what kind of govt does @ organise best under?

liberal/social democratic - because then people will have no illusions of a change of gov making things better.

And usually they are slightly better anyway in terms of, well, pretty much anything.

(talking in mainland european perspective here...)

Surely a conservative government (at least by contemporary definition) works with the framework of a social democracy??

Why do you say that? I'd say none of the three main parties are social democratic, and only the Lib Dems could be called liberal now.

Oh and I'd prefer a liberal one, for the reasons given above - choosing the tories is immiserationist.

here in denmark they have a social democracy, however there is no anarchist movement beyond a punk scene. there are one or two unions which are somewhat militant but that's it. there is also a large amount of racism against (particularly middle eastern) immigrants. a small group i'm involved with made the criticism that whereas the nazi regime used racism to justify their structure, in denmark the structure is used to justify racism. there is this idea of an idyllic danish community (which social democracy plays the main part in supporting), and these nasty immigrants just won't integrate.

the average (non-foreign) dane is quite happy with the system, to the extent that punks and anarchists are victimised and sometimes beaten up, also groups who try and put up posters etc, may get beaten up by random passers by. still, people in the punkscene are quite reliant on the system, whether through welfare or student salaries.

in the 70s and 80s, govt attacks on student income helped to create a massive squatting movement which was quite powerful but has now faded into the ether.

i have a comrade from thessaloniki (where the movement is quite strong) who says that in greece people are much less wedded to the system. when you're unemployed, you have no insurance or anything so people are far more cynical about the state.

i have a belief that most states in europe are tending more and more towards the neo liberal model. even here the welfare state is slowly being dismantled. what do people think about that?

I think LibDem. I've been an anarchist under both Labour & the Tories & we've been shite under both.

ronan, are you saying that working class has to suffer loads before our ideas and libertarian communism can have any meaning?

How does one explain sweden then?

Personally i would not like to use our class as a bait, so i dont really care if improvements in our lives are made even relying on "the system" or whatever. I also think that our argumenst should be strong enough not to rely on things getting utterly shite before they would be heard.

Agree with JDMF.

Most folks on here will be fortunate in being too young to remember the vile Trotskyist cult that was the WRP (Workers Revolutionary Party), who used to trot (hoho) out the line, "Vote Tory to bring the revolution closer" line come election time.

The WRP is still around. I only remember becuase one on there candidates got 12 votes last general election. He treid to put a brave face on but it didn't really come off. Don't feel so sorry for him knowing that though.

I'd go with New Labour over the Conservatives and Lib Dems but there not a whole lot of difference.

I met one of them outside my work handing out leaflets to the students - looked about the same age as the students and didn't seem to know what he was talking about at all - although I did glean the useful information that Workers Power are all "American women; CIA stooges".

Had a short exchange with him but didn't know anything about the WRP until I'd gone home for lunch and posted on urban - when I got back he'd alreday gone so I couldn't harangue him for giving details of trade unionists to Saddam (and etc. ad nauseum)

Hi

The working class should not make demands of the government or appeal to the consciences of politicians and other bourgeois worthies. However, as Catch points out, promoting immiseration as a catalyst for change is as reactionary as any ideology proffered by the current crop of parliamentarians.

You can starve people into revolution, but the legislature subsequently installed is more likely to be to the right of social democracy than progressive. If economic security and egalitarianism is what we’re after then we should strive for them directly.

I’d venture that it’s in our best interests to systematically remove parliament’s most reactionary elements via an anti-Tory tactical vote. If we decimated the Tory party it would clear the way for us to turf out the most reactionary parts of the parliamentary left, not because we support leftist policies, but because better living standards free us up to develop an independent working class programme. Eventually, I’d envisage installing a Market Socialist puppet administration, with Catch as PM and afraser as Chancellor, with power handed over in one term to neighbourhood councils and self managed firms in a full blown left anarchist revolution.

The points that some comrades are making about the Scandinavian countries are excellent.

The continued expansion of the public sector in the UK runs against this grain. Recruiting vast numbers of otherwise unemployable middle class types into reasonably paid, and moreover, very secure jobs in public sector agencies is Gordon Brown’s masterstroke which will keep the Tories from power for many years to come.

Even stranger for those outside of Euroland. After all, they’re theoretically in charge of their own currency. The welfare state would be better supported if it performed properly. What’s more, the welfare state is a state-capitalist construct and mutates along its lines. Neo-liberalism is the product of state-capitalism and social democracy’s final convergence. Does anyone ever wonder if New Labour is vaguely Market Socialist?

Having said that, there is a difference between installing puppet administrations and entryism. Gaining utility from existing democratic institutions is one thing, defending the left of capital is another.

Anyway, solidarity etc.

LR

hi jdmf,

i certainly dont advocate any form of government as conducive to anarchist growth merely stating two alternate experiences. i'm not a structuralist. i read once that marx was in favour of free trade as the development of capitalism would obviously push things further towards revolution.

i'm sure some of the marx lovers here can clear that one up, but for me it represents a somewhat instrumental view of human beings. i think that society is composed of individuals who create structures while simultaneously being influenced by them, it certainly isnt a one way process as some people seem to think. if anarchists blame social forces for their inability to organise, make an impact then that's both self defeating and petulant. (i'm not saying this is your opinion). the failure of anarchism in denmark is a failure of people not a triumph of the system. for me anarchism springs from the nature of human beings (this is a contentious issue but let's not get sidetracked here) and so is separate from the particular form of oppression prevalent, though obviously it must engage with and challenge this. that is, i dont accept any causal inevitability between capitalism and anarchism, it might as well be feudalism, we would still struggle albeit in different ways.

i think anarchism is just generally brilliant, will cure old age, wrinkles etc and so i agree with you that we shouldnt have to wait for things to be shite for it to be a relevant set of ideas and practices. in ursula le guin's book the dispossessed she writes about a massive proletarian uprising, an ambassador from another planet is mystified by this based on the relative wealth of that nation's working class. as per usual le guin has some pretty lovely writing about why they struggle anyway (i dont own a copy so i cant illustrate). resist to exist and all that.

just the other moment i was thinking that its ridiculous that we haven't had a revolution yet, simply because anarchism is so wonderful.

anyhow, i think that ronie is right, we should maybe be looking at current trends within capitalism and see how they will influence our ability to resist. I'm too young to remember since before Fianna Fail/Progressive Dems, so I can't really say where anarchism has been stronger, though I anecdotally hear that it's been growing steadily for a while.

In my view, what is needed in Ireland is the development of some sort of culture of resistance, and the growth of solidarity between working class people. This would probably mean that we need the death of social partnership and the development of more combative unions. Perhaps present issues like the Irish Ferries can contribute to this. On this line, I think it'll be interesting to see how the IWU grows and how anarchist involvement in it will progress. Since there does seem to be some focus on migrant workers, I think that'll be good.

Anyway, back to the point. In terms of a government, I can't really see any opposition to FF/PDs that'll actually be much different. The likely combination of Fine Gael/Labour will be a strange creature and not much more progressive. I think the most important thing that can happen is social partnership going down the tubes and I think any government that'll come into power in the next election will be trying to keep that particular arrangement alive at all costs. It'd be interesting to hear some thoughts from the WSMers bout their recent endorsement of the IWU and all that hoo-haa.