From: WasteOfTime-AT-att.net
Subject: Re: anarchism and the international system
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 16:25:25 +0000


Well, i think not examining the individual situation and 
just relying on principles to guide your decision is kind 
of stupid.  you limit the degree with which you think 
about the matter. Heres my opinion on it, if anyone 
cares. It may not be anarchistic enough for some of you 
puritans, but hay, without thought there can be no 
variation. 
I think that the serb government is wrong, the KLA 
is wrong, and the usa government is too. We as anarchists 
need to stand in solidarity in opposition to ALL states. 
Fight the state in your own country, and i'll fight it in 
mine, but we will be fighting together, as anarchists. So 
i thik we should oppose all the actions by all the 
governments, and, like hassan said, give support and 
humanitarian aid to the people of kosovo, but also to the 
serbian refugees from the bombing, of which there are 
over 300,000, according to a serbian newspaper. That may 
be a little exaggerated, but there is no denying that 
there are also homeless, displaced persons because of our 
attacks, just as the kosovars are. So, oppose all of the 
governments involved, and try and be in support with the 
refugees, whatever nationality they happen to be!
> 
> 
> 
> >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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>