From: "Hasan Lascelle" <hasan-l-AT-re-creation.ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: anarchism and the international system
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 23:44:23 +0100





>so how do anarchists respond to state-sponsered violence?  what is
the
>proper relationship between anarchist theory and the interstate
system?
>where are all our theoreticians?  shawn?  jamal?  what does the brain
>trust on the Organize list say?

Well I’m certainly no heavy-duty theoretician, and the debate on the
organise list seems to have just as many differing positions as here.
However, despite the fact that I'll almost certainly regret this
later, I'll stick my head up over the ideological parapet.

Seems to me, the first principle of effective action is to ask whether
it gets us anywhere. Sure we can and should condemn the slaughter and
displacement of the Kosovas; but what will that actually achieve? If
there was a strong autonomous working-class movement in Yugoslavia,
organising as anti-government militias to defend themselves against
nationalist atrocities, we would as anarchists undoubtedly support it,
just as anarchists and others around the world fought with the
militias in Spain. However, the movement world-wide has been in one of
its periodic lulls for the last 10 years at least, and although there
are some encouraging signs of resurgence; as far as I know the
necessary strength to organise such armed resistance does not at this
moment in time exist.

Some people have concluded that we must therefore support the least
worst side in the conflict. In other words, support the sending in of
NATO ground troops, or arming the KLA.

A quick look at recent history will tell us why arming the KLA is not
a sensible option. It might be different if they were a militia
operating on libertarian lines, but in fact they are a centralist and
nationalist would-be government. When the US government armed the
mujahaddin in Afghanistan, they not only created a force capable of
defeating the Russians, they gave the competing fundamentalist armies
the wherewithal to terrorise the general population long after the
Russians were gone.

Supporting NATO is similarly short sighted. War and atrocity, is not
an unfortunate random happening. It is an integral part of the
capitalist/statist system, and wholly necessary for it’s survival.
Without war, governments would have no excuse to maintain their
military power as an instrument of repression for use, ultimately, in
controlling their own population. Spurious identification with
national, ethnic, racial, or religious groups, is necessary for the
maintainance of the culture of competition that lies at the core of
capitalism. By supporting NATO intervention we strengthen and
legitimise the very system that has generated national and ethnic
hatreds, wars, and atrocities, for much of the last 250 years.

It is, I suppose, possible that this particular horror story can be
given a happy ending through NATO intervention. I think I could be
forgiven, however, for concluding that on current evidence that seems
pretty unlikely (as I said in a recent post on Organise; there are few
situations that cannot be made worse by governmental intervention).
But what about the next horror story? What about the one after that?

It leaves a pretty nasty taste in my mouth to have to admit that I
cannot think of a single practical thing I or anyone else can do,
except providing humanitarian aid, to help the Kosovas. The only thing
that can possibly make it palatable, for me at least, is to take
whatever action I can against the capitalist war machine in my own
country, and to work for the overthrow of the system that causes so
much misery.

In Solidarity

Hasan


>
>Dave's position is clear:  whenever a state makes war on another
state
>(or more accurately on the people of another state), anarchists
oppose
>it.  period.  full stop.  no questions asked.  when asked about
>historical examples of state military action that, from at least a
>superficial perspective, actually improved the situation locally
(such
>as the vietnamese invasion of cambodia or the allied liberation of
the
>concentration camps in wwII) Dave has, i believe, not responded.
that's
>his privilege.  he does allow an exception.  if you are fighting FOR
a
>libertarian revolution, then you are allowed to make common cause
with
>non anarchists, such as states or political parties, as with the
commies
>in spain.  but there'll be no fighting AGAINST mere genocide or for
>defensive purposes.  that's right out, it is.  thus the fight of the
>kosovars will not pass the Coull test and fails to qualify for
anarchist
>support.  sorry, lads.
>
>but sadly, the perps (as bart or goat called 'em) on all sides don't
>seem to much care what anarchists think, so what do we do?  i think
we
>can start by thinking a bit about what we think.  as a contrast to
our
>poorly thought out position on the interstate system, we seem to be
much
>more nuanced in our analysis of the effect of state power on the
>domestic level and in our daily lives.  as anarchists, we clearly
oppose
>police and other representatives of the state.  their role in the
class
>struggle, for example, is clear and pernicious.  yet, i doubt if most
>anarchists would object if a police officer intervened to stop a gang
of
>skinheads from beating an immigrant, for example, to death.  would we
>stand around and play Dave's game:  "well, i can't in good conscience
>support the police efforts to stop this beating.  first of all, the
>police don't really care about the victim; they only want to attack
the
>skinheads for their own reasons.  and anyway, if i support the cops
>here, then i tacitly support the whole system of police oppression
and
>thus i will have lost my anarchist purity.  and besides, the
immigrant
>is wrong to look to the police for help in the first place.  oh, and
by
>the way, don't expect any direct help from the anarchist community
>because it says quite clearly in rule 13b, subsection 1245p that we
are
>only allowed to become involved if it is in the service of building
the
>New, Improved Libertarian World;  we can't be bothered to merely save
>your ass, black boy.  tough shit, but hey, i didn't make the rules."
>
>there's an old saying that applies here:  the best is the enemy of
the
>good.  sure, the interstate system sucks turds.  ideally, there would
be
>no states and thus no state military force to oppose.  but like the
>domestic state police forces, it is silly for anarchists to act as if
>the system doesn't exist.  states act, for good or ill, and
anarchists
>need to be involved and make our voices heard.  it is obvious that
some
>actions by states are better or worse than others.  doctrinaire, pat
>answers are no longer good enough.  reality has overtaken theory.
war
>has made anarchism and anarchists look like idiots before.  but it is
>also a real opportunity to integrate and synthesize a more coherent
>position on the appropriate uses of force and what collective actions
>we, as anarchists can support.  i, for one, agree in principle with
Dave
>that supporting states in military action is always counterproductive
in
>that it legitimizes states to some degree.  any such support should
>always be conditional, and given grudgingly.  but, in advance, to
forego
>any possibility of finding allies and fellow travelers in the
interstate
>system in OUR struggles is shortsighted and unrealistic.  there may
be
>states whose causes are righteous and we may need states to help us.
>it's as simple as that.  communists are more theoretically grounded
>here, by the way:  struggles of national liberation, imperialism,
etc. .
>. . ah, the good old days. . .
>
>seems to me that Dave has made a good start.  calling for an end to
nato
>air strikes is an excellent beginning, but largely irrelevant to the
>atrocity being conducted by the serb forces.  we also need a response
to
>that.  any ideas?  we need new thinking here.  this is a real crisis,
>not just for the serbs being bombed or the kosovars being "cleansed"
but
>also for all of us.  how do we offer "mutual aid" to our brothers and
>sisters in this tragedy?  right now, we, as anarchists, risk losing
all
>credibility.  protesting nato action without some response to the
serbs
>as well places us in the untenable position, in my opinion, of being
a
>passive observer to (possibly) genocide.
>
>so that is the dilemma:  support nato action in aid of the kosovars,
and
>you run the risk of strengthening a hegemonic military alliance
already
>stronger than any the world has ever seen.  oppose nato without an
>alternative and we abandon the only obvious and effective response to
>the gravest threat to human life in europe since wwII.  Dave calls me
a
>stooge of nato propaganda while i retort that he's worried about who
>built the fire hose while the orphanage burns down.  we're both right
as
>far as i can see.
>
>roger
>
>
>
>