peaccenicked
14th March 2002, 10:06
''REVOLUTIONS
Our view is that, unfortunately, Major social change does not happen quickly or easilly. Anarchism won't just happen. It will only succeed when the majority of society have the ability and the wish to run it in their own interests.
In practice we see revolution as building from the ground up. Workers infringing more and more on the bosses' profit margins and eventually questioning their right to make a profit on the backs of the working class and taking over their workplace. As the struggle progresses more workers setup workplace commitees, councils and eventually defence militias. Groups begin to federate upwards on the basis of democracy, delegation and recallability. This is a revolution desired by many not imposed by a few (as most past revolutions have been.)
Inevitably when faced with a major challenge the bosses and state will be ready to fight to defend their wealth and power. We have to be ready to fight to defend and forward the revolution.
With good organisation, most people on our side and the army coming over we would hope this would not be a long or bloody fight. We are certain the system can't be reformed out of existence. It has to be destroyed. We are revolutionaries not out of blood lust or because we think it sounds cool. We are revolutionaries because it is the only way forward" Anarchist article.
Here I think I would like to counter pose Gramsci, and let the reader judge for themselves.
''Democratic centralism offers an elastic formula, which can be embodied in many diverse forms; it comes alive in so far as it is interpreted and continually adapted to necessity. It consists in the critical pursuit of what is identical in seeming diversity of form and on the other hand of what is distinct and even opposed in apparent uniformity, in order to organise and interconnect closely that which is similar, but in such a way that the organising and the interconnecting appear to be a practical and "inductive" necessity, experimental, and not the result of a rationalistic, deductive, abstract process — i.e. one typical of pure intellectuals (or pure asses). This continuous effort to separate out the "international" and "unitary" elements in national and local reality is true concrete political action, the sole activity productive of historical progress. It requires an organic unity between theory and practice, between intellectual strata and popular masses, between rulers and ruled. The formulae of unity and federation lose a great part of their significance from this point of view, whereas they retain their sting in the bureaucratic conception, where in the end there is no unity but a stagnant swamp, on the surface calm and "mute", and no federation but a "sack of potatoes", i.e. a mechanical juxtaposition of single "units" without any connection between them.'' Gramsci
Our view is that, unfortunately, Major social change does not happen quickly or easilly. Anarchism won't just happen. It will only succeed when the majority of society have the ability and the wish to run it in their own interests.
In practice we see revolution as building from the ground up. Workers infringing more and more on the bosses' profit margins and eventually questioning their right to make a profit on the backs of the working class and taking over their workplace. As the struggle progresses more workers setup workplace commitees, councils and eventually defence militias. Groups begin to federate upwards on the basis of democracy, delegation and recallability. This is a revolution desired by many not imposed by a few (as most past revolutions have been.)
Inevitably when faced with a major challenge the bosses and state will be ready to fight to defend their wealth and power. We have to be ready to fight to defend and forward the revolution.
With good organisation, most people on our side and the army coming over we would hope this would not be a long or bloody fight. We are certain the system can't be reformed out of existence. It has to be destroyed. We are revolutionaries not out of blood lust or because we think it sounds cool. We are revolutionaries because it is the only way forward" Anarchist article.
Here I think I would like to counter pose Gramsci, and let the reader judge for themselves.
''Democratic centralism offers an elastic formula, which can be embodied in many diverse forms; it comes alive in so far as it is interpreted and continually adapted to necessity. It consists in the critical pursuit of what is identical in seeming diversity of form and on the other hand of what is distinct and even opposed in apparent uniformity, in order to organise and interconnect closely that which is similar, but in such a way that the organising and the interconnecting appear to be a practical and "inductive" necessity, experimental, and not the result of a rationalistic, deductive, abstract process — i.e. one typical of pure intellectuals (or pure asses). This continuous effort to separate out the "international" and "unitary" elements in national and local reality is true concrete political action, the sole activity productive of historical progress. It requires an organic unity between theory and practice, between intellectual strata and popular masses, between rulers and ruled. The formulae of unity and federation lose a great part of their significance from this point of view, whereas they retain their sting in the bureaucratic conception, where in the end there is no unity but a stagnant swamp, on the surface calm and "mute", and no federation but a "sack of potatoes", i.e. a mechanical juxtaposition of single "units" without any connection between them.'' Gramsci