why do anarchists oppose parliament...

[Black Sheep]

...as a means of propaganda?
I ve yet to receive a solid argument:sneaky:, only stuff like 'the revolution should not tread where reformism reigns' and stuff.

Is it to encourage people to abandon trust in structures of top down organization?


off topic edit: why,oh why, can't i edit a thread's title?

[Forward Union]

...as a means of propaganda?
I ve yet to receive a solid argument:sneaky:, only stuff like 'the revolution should not tread where reformism reigns' and stuff.

Is it to encourage people to abandon trust in structures of top down organization?


off topic edit: why,oh why, can't i edit a thread's title?

Well, obviously all revolutionaries object to Parliament as a means of change. Regardless of their stripes.

I think the amount of effort put into getting an MP ellected is phenominal, it has broken the back of thousands of groups in history and you really wont get much air time at all. Essentially, it's not worth it.

This said, Anarchists have had MPs ellected in the past, such as in Czeckoslovacia in the 1930s when "The Anarchist Party" formed a parliamentry alliance with the Nazis. That party later became the Czech Anarchist Federation http://www.csaf.cz/english.php

[The Feral Underclass]

This said, Anarchists have had MPs ellected in the past, such as in Czeckoslovacia in the 1930s when "The Anarchist Party" formed a parliamentry alliance with the Nazis. That party later became the Czech Anarchist Federation http://www.csaf.cz/english.php

You've got that wrong. While they called themselves national socialists they were socialist nationalists rather than Nazi's. Pretty much like the British national socialist party which split from the British socialist party in 1916. The Czech anarchists and these national socialists united over anti-military stuff and later renamed themselves the socialist party.

[Forward Union]

You've got that wrong. While they called themselves national socialists they were socialist nationalists rather than Nazi's. Pretty much like the British national socialist party which split from the British socialist party in 1916. The Czech anarchists and these national socialists united over anti-military stuff and later renamed themselves the socialist party.

Ah right. Well, Im going on what I read in a translated pamphlet from some Czech comrades I met in Mexico. I actually did ask if they meant National Socialists (nazis) or if that was just a bad translation. And they told me they did mean Nazis, but their English wasn't perfect either.

Either way they were entering into parliament.

[The Feral Underclass]

Ah right. Well, Im going on what I read in a translated pamphlet from some Czech comrades I met in Mexico. I actually did ask if they meant National Socialists (nazis) or if that was just a bad translation. And they told me they did mean Nazis, but their English wasn't perfect either.

Either way they were entering into parliament.

Pretty much. Some 'anarchists' even took up governmental positions. This was also in 1918/19 rather than the 30's.

LibCom article (http://libcom.org/history/1419-today-czech-anarchism)

[Devrim]

This said, Anarchists have had MPs ellected in the past, such as in Czeckoslovacia in the 1930s when "The Anarchist Party" formed a parliamentry alliance with the Nazis. That party later became the Czech Anarchist Federation http://www.csaf.cz/english.php

I don't think that there is any link with today's Czechoslovak Anarchist Federation.

Devrim

[apathy maybe]

...as a means of propaganda?
I ve yet to receive a solid argument:sneaky:, only stuff like 'the revolution should not tread where reformism reigns' and stuff.

Is it to encourage people to abandon trust in structures of top down organization?


off topic edit: why,oh why, can't i edit a thread's title?
A few reasons. First of all, it's a waste of fucking time. In the unlikely event that you get someone elected, they aren't going to get much media coverage (are you in Europe? know much about the anarchists in the European parliament?), and they won't be able to push their message at all.

And the message is abolish the state! Using the state to advocate getting rid of it :confused:?

The more important thing to think about though, if you do get "anarchists" elected to parliament, and they do stand and serve, they are joining the ruling classes. They become the enemy!

The only good campaign is one of "spoil your ballot" (a couple of anarchists in Australia were linked to a large increase in the rate of spoilt ballets a few years back, I'll try and dig out an article or two). Dug out articles on the matter:
http://www.australianpolitics.com/news/2001/01-11-13.shtml
http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/feature_stories/article_1658.asp discusses anarchists said at the start
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Election-2004/Dont-vote-say-candidates/2004/10/07/1097089497024.html discusses said anarchists
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/aspiring-senator-is-not-your-average-joe/2007/10/29/1193618797655.html This Joe fellow sounds cool. I wanna meet him.


An article on Demarchy, that includes a section (the first part) on why you should not vote. http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/95sa.html

[Wake Up]

A few reasons. First of all, it's a waste of fucking time. In the unlikely event that you get someone elected, they aren't going to get much media coverage (are you in Europe? know much about the anarchists in the European parliament?), and they won't be able to push their message at all.


I don't think thats true at all. Just look at the amount of controversy George Galloway gets just by saying someone different.
If an anarchist got elected I see no reason they wouldn't get coverage. We have such a radically different message than the rest of the MP's that as long as we say it loud enough the media will sit up and notice.
I suspect that they would attempt to slander us, but thats just paying into our hands by exposing how corrupt the media is.

Now I realize that running for bourgeois parliament is contradictory to the anarchist ideal, but I feel that the publicity benefits would be huge.

We cannot organize a revolution from the position of parliament. But we can still help the people out while spreading the word of anarchism.

Rather than just fighting it, we should use the system against the bourgeois.

[Raúl Duke]

I think one deal why is because it sends a contradictory message that could be interpreted in different ways.

If you (hypothetical person) want to abolish the state, think that we live in a sham democracy, and that elections are a spectacle it doesn't make any sense why you want to participate actively in it by running for candidacy/elections.

They may listen to the message that you are telling them but they could also get a different message from what you are doing too.
Actions speak louder then words.

Also, in the U.S. this may be mostly inefficient. Unless you are running from the 2 major party (or maybe the Green Party) you will probably get no media coverage. There are socialist/communist parties running candidates (some running presidents, senators, etc) and I barely heard of any of them.

Check this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_candidates_in_the_United_States_presidenti al_election,_2008), now tell me have you heard of the other candidates ever being featured in the mass media?

History also shows that all the socialist/communist politicians who got elected did not do much at all towards fomenting a revolution or "transitioning to socialism and/or communism." The couldn't "use the system" against the bourgeoisie....do you think we could do better? I doubt it very much, especially if our goal includes smashing said system. Also, the idea of spreading anarchism via being politicians/parliament is a joke and will end up discrediting it then spreading it.

[black magick hustla]

Its not only anarchists who oppose parliament. Many marxist tendencies, including mine, does.

[Tower of Bebel]

I believe they don't even have the proper organizational methods to control and maintain a parliamentary faction. To overcome the difficulties with bureaucracy and a distinct, separated leadership anarchists avoid tactics (parliament, parties, etc.) that create such a distinction between base and leadership/bureaucracy.

[Black Sheep]

Check this list (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_candidates_in_the_United_States_presidenti al_election,_2008),
I see no CPUSA or RCPUSA


Many marxist tendencies, including mine, does.
And how wil i know what Marxist tendency that is, if you don't say it..?

[Devrim]

And how wil i know what Marxist tendency that is, if you don't say it..?

Because he has their name and a link at the bottom of his posts perhaps.

Devrim

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Its not only anarchists who oppose parliament. Many marxist tendencies, including mine, does.

Does Left Communism differ much from Anarchism?

[ZeroNowhere]

Does Left Communism differ much from Anarchism?
Depends on what current of left communism you are talking about.

[Devrim]

Depends on what current of left communism you are talking about.

What left communist currents do you think there are, ZN?

Devrim

[revolution inaction]

Depends on what current of left communism you are talking about.

and which current of anarchism

[Jack]

Then we would just be Marxists.

[Jack]

I see no CPUSA or RCPUSA


And how wil i know what Marxist tendency that is, if you don't say it..?

RCP doesn't run canidates, they only have around 100 members focused in the Bay Area anyways.

CPUSA has endorsed the Democrats since 84 or 88.

[mikelepore]

Most anarchists haven't thought very deeply about an important fact -- on the day that the revolutionary workers take control of the means of production, the capitalists are naturally and immediately going to call the police. If supporters of capitalism are in control of the elected legislature, the violent force of the state will be activated against the workers. But if socialists are in control of the legislature, the police would tell the (now-ousted) capitalist: Why are you calling us? The workers just did what they're supposed to do.

[Yazman]

Most anarchists haven't thought very deeply about an important fact -- on the day that the revolutionary workers take control of the means of production, the capitalists are naturally and immediately going to call the police. If supporters of capitalism are in control of the elected legislature, the violent force of the state will be activated against the workers. But if socialists are in control of the legislature, the police would tell the (now-ousted) capitalist: Why are you calling us? The workers just did what they're supposed to do.

In reality they don't do that. Self-proclaimed "socialists" who are in control of the legislature are in many cases even worse than those who freely admit to being capitalists. The Australian Labour Party is a good example of this.

[robbo203]

Most anarchists haven't thought very deeply about an important fact -- on the day that the revolutionary workers take control of the means of production, the capitalists are naturally and immediately going to call the police. If supporters of capitalism are in control of the elected legislature, the violent force of the state will be activated against the workers. But if socialists are in control of the legislature, the police would tell the (now-ousted) capitalist: Why are you calling us? The workers just did what they're supposed to do.


I dont know but Im less and less convinced by this scenario of capitalists resisting the will of the majority. Who was it who said if we all spat we could drown them. We are talking about a tiny class here whose lifestyle hardly disposes them to man the barricades. By the time socialists are a majority - indeed , even before that - the whole social climate would have been throuroguhly transformed anyway. Democratic values would be much more entrenched and institurionalised than they are today making the prospect of flouting those values more and more remote. Capitalist rule is hegemonic. As ideas change in the direction of a socialist future so the legitimacy of the capitalist state declines. And no state can function without legitimacy. I suspect many capitalists on the eve of the socialist revolution would have become socialist-minded themselves - like Frederich Engels. Afterall, in a sense, socialism would be in the interests of the capitalists as well - at least as individuals rather than as functionaries of capital

[Diagoras]

I dont know but Im less and less convinced by this scenario of capitalists resisting the will of the majority. Who was it who said if we all spat we could drown them. We are talking about a tiny class here whose lifestyle hardly disposes them to man the barricades. By the time socialists are a majority - indeed , even before that - the whole social climate would have been throuroguhly transformed anyway. Democratic values would be much more entrenched and institurionalised than they are today making the prospect of flouting those values more and more remote. Capitalist rule is hegemonic. As ideas change in the direction of a socialist future so the legitimacy of the capitalist state declines. And no state can function without legitimacy. I suspect many capitalists on the eve of the socialist revolution would have become socialist-minded themselves - like Frederich Engels. Afterall, in a sense, socialism would be in the interests of the capitalists as well - at least as individuals rather than as functionaries of capital

The problem isn't simply the capitalists themselves, it is those who ideologically, or fiscally identify with the capitalists and are willing to support the maintenance of the status quo over the uncertainties of a revolution. Most of the middle/profession class, the military, police, etc., identify with either the conservative foundations of capitalism or nationalism, or see their lot as potentially threatened by what they perceive socialism to be (even if they themselves are not members of the bourgeoisie). Even if the majority of a society are socialist-minded, a much smaller number of well armed members of a contemporary military can at least keep enough of a fight going to be worth mentioning... especially with propagandistic corporate media and such still functioning. All of this is speculation anyway, but past capitalist resistance to powerful worker's movements does not lead me to believe that even allegedly socialist governments will lay down arms and allow for directly democratic and egalitarian social organization when the time comes.

[The Feral Underclass]

You could read the AF's online pamphlet Against Parliament, For Anarchism (http://afed.org.uk/ace/ap_index.html)

[Patchd]

Most anarchists haven't thought very deeply about an important fact -- on the day that the revolutionary workers take control of the means of production, the capitalists are naturally and immediately going to call the police. If supporters of capitalism are in control of the elected legislature, the violent force of the state will be activated against the workers. But if socialists are in control of the legislature, the police would tell the (now-ousted) capitalist: Why are you calling us? The workers just did what they're supposed to do.

What? Surely the police force will be used to resist us anyway if we are conducting a revolution, you know, that in itself would be breaking bourgeois law, and that will be the basis by which the bourgeoisie can continue to use the police force against us throughout the revolution.

What you're suggesting is reformism, or at least some social upheaval to remove the current system/regime, and install a new one, based on similar legislature. The idea of revolution is to destroy the remnants of the old to build a new society, the police force will be a remnant of the old society, and thus will fight to protect it.

[robbo203]

The problem isn't simply the capitalists themselves, it is those who ideologically, or fiscally identify with the capitalists and are willing to support the maintenance of the status quo over the uncertainties of a revolution. Most of the middle/profession class, the military, police, etc., identify with either the conservative foundations of capitalism or nationalism, or see their lot as potentially threatened by what they perceive socialism to be (even if they themselves are not members of the bourgeoisie). Even if the majority of a society are socialist-minded, a much smaller number of well armed members of a contemporary military can at least keep enough of a fight going to be worth mentioning... especially with propagandistic corporate media and such still functioning. All of this is speculation anyway, but past capitalist resistance to powerful worker's movements does not lead me to believe that even allegedly socialist governments will lay down arms and allow for directly democratic and egalitarian social organization when the time comes.

The collapse of state capitalist regimes in Eastern Europe which was carried out relatively peacefully seems to argue aganist this. No state can survive for long without a degree of legitimacy. The control that the capitalist state exerts is hegemonic. My point is that the the entire social climate will be radically transformed in an incremental and progressive fashion as the communist movement grows and in proportion to its growth. Communist ideas and democratic values that go with them will have penetrated everywhere including the armed forces , the professions and the corporate media you speak of. I also maintain that by then there is likely to be a relatively well endowed amd firmly grounded non-capitalist economic sector. I do not mean state run capitalist industries, of course, but what is today collectively termed the social economy characterised by the absence of commodity relationships and wage labour

I know this is all speculation; we are talking about something that is completely unprecedented. I dont and cannot rule out the possibility of resistance but my gut feeling is that it will be a relatively muted affair. Capitalist governments will by then be hyper-reformist, even taking on aspects of a communist ideology, in an increasingly feeble bid to wean workers away from from the growing communist movement. They will disappear not so much with a bang as a whimper in my view when the day comes

[mikelepore]

Without the act of taking control of the state by political action, it doesn't matter whether the socialists are a majority, and whether the workers are a majority. The top commander of the army is a publicly elected office (in the U.S., at least - I don't know about most other countries.) In every one of the fifty states of the U.S., the governor who appoints the heads of the state police is a publicly elected office. In every city, either the police chief, or the mayor who appoints the police chief, is a publicly elected office. Political office is a loaded gun, and election day is a struggle over who is going to take hold of the gun. Someone is going to be holding it, and someone else is not going to be holding it. The only way for the workers to take control of the means of production, and then avoid having the bloodest massacre in all of recorded history, is for the working class, before taking control of the means of production, to use the political process to fill the elected offices with representatives who believe that the workers should control the means of production.

What do some revolutionaries, many of whom call themselves anarchists, propose as an alternative? The plan they offer is that the workers shall intentionally allow the supporters of capitalism to keep their control of the state, the workers will take control of the means of production anyway, and then the workers who are armed with deer rifles at most will fight a war against the state troops who are armed with bazookas, mortar, rocket launchers and guided missiles. I stand by my statement that the people who don't see the problem there haven't throught this through very carefully.

[revolution inaction]

Without the act of taking control of the state by political action, it doesn't matter whether the socialists are a majority, and whether the workers are a majority. The top commander of the army is a publicly elected office (in the U.S., at least - I don't know about most other countries.) In every one of the fifty states of the U.S., the governor who appoints the heads of the state police is a publicly elected office. In every city, either the police chief, or the mayor who appoints the police chief, is a publicly elected office. Political office is a loaded gun, and election day is a struggle over who is going to take hold of the gun. Someone is going to be holding it, and someone else is not going to be holding it. The only way for the workers to take control of the means of production, and then avoid having the bloodest massacre in all of recorded history, is for the working class, before taking control of the means of production, to use the political process to fill the elected offices with representatives who believe that the workers should control the means of production.


Thats so true, after all once someone is elected the nothing the bourgeois can do about it, its not like they could launch a coup or anything is it? I mean thats never worked before has it?