circle?

There are EAN groups at different colleges and universities across the country. Essex, Sussex, Teesside University, Kingston Uni, Sheffield are just some examples where we have managed to provide the same kind of level of activity but also debate about the movement. At Teesside university EAN activists have been bringing out a fanzine. At Essex Uni, there have been American-style rolling teach-ins of 200+ and Kingston University, EAN activists have played a crucial role in organising 2000 strong school student walk-outs.

• Let’s talk about the general student movement as such. When it all exploded in November were you expecting that to happen, especially in the way it did? Did your involvement in the NUS and in radical Left politics provide you with a special insight as to the storm that was brewing? Surely, a lot must have happened before it all kicked off?

It became very clear that NUS was investing a lot of their resources into mobilising for the November 10 demonstration. On behalf of NUS, I was travelling across the country mobilising students from September onwards. However at many campuses the mood only changed two weeks before the actual demonstration took place. I did expect a large demonstration but never would I have thought that students would storm Millbank tower and display such a high level of militancy. We saw a huge number of demonstrations in the run-up to November 10. In Oxford we saw 3000 plus demonstrating at Vince Cable’s visit. In Birmingham, students built cardboard barricades and had similar numbers. There also were some flash occupations of finance offices and other management offices.

At one NUS mobilisation meeting I said: ‘Perhaps we should learn Greek’. I never thought we would learn it that quickly. Without NUS though having mobilised 50,000 we wouldn’t have had 5000 lay siege on Millbank. For many people it was the best day of their lives. It was liberating. The events at Millbank changed my life as well – only for the better.

• Where is the NUS in all this? We all know about the infamous Aaron Porter and his double-dealing. The NUS has a new President now. Is it getting any better? Do you think that institution can be redeemed politically?

At this year’s NUS Conference, we polled our best election results in living memory. However, I was still far from coming anywhere close to winning Presidency. Unfortunately, we also lost crucial votes on another national demonstration and free education. It is in that context, that Liam Burns the new NUS President ‘triangulated’ by calling for strikes and occupations on the one side, and appealing to right-wing students on the other side by labelling me a ‘violent thug who wants to bring down the government’.

Someone once said to me: ‘A right-wing bureaucrat will sell you out at breakfast. A left-wing bureaucrat will sell you out after lunch. It’s only a question of time’. I don’t know what Liam Burns is going to do, but he – in as much as me winning Presidency would have been – is not the solution to the structural problems we have mobilising.

• Since the actual introduction of tuition fees this year the student movement seems to have died down here in London. Why do you think that is? And what can be done to change the situation?

Firstly, in November/December, there was a clear national focus: the parliamentary vote. Once that vote was lost, students did try to mobilise but the defeat weighed upon them. Secondly, the level of police repression and brutality on the demonstrations is unheard of and scared a lot of students who were first-time protesters. Also, the number of students being charged with ‘violent disorder’ or ‘aggravated trespass’ has forced a retreat upon us. Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, we did not have a generalisation across the trade union movement until March 26. If the TUC had called a demonstration before Christmas, things would have been very different.

• The EAN has sort of gone out of the picture as well. There are no more assemblies. Is it going to make a comeback? It seems crucial to me that at a time like this students need some common ground on which to meet, exchange ideas, gain confidence and support each other, and EAN was that kind of forum.

For some time, it was very difficult to get people into meetings and assemblies. We have started to put forums on again, and are planning to have one after the June 30 strike as well.

• At some of the previous EAN assemblies there was some talk about taking coordinated international action. With the current social upheavals in Spain, Greece etc., do you think that kind of action is a possibility now or sometime in the near future?

We are currently in discussions with UNICOMMON, a group from Italy. We also have made some links with some Spanish organisations such as Juventud Sin Futuro. There is some talk about having a co-ordination in December. I can’t really say what is happening in detail as the international meeting in Italy ended up not being able to really take a decision. But I definitely think that we will see an international or at least European-wide day at some point in the near future.

• Thankfully, June 30 is coming up. With the whole generalize the strike action being undertaken, do you think it can reignite the student rebellion? What form do you think it will take? Because even though student-worker solidarity is essential, the one place where students can make a real difference is within the educational system which is a huge battleground in itself.

The Education Activist Network has been crucial in pushing an argument around June 30, and at the same time involved itself in the J30 assemblies as well as built joint co-ordinating meetings with trade unionists. It is very possible a date that could re-ignite the student struggle. I have heard from several FE colleges across the country that there will be walk-outs the day before, as well as different actions on the day. It is problematic however that the universities are on summer holidays. Thus, a lot of students feel atomised and don’t have their usual networks.

June 30 can both deepen and broaden the resistance across the country and create a mosaic of resistance with students delivering solidarity at picket lines, trade unionists on strike taking direct action and everyone affected by the cuts making sure that they do whatever they can to turn this into a day of rage against the Con-Dem government.

» For more information on up and coming student activities check out the EAN website: http://educationactivistnetwork.wordpress.com/

Article originally appeared in Freedom #7213
Freedom newspaper can be purchased directly from our shop or available at any good radical bookshop/social centre.

Freedom Bookshop
Angel Alley
84b Whitechapel High Street
London E1 7QX
Alternatively take out a yearly subscription (only £20) and have the paper delivered to you.

» SUBSCRIBE HERE

Freedom newspaper:

• Latest issue
• Back issues
• Subscribe
• Freedom stockists

You can order a copy of Freedom online here, or take out a yearly subscription here and have them delivered to you.
Back issues are available to order from the shop. Make your collection complete!
Email: shop@freedompress.org.uk

Contact details:

Freedom Press
84b Whitechapel High Street
London E1 7QX

Tel/fax: 020 7247 9249

Enquiries info@freedompress.org.uk
Articles/letters copy@freedompress.org.uk
Subscriptions subs@freedompress.org.uk
Bookshop shop@freedompress.org.uk
Freedom Press Distribution (for trade book orders) distro@freedompress.org.uk

Phone the shop for bundles to sell at 50% discount.
Note that we also have a special ‘supporter’ sub rate. You can also use the Standing Order form to ensure that your subscription always gets paid on time, or if you want to make a regular donation to Freedom. For more details contact: subs@freedompress.org.uk

Anarchists have long argued that capitalism is an economic system riddled with contradictions. These express themselves in recurring crisis, when these contradictions expose themselves for all to see in generalised misery they produce. Some of these contradictions can be seen from the Bank of England’s quarterly inflation report. In Governor Mervyn King briefing on the 11th  May, he said growth would be weaker and inflation higher than the Bank had set out in its last set of forecasts three months ago.

“A year ago, we thought that growth in the fourth quarter of 2010 and the first quarter of 2011 would be 1.5%,” King said. “That hasn’t happened.” He admitted that “the recent pattern of revisions to the projections over the next year – downward to growth and upward to inflation – has continued.” Inflation was a problem in part due to “the increase in the standard rate of VAT” while the Bank had been forced to revise its growth forecasts down sharply over the past year as reality has repeatedly failed to meet the expectations of ideology. In the latest lowering of the growth forecast by the Bank, this year has been reduced from 2% to 1.7% and 2012 from just under 3% to 2.2%. King admitted he had hoped for growth of 1.5% in the second half of last year but it turned out to be zero (“the level of output appears to have been broadly flat” over the last six months). So much for Osborne’s budget for growth…

King stated the fiscal clampdown would limit growth in the next two years as “household spending may have further to adjust to the significant squeeze in real incomes.” In short, the reason why growth is expected to “somewhat weaker” is because of “a delayed recovery in consumption and a less pronounced boost from net exports.” The report is more forthcoming – growth will be “weaker” due to reductions in “households’ future real labour incomes and hence consumption.” Surely, then, we can boost growth by boosting working class income and so consumption? No, for inflation is too high and “resistance to the erosion of real take-home pay” would “put upward pressure on wages and prices.” Happily, though, there were pressures on wages and prices downward with the “most obvious” being “the weak level of activity in the economy.”

So for growth to rise, wages must rise; for inflation to fall, wages must fall. King failed to explain how that particular contradiction will resolve itself but rest assured “the recent softness in activity will prove temporary” with a recovery “driven by a continuing rise in business investment.” Yet why should firms invest when King admits “the outlook for growth and inflation is likely to remain unusually uncertain”? And why is it so uncertain? Because of the Tories cuts in benefits, public sector pay, employment and services. This increases uncertainty for, unlike the private sector; state expenditures are steady and so create regular demand for goods during uncertain times. And is industry investing? The Bank’s report admits: “Private domestic demand growth could be boosted if more of the historically large corporate financial surpluses were spent on capital investment or transferred to households in the form of higher wages or dividends.”

King did not explain why business would invest when consumer growth is so uncertain – business invests in order to meet demand and, as the Bank’s report admits, “consumer spending stagnated as real incomes fell.” Nor did King explain why higher wages could not eat into these “historically large” surpluses rather be passed on as higher prices. Could it be raising the more accurate “profit-price spiral” rather than “wages-price spiral” would send the wrong message? So the Tory attack on public-sector workers and those on benefits means that growth is suffering and uncertainty is increasing. Both make it harder for the government to repay the deficit, the ostensible rationale for the cuts in the first place. Still, King expected growth to bounce back later in the year. Why this prediction should be any more accurate than the Bank’s previous ones he did not explain.

Meanwhile, the propaganda war is stepping up a gear. A Policy Exchange report jumped upon with relish by the right-wing media, stated that public sector workers are 40% better off than their private sector counterparts. This dubious claim has now entered the narrative of the right’s attacks on workers and unions although the report is (as would be expected) deeply flawed. It does not compare like with like (as public sector workers are more skilled on average than those in the private sector). Taking into account skill, the pay gap shrinks to a mere 2% for men and 4% for women.

Of course, the real conclusion is not that public sector workers are overpaid. It is that private sector workers are underpaid (as the “historically large corporate financial surpluses” shows). If unionisation and struggle were higher in the private sector then so would be pay. Yet such obvious conclusions are not mentioned. Instead we get a twisted notion of “fairness” based on levelling down (for us, not for the rich obviously!). Much of the current difference in income between public and private sectors arise because of the slump in the latter due to the recession. While the rich are doing well, the majority of workers have been suffering a fall in income as the Bank’s report notes. This, it admits, is having a negative impact on the economy. It seems incredulous to think more reductions in pay will have a different impact.

This must be stressed. Public sector pay and employment maintains aggregate demand in the face of private sector crisis. Targeting those sectors of the economy that have a counter-cyclical effect on the economy will only make the situation worse. However, the Tories clearly wish to utilise this crisis to weaken labour and secure rising inequalities in wealth and power. It is being used to ram through their ideological goals (with the Lib-Dems abetting them). The day after King’s briefing, George Osborne proclaimed his desire to “reform” employment law to make it easier to fire workers. We are expected to receive less protection against redundancy, dismissal and workplace discrimination as well as a reduction in the consultation period for collective redundancies from 90 to 30 days. Given the existing laws on balloting for industrial action, this would weaken the ability of trade unions to resist sackings before they happen. Osborne suggested no “reforms” to laws on industrial action although various Tories have argued that strikes have the backing of a majority of all balloted workers rather than a majority of those who vote (heaven forbid they apply that to their elections!).

Osborne attacked the trade unions as “the forces of stagnation” who “will try to stand in the way of the forces of enterprise.” Blaming the workers for capitalism’s contradictions is as old as that system. Proudhon mockingly noted that, for economists, “Political economy — that is, proprietary despotism — can never be in the wrong: it must be the proletariat.” Presumably, given the downward trajectory of the economy (and King confirmed it is flat-lining), Osborne considers creating stagnation his job and so objects (like all capitalists) to competition. In reality, as the impact of his policies show, by cutting benefits and pay he is the one promoting stagnation, not the unions. For as Proudhon argued in 1846 “though the workers cost you [the capitalist] something, they are your customers: what will you do with your products, when, driven away by you, they shall consume them no longer? . . . if production excludes consumption, it is soon obliged to stop itself.” Osborne seems keen to prove us right.

Only by workers organising and resisting can demand be bolstered and growth protected. Yet while we need to fight the cuts, exposing attempts to divide workers as ideologically driven rubbish to force all wages down and arguing for levelling-upwards, we also need to explain why capitalism remains the contradiction riddled system of exploitation and oppression anarchists have analysed since 1840. If we fail then we can expect things to get much worse before they get better. Moreover, any eventual recovery will, due to the contradictions within capitalism, just lay the foundations for the next crisis. We will continue to pay the costs for the crisis in their system and, as Proudhon argued, capital will continue to “make the chains of serfdom heavier, render life more and more expensive, and deepen the abyss which separates the class that commands and enjoys from the class that obeys and suffers.”

Ultimately, capitalism’s contradictions can only be solved by ending it once and for all in favour of, to quote Proudhon, “a solution based upon equality, – in other words, the organisation of labour, which involves the negation of political economy and the end of property.”

Iain McKay

June 30th is set to be a co-ordinated day of mass strike action by the public sector unions. Already radical and anarchist groups are organising around supporting the initiative calling for a mass show of solidarity for those taking strike action and to generalise the strike on June 30th – from early morning pickets, direct actions, occupations & demonstrations to amplify the resistance to austerity.

Article originally appeared in Freedom #7210
Freedom newspaper can be purchased directly from our shop or available at any good radical bookshop/social centre.

Freedom Bookshop
Angel Alley
84b Whitechapel High Street
London E1 7QX
Alternatively take out a yearly subscription and have the paper delivered to you.

» SUBSCRIBE HERE