a particular anarchist's breakdown and explanation of theory and thought.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009


ever since... perhaps 1793 to around 1840... workers and peasants alike, all who labour, have gathered under the socialist banner, and have repeated the maxim "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need," wishing to implement it into society. But that is about where it got to. It then started branching off into authoritarian, libertarian, Utopian, and all sorts of crazy names. By the late 19th century, the lines were clearly drawn... The Marxist Communists and the Anarchists. After vigorous competition for control of the international, it all degraded and finally disappeared into the slumber of the 1880's-90's to the early 1900's.
Then, with the result of massive militarization of states, World War broke out. This awakened many citizens to the bullshit of Capitalism, and the State, or the State in the hands of the Bourgeoisie. Then, 1916, Russia breaks, a democratic institution is put in as a provisional government. 1917, Bolsheviks take over with a coup d'etat. Lenin's dictatorship of the proletariat (Lenin's dictatorship of the proletariat being a state of the vanguard to fulfill the interest of the workers) was put in place. A few years later, Lenin's dictatorship of the proletariat is still in place. Rosa Luxembourg tries to make revolution against the Germans... Boom! nothing happens.
After the smoke from the coup is cleared, the Communists try to make another International. While all of this Commie shit was happening, the anarcho-syndicalists had been creating national syndicalist unions which delegated with other national syndicalist trade unions. The Anarchists watched and waited while the Communists formed their Soviet Union. Nestor Makhno, fought both the White and Red armies to defend what collectives he had. Sadly, in the end he fails and writes with his Russian comrades, the Platform.
The Syndicalists are invited to go to the International, and quickly turn away at the way the Soviets handle their matters. It becomes clear in the Syndicalists' eyes that the Soviet Union is a failure. The Syndicalists then try to strengthen their front against, now, both Communism and Capitalism.
People ask, 'could Communists and Anarchists work together in a revolution'. Seeing as they differ completely (aside from believing that capitalism is bad, although you could argue this since Communists try to enlist from the middle classes), I believe not. Anarchists are anarchists for they believe that the proletariat should go from be oppressed by the State and the Bourgeoisie, to oppression under the yoke of the dictatorship of the proletariat (or the dictatorship of the Communist Party). Where Communists do not trust the Working Class to handle matters themselves, the Anarchists do not trust the Party to handle matters of the Working Class for them.
I think the question could be answered in the Spanish Civil War. The Socialists (they are the moderates, the liberals of the Socialist rainbow, not Communists, alike Anarchists in many respects)[POUM], the Communists [PSUC], and the Anarchists [FAI-CNT] had been organizing trade unions for decades (UGT being the trade unions belonging to the PSUC, the CNT trade unions, being syndicalist, the political organ, the FAI belonged to them).
Then, Franco wanted to take power under a Fascist, Feudal banner. He organized an uprising with the aid of the other Fascist countries, Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy, and the UGT, the CNT, and the POUM quickly responded with and uprising of their own. So we have the Communists, the Socialists (Left Communists), the Anarchists, and the Fascists, basically the four alternative tendencies to Parliamentary Democracy battling it out. The Government, the FAI, POUM, PSUC, and the liberals united as Anti-Fascists to combat Franco. In the rear of the front line, what appeared to be Worker's States, Anarchists and Communists capitulating and working together to achieve Socialism was created. It was inspiring and magnificent. But in 1937, the Communist PSUC, began to replace the worker patrols and trade union militias, who bravely held the line, with Guards of their own to take power away from the Anarchists and give it to the PSUC, which was controlled by the Communists. This amounted to brawls and street fighting with the Anarchists and Communists, ending with the detaining of the POUM. The jailing of the POUM then continued to the other members of the political parties, ending with the failure of the the Government, and the victory of Franco.
The Communists could have saved the war by agreeing with the POUM and the FAI-CNT that the revolution and the war are inseperable, which would have made support for the Government from the working people of other countries. And if they had won, counting on the malevolent Communists, Spain would be Communist.
If there is a revolution in America, or England, or anywhere, Communists and Anarchist would fight side by side, but after the State and the Bourgeoisie are invisible, they would turn their weapons on each other. It could be possible, with Left Communists and Anarchists to live in a form of harmony, but the Communist urge to dictate and warp destroys the notion that Anarchists and full fledged Communists can get along. The Communists State, in such a revolution where Anarchists and Communists cooperate, would have to be not involved. With the loss of the Soviet Union, it is more plausible that they can cooperate more harmoniously.
Personally, I disdain Communism as nearly as much as Fascism. Communism has failed more then once. The logic that Communism has never been realized and that the multiple times that Communism has come into existence is bullshit. So I am surprised that there are still Communists around. I would do my best to not allow Communism to come about in my area, as it is dictatorship, plain and simple. My revolution is anarchist above all.
Critique of Communism

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Whispers to myself on the "facts" of social uprising

Certainly everyday I think of the supposedly inevitable revolution. I have abandoned the idea that the Social Revolution is inevitable. The Social Revolution needs mass propaganda, mass awakening, and perhaps most importantly, practical stimulation.
This is happening in Greece, the revolution is in Greece. That is the model for all peoples. Commemorating the anniversary of Alexandros Grigoropoulos' murder by the police, riots have broken out to combat the police. It's not just about anarchists. workers and students on all fronts are stepping up against the police. Every occupied building guarantees the freedom of detained demonstrators.
I think that the expanse of the revolutionary spirit says something about the situations of the world movements. In one instance we have the United States. The IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) has under 2000 members. We have a growing anarchist movement, albeit a bit uncomfortably slow (compared to European movements), successful organizing skills when we look at the RNC and DNC (08), and confrontation with the police in some locales. The Shaleshock Coalition is beginning to rise awareness to the incompetence of the state and the insatiable greed of the capitalist (being a human being in an undesirable position of power). This is appreciable but sadly, as said, a bit unprecedented to the European movements.
Next, we have the Netherlands. They are personally one my favorite countries when in comes to anarchism. They and Iceland have a successful squatting movement. They also usually have a successful Food Not Bombs movement (not to say that the US doesn't, Silent City Distro is putting out free food, and Boston FNB is highly successful). The European movement surges of citizen movements (citizen movements is something that the US largely has nothing of), facilitated by anarchists, having the most experience with the tasks. What the northern European anarchists have that the US anarchists don't have is in my humble opinion, a bolder movement, particularly in squatting. what's different about organizing successful events and a squatting movement is that, although important and incredibly helpful, the organizing of events is temporary. The squatters movement creates a stability for the anarchists ensuring a determination to keep and defend the squat and the mode of life, and confrontation with the police. The Netherlands, in Amsterdam, has had a few events to express solidarity towards the anarchists in Greece, something I may be missing in the US.
The situation in Greece gives credence to networks and collectives. Before the tragedy of Alexis' murder, Greece had a network of collectives all in communication with each other. When the murder made news, the word passed through the entire network reaching all the collectives reaching all the anarchists. Thus, when all the anarchists were given the news they immediately organized demonstrations which turned into riots, and the rest is history. Now, on the anniversery of the tragedy, the anarchists, and most of the organizations of Greece are demonstrating and occupying to gain political and economic rights and advantages. It has learned of the mistakes made in last December's insurrection, and has become much more efficient than last time.The state of the country uprising is inspiring to those who wish for the social revolution or people's rights. It is inspiring to all anarchists and all people that we should form an organization and temperament like those of the Greeks.
The question of Greece now is sustainability, and progress. How long with the offensive last, and how far will they have gone?

for info on Greece '09: Riots and Police Brutality on first day, libcom
second day, libcom
consistent in anarchist events on Greek struggle, witness to last December uprising
some revleft threads: one, two