File spoon-archives/anarchy-list.archive/anarchy-list_2001/anarchy-list.0106, message 223


Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 22:15:43 -0400
From: Chuck0 <chuck-AT-tao.ca>
Subject: A New Word in Our Hearts - A reply to Weekly Worker


A New Word in Our Hearts

A reply to "After Gothenburg: Where now for anti-capitalism?"

After the shootings at the anti-EU demonstrations in Gothenburg, the Communist
Party of Great Britain (CPGB) decided to give its two pence's worth of "advice"
to the anti-globalisation movement ("After Gothenburg: Where now for
anti-capitalism?" by Mark Fischer, Weekly Worker 389 Thursday June 21 2001 /
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/389/aftergothenburg.html). This advice can be
summarised up as follows:

"you will be stuck physically and politically if these groups and the
anti-democratic anarcho-prejudices they embody are not vigorously challenged. .
. Against anarchist provocations and hopeless confrontations with state forces." 

In other words, the globalisation movement must police itself and "challenge"
the anarchists and other libertarian revolutionaries in it. Sadly for the CPGB,
the analysis that leads them to this conclusion is fundamentally flawed.
Therefore it is wise to analyse their claims and show that their position means
the death of the anti-globalisation movement under authoritarian and
bureaucratic rule of parties.

It seems strange to blame "anarchists" for what happened in Gothenburg. After
all, while the media reported "anarchist" riots they also reported "red flags"
and banners with pictures of "Marx, Mao and Che" on them. How many "anarchists"
would carry such obviously Marxist imagery? None. The simple fact is that the
rioters came from many political perspectives and it seems strange that Fischer,
like the capitalist media, decides to concentrate on just one and use it as a
scapegoat. Perhaps this is because the Leninists perceive the anarchists as the
major political threat in the movement and so seek to undermine it by any means
necessary?

Fischer is clear that we (i.e. anti-globalisation activitists) "have to be
highly critical of the set-piece, semi-ritualised violence that sections of the
anti-capitalist movement are ideologically wedded to." 

Strange, then, that Fischer admits that  "all credible accounts of the shooting
indicate that protesters were responding to crude provocation by Swedish police.
A Reclaim the City street party on Vasagatan was threatened by a large
contingent of police in riot gear. A smaller group of around five to eight
police became detached from the main body and attacked the gathering." He argues
that "what clearly emerges from all [reports] is that the crowd acted first to
defend itself against police attacks." 

After presenting this evidence, he decides to ignore it and attack the
"anarchists." He *then* concludes, as quoted above, that "we also have to be
highly critical of the set-piece, semi-ritualised violence that sections of the
anti-capitalist movement are ideologically wedded to" that and claims that "such
provocations are elitist and totally counter-productive." Since he admits the
police threatened the street party this can only mean, apparently, that
defending yourself is "elitist and totally counter-productive." How strange. But
why let facts get in the way of a good rant?

He argues that "it is urgent that the anti-capitalist movement now re-orientates
politically and organisationally. It must turn to the working class, the only
class with a consistent interest in genuine anti-capitalism and with the muscle
to make it a real force." This assumes two things. Firstly, that the
anti-globalisation movement is not made up of working class people. Secondly,
that anarchists do not see a role for "the working class." Wrong on both counts.
Anti-globalisation protestors do include working class people. Anarchists do
base our politics on the working class, the class struggle and the essential
need for working class organisation, direct action and solidarity.

He then makes an even stranger pronouncement:

"Something like the Gothenburg outrage was bound to come. Anti-capitalist
mobilisations have confronted state forces in very disorganised and unserious
ways."

Yet this was a street party threatened by the police, not a "mobilisation" like
Prague. It was also not organised or planned, but was rather a *response* to
police actions (as he admits himself). Moreover, he makes no mention of the
police attack on the venues people were staying and organising in the week
running up to the demonstrations. As such, Fischer is forcing events into an
ideological straitjacket from which only the truth can escape.

He moves on to attack Ya Basta. While it may escape his notice, we should point
out that while Ya Basta are close to anarchism, they are in fact autonomists and
not anarchists. Moreover, they are dedicated to non-violence direct action. The
capitalist media portray them as "violent", but in fact they are not (unless
you, like the capitalist media, think people "arm" themselves with protective
clothing).

He argues that at Prague, Ya Basta "assumed effective control of one leg of the
protest, leading people into a four-hour stand-off with the Prague police. As
the hours dragged by, comrades on the main body of the march were reduced to
passive spectators while the lines of white-overall-clad Ya Basta activists
tussled theatrically with police lines."

In actuality, at the organising meetings held beforehand, it was agreed that Ya
Basta would lead the yellow section of the march. This section had the near
impossible task of trying to force their way, non- violently, to the conference
centre across a very narrow bridge directly above the valley. This frontal
approach to the conference centre was the most difficult and least likely to get
very far, a fact that YB was aware of, if Fischer is not.

Fischer complains that "the protest had been split into three legs." This was
decided beforehand at the organising meetings. Rather than being "foolhardy
enough" it in fact was very successful, fooling the police and allowing Blue and
Pink blocks to get very close to the conference centre before the police
reacted. As such, the only "foolhardy" decision would have been to have one
march and for it to follow Yellow block's route (what the CPGB and IS actually
did on the day, with predictably dismal results).

He then complains that the "protesters were corralled into very tight spaces by
the unrepresentative YB group." In fact, the route decided upon was a "very
tight space" and had nothing to do with YB. Geography, not ideology, was the
cause. Moreover, it had been decided by the organising group that YB would lead
this section and so it was hardly "unrepresentative." Then, Fischer claims,
"this organisation then spent hours frivolously provoking the historically
volatile Czech police." It would be hard to get to the conference centre without
forcing the police out the way. As such, of course, this would "provoke" the
police -- unless our "Communist" is arguing that the demonstration should have
walked away from the conference centre or did exactly what the police demanded,
it is hard to know how "provoking the police" could have been avoided.

He then states that YB were "constantly haranguing the crowd to squeeze up to
support their comrades at the front." This is, in fact, untrue. Given that YB
were directly in front of the riot cops (plus their APC). The last thing they
wanted was for people to squeeze up behind them as it would have meant them
being forced against police lines. While the International Socialists and other
Trotskyists were trying to force the march forward, YB were being sensible and
asked people *not* to squeeze up as this would have turned them into jam.

Ironically, the reason *why* the CPGB and other were stuck had nothing to do
with Ya Basta. The Leninists had put themselves down for the Pink section of the
march but, on the day, swapped (without telling anyone). According to the Weekly
Worker (no. 353 Thursday September 28 2000):

"Come the march itself, the damage was partially repaired by the decision of a
majority of the 'pink' contingent (with the SWP and its international sections
to the fore) to simply veer off the agreed route. This pink section then
partially merged with the yellow to advance on the conference.

"Of course, it was blocked by ranks of riot police..."

Needless to say, the Weekly Worker did not make any suggestions what should have
happened in Yellow Block. They argue that it should have been under "democratic"
control. What stopped the protestors organising a mass meeting while they were
"stuck" behind YB? Why did they not march to another block (as it was, due to
the actions of the Leninists, a section of Blue Block had to go and re-enforce
Pink block as it was under-manned, so weakening Blue sector in the face of
police attacks). 

That the protestors, including a fair number of Leninists, did nothing suggests
that Leninist organisation does not promote independent thinking or action. If
they were "passive spectators" then it suggests the failure of Leninism rather
than YB who had announced exactly what was planned for Yellow Block beforehand. 

Fischer states that "it was disaster waiting to happen." A disaster did not
occur, of course. No thanks to Leninists like the CPGB and IS.

They claims that  "most of the revolutionary left is guilty of tailing the
movement rather than seeking to engage critically as Marxists with it." There
is, of course, a reason for this, namely the fact that the "revolutionary" left
had no idea that such a movement existed until it exploded in Seattle and on J18
in London. Then, as is usual in the history of vanguardism, the Left decided
that the anti-globalisation movement was a good recruiting ground and joined in.
They have since spent a lot of time trying to catch up and so, unsurprisingly,
are tailing the movement. As such, this is to be expected -- vanguards are
usually at the rear of social struggles.

Part of this process of "engaging critically" the movement seems to involve
attacking the structures and tactics which made the movement international news.
It seems strange that Leninists are urging a movement to reject the tactics
which made it successful and instead embrace those which had to be rejected in
the first place to make a success, but that is what they are doing. In other
words, we are being urged to we reject tactics we know work and to embrace those
which these new tactics were designed to replace. How ironic.

Even stranger, they quote a report from the Trotskyist Abetarmakt and note that
it "correctly" it points out that Ya Basta's tactics ("imposed with no real
mandate from the mass of protesters": Fischer) can constitute the group as "a
barrier against the more active elements. De facto, they can become an extra row
of police ..." 

How ironic. What exactly are the "more active elements" whom YB are "policing"?
Those who want to "provoke" the police more "actively" than YB's non-violent
direct action? In other words, the kind of actions Fischer condemns earlier in
the article? Moreover, YB *are* protesters and other protestors had the choice
in Prague of joining Yellow Block and finding another Block more in-line with
their wants. Given that this had been agreed by the organising group and that
people freely joined Yellow Block, how can this be said to be "no real mandate"? 

Fischer states "'Right behind ya!' is spot on, comrades - and that is exactly
where you will be stuck physically and politically if these groups and the
anti-democratic anarcho-prejudices they embody are not vigorously challenged."

Not that YB are anarchists, of course. Nor, of course, is it mentioned that
Yellow Block was freely joined and had been agreed to by the organising group
before hand. How this is "undemocratic" is not really explained. Perhaps real
democracy is thousands of people electing a handful of people to tell them what
to do, just as in bourgeois society? Surely not?

Fischer then argued that "there is also a far more insidious form of subversion
threatening the movement than direct repression - the danger of incorporation. A
Guardian editorial draws a sharp distinction between anarchist rioters and the
'thousands whose methods were more peaceful and whose case was more serious'"
Which, of course, is the position of Fischer! He, like the corporate media,
draws a distinction between the protesters and the anarchists -- perhaps, like
the state, so he can justify their expulsion from the demonstrations at some
later point?

He then rewrites history:

"The anti-capitalist movement is embryonic - nothing more. If it is not to be
trapped into a sterile pattern of small-scale, dwindling confrontations with the
police forces of various states, it must radically re-orientate."

Prague saw 10 000, Gothenburg 25 000, Barcelona 50 000 (according to some
accounts). Dwindling? Small-scale? No, far from it. The protests are getting
bigger -- in part due to the effectiveness of previous demonstrations. Of
course, Fischer is right in that the movement must grow and growth means change.
But we must ensure that change is for the best and does not unlearn the lessons
gathered so far. Sadly, Fischer's "re-orientation" will see the
anti-globalisation movement turn back into the dead-end of Leftism rather than
progress to real anti-capitalism.

He argues the need for a "Programme."  He argues that "there are different
strands within the movement. What unites some is hostility to features that - in
their distorted way - actually express the progressive side of capitalism. The
growing interdependence of the world economy, the ever closer links between
peoples, the breaking down of the divisions between languages and cultures -
these are phenomena that anticipate communism, a world community of associated
producers."

So we have "communist pro-capitalism". Indeed, logically, "communists" should go
to these demonstrations to *encourage* capitalist globalisation and support
"free trade" (which, let us not forget, was what Marx did). Needless to say,
such a message would not be welcomed.

Most protestors are aware that "ever closer links" and the "breaking down" of
divisions simply mean the imposition of US-Anglo-Saxon cultural, economic and
political hegemony on the world. The protestors are quite right in struggling
against this corporate lead banalisation of the world. It is not progressive in
the slightest. Let us be clear, the idea that socialism will only come about
after everyone speaks English and eats in McDonalds is one which most protestors
rightly reject. We want a globalisation that reflects and protects diversity,
not one that inherits a world made bland by corporate power. If the vision of
the future is nationalising McDonalds, then (quite rightly) no one in their
right mind will fight for it (particularly the workers in McDonalds!). We have
to break with the capitalist rationality that drives the world economy, not
embrace it as "progress." A world community of associated producers deserves
better than this and so do we!

What *really* "anticipates" the "world community of associated producers" is not
the forces at work in the capitalist economy. It is the movements in
*opposition* to those forces. We must create such a community in our
organisations and movements today, not put it off to sometime in the dim and
distant future. Only freedom and the struggle for freedom can be the school of
freedom. As such, we must build what we can of the new world in current one and
do so precisely to fight, and replace, that world. As such, our organisations
must be decentralised, federal -- free associations of free people, producing a
better world today in the process of destroying capitalism.

He stresses that  "indeed, despite the gross distortions that accompany them
under capitalism, without these trends such a world is impossible."

Thus the trends of capitalism make socialism possible. This perspective is
common to Leninists, with Lenin himself arguing that socialism was just state
capitalism made to benefit the whole people. Unfortunately, this is not the
case. Capitalist structures cannot be used for socialist ends. The first task of
anarchism will be the transformation of society to make it fit for people, not
for profits, and that means rejecting capitalist "trends" in favour of new,
anti-capitalist, ones. It is these trends of resistance that make a new world
possible.

Fischer argues that "we need a democratic programme that looks forward, that
charts a path to genuine globalisation under communism." That is true. We need
to discuss where we are, where we want to go and how to get there. We need a
libertarian programme that looks forward and charts a path to genuine
globalisation from below within a free society of free and equal individuals --
*anarchist*-communism.

We can see the differences by comparing his programme to a *real*
anti-capitalist one, to an anarchist one:

"An end to unelected bureaucracies - for a Europe-wide constituent assembly."

An end to elected as well as unelected masters -- for a world-wide federation of
workers' councils and free communes. For workers' councils and communes based on
mass assemblies and a federation run from the bottom-up by means of mandated,
elected and recallable *delegates.* Against the state and the running of society
from the top-down by politicians (even "red" ones) elected to govern for us. For
workers' self-management of production as the first step towards the abolition
of work. Against capitalism and any kind of boss (even "red" ones). Power to the
people, not to representatives.

"Cross-Europe organisation. To the extent that the European 'super-state'
becomes a reality, we need common working class organisations with our brothers
and sisters across the continent, up to and including a Communist Party of the
EU."

Global organisation. Regardless of whether "super-states" develop, we need
common working class organisations which will fight for a free society. These
organisations must reflect the world we want to see created and so must be based
on self-managed workplace and community unions, run by and for their members in
a federal structure which combines direct self-government with the widest
possible solidarity. To complement these working class organisations, anarchists
must federate together and strengthen the International Anarchist Federation and
its member federations.

"For democracy. . .  we must be aware that there is a huge democratic deficit in
our own movement."

For anarchy. We must be aware that electing our masters does not make us free.
We must practice self-management and become used to making our own decisions on
whatever scale is required. This applies for the current movement, the
revolution and the future society. We must be aware that self-management, not
representative democracy, in our movement is the only way forward.

"We need:

"Fully accountable, elected and instantly recallable leaderships on all our
actions and protests. No more imposed leadership from small unrepresentative
groups."

We need to govern ourselves. All organising committees must be made up of
accountable, elected and instantly recallable *delegates* who express the
decisions of the membership. No more minorities who can impose their
"leadership" on the movement -- rather the movement must govern itself, directly
and without new bosses (elected or not). Decisions reached must be based on the
input of all and come from below, not imposed from above.

"Mass mobilisations. Centrally, the organised workers' movement across the
continent of Europe must make anti-capitalism its own, bringing its numbers, its
discipline and its programme to the fore of the protests."

Continue the mass demonstrations. The anti-capitalist movement must bring its
numbers, its discipline and its programme into the fore of the organised
workers' movement. We must combat the trade union bureaucracy, its top-down
"discipline" (i.e. obedience) and reformist programme with the self-managed rank
and file groups and unions, based on the discipline of self-government and
solidarity and a revolutionary programme aiming for a free world based on
working class self-management of society.

"Democratically controlled defence corps. Against anarchist provocations and
hopeless confrontations with state forces."

Self-managed and self-organised defence by protestors themselves. For a
"federation of the barricades" (Bakunin). For sensible responses to police
provocations. Against police provocations and hopeless political analysis which
do not get the facts right. Against would-be governments dictating to protestors
what they can and cannot do. Against the separation of "defence" from the mass
of protestors. Against "defence corps" as these would seek to enforce the
decisions of "leadership" onto protestors. Against a separated and specialised
body which would soon only "defend" the (separated and specialised) leadership
against the protestors.

Let us think about how Fischer's "democratic" movement would work in practice,
using the example of Gothenburg. The street party would be only open to paid-up
members of the "anti-capitalist" movement as non-members have not elected the
leadership (and so would be unlikely to follow them). When the riot cops
appeared, the "defence corps" would have consulted the "democratically elected
leadership" of the world-wide movement (as it would be as undemocratic for local
leaders to make the decision as it would be for the protesters present to do so,
as its impact would be international in its ramifications). Until such time as
the global leadership had decided what to do, the "defence corps" would defend
the police from "anarchist provocations" (i.e. any protestors who were not
waiting for the decisions of the leadership and were defending themselves
against the cops). Once the leadership had decided what to do, the "defence
corps" would ensure that any protestors who did not agree with the decision
would be stopped. 

Needless to say, the riot cops themselves would wait until the process of
consulting the leadership was complete, as would the protestors who could not
act for themselves as this would be "undemocratic." Everything would stop as
people waited the decisions of the leaders who would make decisions based on a
full understanding of the needs of the situation, of course.

Thus, in the name of "democracy", the anti-globalisation movement would grind to
a halt in bureaucratic inertia. The decisions which affected the thousands of
protestors in Gothenburg would be made by a handful of people at the top. The
same kind of "democracy" in Russia which placed the fate of millions into the
hands of the Bolshevik Party Central Committee -- whose decisions were enforced
by the Bolshevik "defence corps," the Cheka (or secret police).

Ironically, Fischer exposed the failure of his own organisational structures. He
argues:

"The workers' movement internationally must condemn this act of police
terrorism. Our movement needs to respond to such outrages with mass protest
actions, with 24-hour general strikes, marches, pickets and boycotts. We must
all stand unequivocally with comrades on the streets on Gothenburg, whatever
their ideological affiliations, whatever our criticisms of the tactics they
employ.

"At least, that is what ought to happen.

"In truth, the workers' movement is drawn up in defensive formation across
Europe. Our leaderships are compromised, incapable of mounting an effective
counter-attack against the new offensives of capital. It was the absence of mass
combative working class contingents on these protests that allowed the tragic
events to unfold in Sweden."

The fact is, of course, is that the workers' movement is organised in a
centralised, top-down fashion, with power at the top, in the hands of
"leaderships." That these leaderships are "compromised" is unsurprising given
the way they are structured. In order to be a "leadership" these groups have to
have power to enforce their decisions onto the membership (as it would be
"undemocratic" for workers to strike without getting permission from the union).
They also seek to reduce their accountability to their members (which is easily
down in centralised structures). This, by necessity, generates bureaucracy and,
as such, "compromises" those elected to such positions. To re-produce such
structures in the anti-capitalist movement will, of course, compromise it as
well. We should seek ways of organising that do not reproduce the errors of the
past.

Fischer ends:

"Gothenburg is a wake-up call to the anti-capitalist movement. We need new
politics to come to the fore, a new kind of anti-capitalism. That is the way to
mobilise millions to sweep away the rotten system of capitalism, its craven
apologists and its gun-toting street fighters."

The "new kind of anti-capitalism" and "new politics" are nothing of the kind.
It's the decidedly old (and rotten) politics of Leninism. The politics that
introduced state capitalism in Russia and crushed the Russian Revolution in
favour of party dictatorship in 1918. 

The new politics have been created in the anti-globalisation movement. These
politics are, of course, confused and incomplete. There are reformist elements
and revolutionary ones. There are anarchists, there are social democrats. There
are autonomists and, of late, Leninists. We must develop and discuss our
politics, but we must not repeat the mistakes of the past. And in order to do
that, we must have honest and accurate discussion rather than ideological
inventions and distortions.

Anarchists are arguing their ideas in the movement and urging us not to repeat
the mistakes of the past. The key way forward is not to ignore our own
experiences of non-hierarchical organising and direct action in the 21st century
in favour of the politics of a long dead German. Yes, in order to destroy
capitalism we need the millions to revolt -- not because we "mobilise" them but
because they mobilise themselves. We need to take our politics to where we live
and work and create a mass movement organised and run from below which creates a
free society rather than just changing who the boss is. 

Join with us. A new world is possible, but only if we start creating it today!

www.anarchistfaq.org
www.infoshop.org

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005