Anarchism in Third world

[leftist manson]

Well guys , historically there haven't been many third world anarcist movements(depending on , of course , what our idea of third world is) apart from maybe makhno's ukraine. Majority of the movements, at least recently, have been marxist-leninist(all types) or marxist-leninist-maoist.What do you think is the reason for this.

[Enragé]

because its easier to keep people stupid in underdeveloped countries.

[LSD]

Anarchism requires far greater education of the workers than Leninism/Trotskyism/Stalinism/Maoism.

Maoists don't need to inform or educate the proletariat, they just need to have a loyal enough "vanguard" with a few guns and they can start the "revolution" on the proletarians behalf.

And to succeed, all that "Marxist"-Leninism needs is a dissatisfied proletariat, not a political one. The Leninist doesn't give power to the people, he rules on their "behalf". As such, very little is demanded of the people short of shuting up and not making a fuss. Something which, after centuries of Western colonialism and local tyrannies, they are quite used to.

[AnarchoCommunist]

You have the Zapatista's and the collectives of Argentina, if you consider those two nations to be 'third world'.

Also the movement in Boliva looks good, no Leninist 'vanguard party' there, that I can see misleading the workers and peasants.

[JazzRemington]

Isn't there an anarchist movement in Africa somewhere?

[Organic Revolution]

there a MANY anarchist movements just not very well known

[redwinter]

There have been anarchist movements in the Third World...in fact in the early 1900s the biggest radical movements in much of the "third world" were anarchists. Then the Bolshevik revolution happened and people woke up and realized that the anarchist movement wasn't going to get anywhere, and most of them went en masse into the communist parties that formed shortly after. I guess people in the "Third World" must be a little bit smarter than people here, after all there are much fewer anarchists...maybe the revolutionaries there don't mind being too "authoritarian" over their oppressors like the anarchists over here in the USA cry about.

[Organic Revolution]

hmm... and the anarchists everywhere else... or did you let your ignorance forget it.

[The Ghost of Tom Joad]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 10:37 PM
There have been anarchist movements in the Third World...in fact in the early 1900s the biggest radical movements in much of the "third world" were anarchists. Then the Bolshevik revolution happened and people woke up and realized that the anarchist movement wasn't going to get anywhere, and most of them went en masse into the communist parties that formed shortly after. I guess people in the "Third World" must be a little bit smarter than people here, after all there are much fewer anarchists...maybe the revolutionaries there don't mind being too "authoritarian" over their oppressors like the anarchists over here in the USA cry about.
Because, as we all know, the Bolshevik revolution turned out ever so well...
I agree with rise up, there are many, many anarchist movements. However, they are not very well publicized. After all, it's easy to scapegoat marxism due to its authoritarian nature. Keeping the middle-class scared of a marxist-lenninist uprising is in fact probably one of the easiest things to do, as the SOA and McCarthy era have taught us. Fear of anarchism on the other hand, requires complete and total ignorance on the subject. Granted, there would be a handful of those opposed, but most people can realize just how much good an anarchist society could do. The "Third World" countries didn't "wise up" to marxism, the media "wised up" with their coverage.

[d-e-f-i-a-n-c-e]

there are no anarchists or communist movements in the third world because....the population of the third world is poor....all they care about is finding work and trying to gather enough money to feed themselves....i'm from a third world country...life here for the rich is fun and fairy tale like...but for the majority of the population earns less than a dollar a day...most of these people cant even afford to go to school....they do not know how to read....so what they are influenced by is movies and the tv.....the people here are totally unaware...of an idea such as socialism...and socialist books here are expensive...well...all books for that matter...but i think socialist books particularly.....and since not many people can read...even less people can afford the books...so there is NO..NONE AT ALL...flow of ideas...there is no awareness...most people here dont even know about their rights....it's wierd...how ignorant society is

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by d-e-f-i-a-n-c-[email protected] 23 2005, 02:44 PM
there are no anarchists or communist movements in the third world
What?

[redwinter]

Originally posted by d-e-f-i-a-n-c-[email protected] 23 2005, 02:44 PM
there are no anarchists or communist movements in the third world because....the population of the third world is poor....all they care about is finding work and trying to gather enough money to feed themselves....i'm from a third world country...life here for the rich is fun and fairy tale like...but for the majority of the population earns less than a dollar a day...most of these people cant even afford to go to school....they do not know how to read....so what they are influenced by is movies and the tv.....the people here are totally unaware...of an idea such as socialism...and socialist books here are expensive...well...all books for that matter...but i think socialist books particularly.....and since not many people can read...even less people can afford the books...so there is NO..NONE AT ALL...flow of ideas...there is no awareness...most people here dont even know about their rights....it's wierd...how ignorant society is
What country are you from? Shit, I can name half a dozen "third world" countries that are waging people's war or preparing for people's war off the top of my head. There are plenty of Maoist parties and movements in the "third world" to say nothing of revisionist and anarchist groups.

[anomaly]

I think the Zapatistas show us that armed revolution in the third world can result in anarchism (I'd consider the Zapatistas quite anarchic). If there are few presently, and this frustrates you, perhaps we revolutionaries should go create anarchist movements. I say that if the Zapatistas did it, so can we.

[redwinter]

The Zapatistas aren't anarchists, and have explicitly stated that they are not anarchist. They do not seek power either, so it makes them into a kind of armed "focus group" for peasants in southeastern Mexico. They have guns and make demands of the government, and try to run some things autonomously, but ultimately are rooted in reformism and a fantasy of bringing the "corrupt government" back to legitimacy.

Read carefully the EZLN Declaration of War: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4941/chiapas.html

You can see that they complain about the lack of free and legitimate elections and want democracy, that their government has been corrupted (which means it was once not corrupted, functioning well, or else it couldn't have been corrupted in the first place) and needs to be overthrown: "According to this Declaration of War, we ask that other powers of the nation advocate to restore the legitimacy and the stability of the nation by overthrowing the dictator."

There's also a lot of talk of being the true fighters for the nation and such, that the ruling class has corrupted the nation. So you can certainly not call them anarchists, I would say they are more like armed nationalist reformists, who explicitly reject seizing power themselves.

[anomaly]

Nevertheless, the Zapatistas should be respected and supported. And the characteristics of the Zapatistas, like autonomity, are worth copying. also, do you know whether the Zapatistas are self-sufficient in Chiapas?

[Hiero]

Maoists don't need to inform or educate the proletariat, they just need to have a loyal enough "vanguard" with a few guns and they can start the "revolution" on the proletarians behalf.

Actually they do, thats what the whole Cultural Revolution is about. In Mao's time and the Maoist around the world spend hours on spreading propoganda to the masses.


there a MANY anarchist movements just not very well known

Name them.

[The Feral Underclass]

This may be of relative interest: African Anarchism (http://www.zabalaza.net/texts/african_anarchism/contents.htm)

[redwinter]

I've read "Nonwestern Anarchisms: Rethinking the Global Context" by Jason Adams and it seems apparent that most of the anarchists in Africa were either within European expatriate communities in North African port cities, or punk rockers just mouthing whatever ideology the bands they listened to from the UK or USA espoused. The author also does some pretty interesting stretching of historical facts when he claims that the development of Taoism in China was linked to the emergence of anarchists in that country, and some other similar references of "anarchist influence" (e.g.: Gandhi became political while in South Africa, at the same time there were some anarcho-syndicalists active in the country, therefore he was influenced by them). Or statements like "...in India anarchism never really took on much of a formally named “anarchist” nature. In India, the relevance of anarchism is primarily in the deep influence major aspects of it had on important movements for national and social liberation." Maybe communists should claim that Jesus's apostles were influenced by the ideology of Marxism! After all, "major aspects" of communism were present in the apostle's community, like sharing their wealth...

I digress. Why aren't many people in the oppressed countries anarchist? Because anarchism has no plan for liberation and no plan to eliminate the oppression that exists.

[redwinter]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 07:33 AM
Nevertheless, the Zapatistas should be respected and supported. And the characteristics of the Zapatistas, like autonomity, are worth copying. also, do you know whether the Zapatistas are self-sufficient in Chiapas?
Of course revolutionary communists support the Zapatistas, we support all outbreaks of rebellion by the oppressed. After all Mao said, "Marxism consists of a thousand truths, but they all boil down to one: It is right to rebel against reactionaries." I don't think the characteristics of the Zapatistas are worth copying, I think we need an internationalist revolution that doesn't fight on behalf of the nation and restoring our country to a better state. I think revolutionaries should aim to seize nationwide state power and actually do so, because without state power we have nothing.

Don't know if they are fully self-sufficient. I mean it is an agricultural area so they can grow food, but I'm not sure if they have the resources for industry or anything like that. I'll have to check on that.

[Clarksist]

Then the Bolshevik revolution happened and people woke up and realized that the anarchist movement wasn't going to get anywhere, and most of them went en masse into the communist parties that formed shortly after. I guess people in the "Third World" must be a little bit smarter than people here, after all there are much fewer anarchists...maybe the revolutionaries there don't mind being too "authoritarian" over their oppressors like the anarchists over here in the USA cry about.


I've always wanted to ask someone who could answer this question properly: is ignorance bliss?

You shouldn't really put quotation marks around authoritarian when talking about the Bolsheviks. They were the epitome of authoritarian.

I am a commie, being such I would rather have anarchism than another Bolshevik revolution taking place. And don't give me the "but it was Stalin who ruined it!" shit. Lenin was a DICTATOR. He never let the proletariat choose who ruled, or what happened.

To all Leninists out there: you can't justify Lenin's evils by comparing them to Stalin's.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by redwinter+Jun 24 2005, 07:37 PM--> (redwinter @ Jun 24 2005, 07:37 PM)
[email protected] 24 2005, 07:33 AM
Nevertheless, the Zapatistas should be respected and supported. And the characteristics of the Zapatistas, like autonomity, are worth copying. also, do you know whether the Zapatistas are self-sufficient in Chiapas?
Of course revolutionary communists support the Zapatistas, we support all outbreaks of rebellion by the oppressed. After all Mao said, "Marxism consists of a thousand truths, but they all boil down to one: It is right to rebel against reactionaries." I don't think the characteristics of the Zapatistas are worth copying, I think we need an internationalist revolution that doesn't fight on behalf of the nation and restoring our country to a better state. I think revolutionaries should aim to seize nationwide state power and actually do so, because without state power we have nothing.

Don't know if they are fully self-sufficient. I mean it is an agricultural area so they can grow food, but I'm not sure if they have the resources for industry or anything like that. I'll have to check on that. [/b]
I'm not talking about 'nationalist' revolution, but rather the localized revolution which the zapatistas conducted. They have created relative autonomy that can be improved upon in future revolutions, and if we can make such an autonomous zone self-sufficient, we can create a commune. That is worth attempting, and I know there are some here who agree.