Aims and Principles

we seem to be discussing this on two threads now ... and I'm doing it as well ...

Are you in favour of self-determination for the bourgeios of countries fighting imperialism. Self-determination is incompatible with bourgeios nationalism.

i thought the two were one and the same

What happened to the rejection of organised religion and beliefs?

Concerning the sixth point on armed struggle (http://www.libcom.org/hosted/af/aims.html), I think alterations should (especially) be made (the last point on religion is another question).

I'm very critical of prescribing tactics in general, and especially sth which is probably suicidal under the conditions of modern warfare, and definitely politically suicidal at the present moment, which is why even those who believe in it would benefit if they took a more flexible approach in propaganda.

A particularly good reason to modify (or simply not mention) this at this particular moment is the changing climate towards political "radicalism" of all sorts, which could put (primarily) non-British anarchists into a lot of trouble.

Two examples:

LONDON - Prime Minister

Tony Blair on Friday announced new deportation measures against those who foster hatred and advocate violence, as his government tries to counter Islamic extremists in Britain.

Blair said the government would draw up a list of extremist Web sites, book shops and organizations and said that involvement with them could be a trigger to deport foreign nationals.

Times article comparing Al-Qaeda and anarchists - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1721466,00.html

Comradely,

Dan

i'd fucking hope not.

blair's all fucking bluster , he's flaffing around desperately trying to stop people focussing on Iraq. The "al qaeda" video hasn't exactly done the cock any favours.

Im not sure of the mood in England but in Northern Ireland no one is getting that worked up, i think theres a bit of cynicism in this country towards simplistic counter terrorism solutions.

It's not actually about armed struggle, is it? It says that revolution will in all likelihood involve violence. I'm essentially non-violent myself, but never equate the violence of the oippressed defending themselves with that of the rulers. It seems a simple equation to me. We don't need to change the aims immediately to react to the state's statements. We don't need to pretend we think other than we do. You know my views on rewriting the whole thing though.

There are two linked dangers here, one is to take blair too seriously and hide our real political ends and beliefs for fear of being shunted off to 'new' labour camps the other is to dismiss his governments statements as strictly being about 'islamic ' terror and nothing to do withus.

It is clear that blairs govt. is attempting to use the atmosphere of fear created by the terror attacks in london to promote a far more authoritarian agenda; the velvet glove slips to reveal the iron gauntlet.

As libertarian communists we should see this as confirmation of our arguments about the nature of the state as a weapon of repressive force- but that blair and his cronys need the excuse ofreacting to horrendous acts of terrorist violence in order to introduce such measures shows their weakness- their dependency upon the aquiesance of the bulk of the population , and thus their fear of what might happen if we refused to go along with their plans.

To suggest that the afeds laudable statement of aims and principles should be altered to prevent it falling foul of the new mood is to miss the point of having a revolutionary group, ever so often you run the possibility of breaking some capitalist law

with the new proposed laws concerning people preaching hate and violence will this not cover everyone that the government considers a threat, say the womens institute were to slow hand clap tony blair again will they all be ejected from the country, just a case of big brother getting bigger aint it, or am I just saying whats been said already.

just in case.... free cheese for everyone, hopefully no ones said that.

I'll try to address each point that gentle revolutionary raises,

Firstly I am a newcomer to the Afed, what attracts me to it is firstly, it intellectual background, especially on the af north site, and its willingness to investigate different approaches to the transformation of the world.

My approach to revolution is on the 'right to violence' thread on the introductionary forum, unfortunatly for anyone who has been a witness to REAL violence, the overthrowing of the capitalist class will involve a unknown amount of violence, determined,not by us, but by the dtermination of the bourgeouis to cling onto their power.It is not for any programme or 'sermon on the mount' to determine the future course of human liberation, the important , in my view, purpose of A+P is to tell the TRUTH about where we are and what we want. Gentle is worried that we may isolate ourselves from the rest of the population if we include Revolutionary phrases, may then I suggest that we drop that rather revolutionary 'Anarchist' from the name of the group?

The real important thing is not to lie about what we are about!

This is how Manny Neira put it in red star 2:

'You recieve an invitation to dinner from friends. ON arriving, you find dimmed lights and candles, but you were expecting those. No, what really catches your attention is the live goat strapped to the dinner table. YOur friend welcomes you, resplendant in a black cloak and carrying a dagger, and offers you a glass of red wine witha somewhat heavy consistency.

" Um, yes, yes, the cars running fine.... look you seem to be holding some kind of black mass."

"Oh yes, we didn't mention that, it tends to put people off a bit."

Now for all I know, dear reader, under such circumstances you might leap injoyfully screaming the names of the dark angels, I'm guessing, though, that you'd leave.

To put it simply, revolutionaries should not be dressing in reformist clothes because they believe workers 'might be put off' by revolutionary politics. First and foremost, it is a deceit. Fail to convince someone for the case for revolution today, and you may still be able to tomorrow. Convince them that you cannot be trusted to argue your politics openly and honestly today, and you may find that you can never convince them of any thing again.'

Gentle Revolutionarys final point is that we may be making a bold statement, whilst not taking the risk that face foreign comrades in being faced with deportation. Revolutionary posturing is sadly a common malady across our movement,and if this is what this is all about then I would be in full agreement with him/her. But I am afraid that ther are two problems with the argument that GR puts forward: the first, is purely one of fact, Blair and his cronys are now talking of trying those who advocate violence for treason if they are british citizens, and deporting them if not, the risk for 'home grown' revolutionaries is there, but the real risk is not the application of the law, but the fear of the law

IF we hide our true political beliefs in order to avoid the eyes of the state, we do not protect our foreign comrades, but in fact, we make it easier to pick them off one by one as we hide and do not speak out.

Secondly, Gentle Revolutionary is seriously mistaken in believing that the state considers a pacifist, non violent revolution, as anything but the 'ultimate' violence, in the eyes of the capitalist class, to take away its property, its wealth, is THE act of violence, therfore gentle revolutionary will find themslves sharing the same cells as the rest of us.

In addition to this I think there is a mistake in thinking that what is written carries more weight than what is done.

The state does not pour over our A+P, scrutinising our published work before deciding whevther we contitute a risk to the safety of the state. It is our actions that count.

many years ago when I was living in Leeds some young asian lads were arrested by the cops for defending their community from an attack by nazis, I approached a member of a trot sect who worked at the same place as me and asked him if his comrades would be coming to the picket of the police station that afternoon.

" No, we won't as we don't want our photographs taken by special branch" was the reply of this brave member of the vanguard.

My reply was to suggest that anyone making a claim to be a political activist would be outraged NOT to have thier own dossier at special branch.( but in rather pithier language)

Remember the state has bugged, harrassed, imprisoned and even killed pacifists that threaten their interests in the past, it has no qualms about using violence in its own defence and does not hold its blows because we eschew violence ourselves.

My apologies for such a long post, I feel that Gentle Revolutionarys points deserve a proper and full reply

to be fair im really don't see the point in a prophetic "come the revolution there will be much bloodshed and the sins of the bourgeois will be washed away on a crimson tide of their blood." But I would take issue with the wish to deny that violence may well be necessary. I mean no one in their right mind is actually a total pacifist. Perhaps it was the manner in which you brought it up that has caused offense ie to avoid harrassement from new anti terror laws.

Then again i have issues with tiny lil groups pontificating upon what the great proletarian horizon has over it. I mean surely in some ways a revolutionary period would be less violent than the everyday violence of capital. Perhaps we have no need to define the self defense of the working class as violence.

I don't know im rambling abit.

As for Dan being from Croatia and hence has more of an issue with "romantic violent" rhetoric, well i can understand where he is coming from, eg the class war stickers with a cross hair over a cop may be tongue in the cheek in Britain but in Northern Ireland they are a tad less funny.

Exactly, which is the reason why I think such an explicit statement isn't necessary (while being detrimental for various reasons I've already mentioned).

I can't say I came across many of them. And I don't think we have to fear their infiltration. I would actually be in favour of making the website look a little bit less "militant", as it has that "black fetish - prophetic style".

In any case, we can distinguish ourselves from them by stressing our commitment to class struggle as the only correct way towards the liberation of humanity, without predetermining the form in which that class struggle will take place.

I always thought thought that principle was pretty well worded. Doesn't it just say 'revolution will be a time of violence as well as liberation'? Which is true isn't it?

I think it's a principle. Violence is inevitable in a revolutionary situation and it shows we recognise and accept this.