Results 21 to 40 of 125
It goes back further than that. Proudhonism began spreading to Cuba in the 1850's and was succeeded by revolutionary collectivism in the 1870's. The same story holds true for quite a few latin-american countries (Argentina, Mexico, Chile, Uruguay and Brazil all had organised anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist movements before the year 1870) because of the strong influence of the Spanish labour movement over there. You cannot tell the story of the latin-american labour movement without talking about anarcho-syndicalism.
"From the relationship of estranged labor to private property it follows further that the emancipation of society from private property, etc., from servitude, is expressed in the political form of the emancipation of the workers; not that their emancipation alone is at stake, but because the emancipation of the workers contains universal human emancipation – and it contains this because the whole of human servitude is involved in the relation of the worker to production, and all relations of servitude are but modifications and consequences of this relation."
- Karl Marx -
really?Um...tell me,where are you from and what have you done to organise the revolution?
We,useless-sit-on-the-fence anarchists on Greece have done a litle something that,i dunno,might be one of the greatest things worldwide.
What have your tendecy done?Bloging?Youtubing?Collect 12 votes on national elections?
(no offence to anybody else though)
Last edited by Delenda Carthago; 27th May 2010 at 23:55.
Hahaha owned.
Just because people don't know about third world anarchism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Read up on it a bit, theres quite some literature on the subject.
Every great advance in natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of authority.
-Thomas H. Huxley
Also, it isn't required to call oneself an Anarchist to behave like one and to effectively BE one.
Abahlali baseMjondolo
Movimento dos Trabalhadores Sem Teto
are just two examples. While neither are explicitly anarchist (or Autonomist-Marxist) both effectively behave quite a lot like that and are at the very least genuine mass-movements with Anarchist influences, whether ideological or as a result of practice is not that relevant.
"Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit
Of that forbidden tree..."
- John Milton -
"The place of the worst barbarism is that modern forest that makes use of us, this forest of chimneys and bayonets, machines and weapons, of strange inanimate beasts that feed on human flesh"
- Amadeo Bordiga
Cool story bro. Honestly how do you come up with such delightfull follyObviously i'm a liberal fence-sitter who does nothing whilst at the same time opposing anti-imperialism, because that's just how I roll
You're hillarious, not hindered by any sense of reality, of course.
"Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit
Of that forbidden tree..."
- John Milton -
"The place of the worst barbarism is that modern forest that makes use of us, this forest of chimneys and bayonets, machines and weapons, of strange inanimate beasts that feed on human flesh"
- Amadeo Bordiga
I agree, but would like to stress one thing very clearly: There can be reasons outside of our knowledge for these movements not to openly identify with anarchism as such. We have to respect these choices and not pigeon-hole these movements into our own camp as it were.
Every great advance in natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of authority.
-Thomas H. Huxley
Agreed. I however don't think they identify with Anarchism on a theoretical level at all. They do,however, behave very similar to an Anarchist movement and their actions and politics often constitute de-facto Anarchism in the sense that 'an Anarchist by any other name is still an Anarchist'. Or, to quote Psycho's signature:
"Our comerades had not read Marx and were scarcely familiar with all of Proudhon's theories, but comon sense was their guide." Gaston Leval on the spanish revolution
"Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit
Of that forbidden tree..."
- John Milton -
"The place of the worst barbarism is that modern forest that makes use of us, this forest of chimneys and bayonets, machines and weapons, of strange inanimate beasts that feed on human flesh"
- Amadeo Bordiga
"... [E]very one, whatever his grade in the old society, whether strong or weak, capable or incapable, has, before everything, THE RIGHT TO LIVE, and that society is bound to share amongst all, without exception, the means of existence at its disposal." - Peter Kropotkin
"For the recognition of private property has really harmed Individualism... by confusing a man with what he possesses... The true perfection of man lies, not in what man has, but in what man is." - Oscar Wilde
Yes, I would say that there is. It is down to the weakness of the working class. Nepal has a small working class with only 6% of the workers in manufacturing/craft based industry. Most of the countries in latin America have anarchist movements, and some have historically had quite large ones with the Argentinian FORA having tens of thousands of members. Also there are anarchist organisations today in industrial countries such as South Africa.
I think it would be quite idealistic today to expect that there would be large anarchist organisations in countries where the working class is small at a time when the working class is, in historical terms, quite weak. The sort of organisations that tend to be successful in these places are those which put forward cross class alliances, and other anti-working class ideas.
Devrim
Devrim, I'm curious on what the left communists and ICC expect people in countries like Nepal to do. There is a small working class there yeah, but does that mean they are just supposed to accept capitalism until the working class becomes a substantially larger percentage of the population?
A cross class alliance between the various forces which can be united in support of the workers and peasants revolution is in no way 'anti-working class'.
[FONT=Verdana]Everywhere from Eastern Europe to Argentina, from Seattle to Mumbai, anarchist ideas and principles are generating new radical dreams and visions. Often their exponents do not call themselves "anarchists". There are a host of other names: autonomism, anti-authoritarianism, horizontality, Zapatismo, direct democracy... Still, everywhere one finds the same core principles: decentralization, voluntary association, mutual aid, the network model, and above all, the rejection of any idea that the end justifies the means, let alone that the business of a revolutionary is to seize state power and then begin imposing one's vision at the point of a gun. [/FONT]
Last edited by griffjam; 28th May 2010 at 23:49. Reason: Mumbai not Bombay
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
It is an important question. I am not quiet sure what you mean by 'people' though. Do you mean communists, or workers or peasants? I'd prefer to know what you mean before I start going off in the wrong direction.
Absolutely none, which is why we argue against these cross class alliances, which in the end result in just that if they are successful. No individual nation like Nepal can break out of the imperialist system today.Originally Posted by GracchusBabeuf
They are not 'united in support of the workers and peasants revolution'. There isn't a 'workers (and peasants') revolution'. Are you really trying to claim that the SE Asia Maoist organisations are in any way 'working class'.Originally Posted by Comrade Alastair
Devrim
Sorry, "people" is a bit vague I guess. I mean both workers and peasants.
Yes, there is.
And yes, I am.
You may say that, but that probably comes from the fact that your idea of a political point is to try to imply that anybody who disagrees with you is a racist.
Obviously my point of view 'suggests' nothing of the sort, and is completely different.
If the Maoists in Nepal were to take power tomorrow, it would still be under neo-colonial rule.
I don't quite see how it is 'a progressive step' for the working class is the children of the bourgeoisie can go to university in their own country.
Wiki has this to say about the education system in DR Congo:
I don't imagine that it is the ruling class who can't afford to send their kids to school, and this is primary school.Originally Posted by Wiki
What do you imagine the class basis of the students at university is?
This in no way proves anything, let alone that national liberation has anything to offer the working class.
Devrim
The Maoist organisations on the whole consist of urban 'middle class' intellectuals and peasants, and as you point out above they don't even have much support amongst the working class, let alone are they 'working class organisations'.
Devrim
The working class can struggle to defend its own economic interests, and in doing so can begin to develop its own consciousness as a class. It is pretty much what workers ever where are doing. Today, we are not in a revolutionary situation. Communist revolution is not on the immediate agenda, and no amount of people running around with guns and red flags changes that.
Communist revolution is a working class revolution. I don't think that their is any reason for the working class to sacrifice itself in struggles that are fundamentally those of alien classes.
Devrim
The main reason why anarchism dissappeared is that "marxist leninists" took state power and where able to politically and sometimes financially their comrades abroad. It is a very simple explanation. The mexican anarchists were not part of an internationally centralized organization that had as a head a ruling party in a gigantic country like Russia.
Formerly dada
[URL="https://gemeinwesen.wordpress.com/"species being[/URL] - A magazine of communist polemic
