Glasgow Anarchist Dayschool

104 posts / 0 new
Last post
henry
Offline
Joined: 12-09-04
Oct 26 2004 12:15

Nick mentioned that 27% of the people support the SNP. But all they are voting for is a change of ruling class. The Labour fly under a 'socialist' banner, the SNP under a nationalist banner, the SSP under a Sheridan banner, the Conservatives under a British banner, the Greens under a environmental banner.

I believe in independence, but independence from the capitalist system.

Anarchists should follow a patrotism that is not based on cultural values and phoney nationalism, but is a world patriotism based on breaking down artificial and pychological barriers and embracing the world. These are the barriers which are build up by Statism and elites to keep the working class of the world from uniting.

I think I understand the type of nationalism Nick might be talkin about. It is the type born of affiction of the environment, customs and language people are born into. But any politcal embrace of nationalism, or cultural identity is dangerous and should not assimalated into anarchist thought. Just look how damaging bigotry based on cultural/religious identity has been to Ireland and parts of Scotland.

And throughout history, elites and states have used nationalism, cultural identity, ethicity, race and other phooney ideals, to create divisions in the working classes.

I don't suppose there is any harm in discussing culture and nationalism, but to be honest I don't see the point.

nuclearcivvy
Offline
Joined: 8-10-04
Oct 26 2004 21:59

Ehem. Henry. SSP under the socialist republican banner. Be fair. That's 100,000 voters you just accused of being a personality cult.

AnarchoAl
Offline
Joined: 29-05-04
Oct 27 2004 09:44
Quote:
This Dayschool seems to be the candidate for one of the worst anarchist gatherings ever had in Scotland - and this now when the G8 is about to come and we should really get off our asses and do stuff practically instead of mouthing off about such irrelevant nonsense.

Anyway, I looked forward to invite activists from England to the Scottish Anarchist Dayschool, but with workshops like that, it is too embarrasing, as they are probably be blamed as being the "oppressor" or something, similar as when the "Dissent!" gathering happened in Edinburgh, where people were attacking the facilitators for being all from England, whilst none of the mourning complainers showed any interest in working on the agenda, invitations, planning of the meeting beforehand.

Ab, I find some of this personally quite hurtful, and other parts (such as my problems with the Dissent! process) you seem to have completely misunderstood. I'd appreciate it if you'd talk to me in person if you have a problem with my behaviour, instead of ranting on a messageboard and causing false impressions to be spread.

I'll phone you soon and try and get this sorted.

henry
Offline
Joined: 12-09-04
Oct 27 2004 12:32

To nuclearcivvy. I agree that the SSP are after a Socialist republic, but my little jibe about following 'Sheridan issues' was just a little joke.

OR WAS IT?

I went to a Socialist meeting once, and it was "Tommy this", and "Tommy that", and "Tommy did this", and "Tommy said that", and "Isn't Tommy just great". Eventually after two meetings I said "Tommy-bollocks", and left.

Back to the debate about Anarchist/ nationalism. The nationalism idea is just another method for elites to manipulate the masses, whether for defence, or attack, or to get into power. Nation-states are just products of elites/States in order to create artificial borders and consoliate there own power.

What I would expect from anarchist dayschools is a attempt to educate people on anarchist issues. The stuff happening in Argentina, Mexico and elsewhere is more relevant that nonsense about cultural/nationalist identity. For history lessons how about a intro to different anarchist thinkers, or some lessons on the Spanish Civil War, or the collectives in Ukraine, or a general history of anarchism. You could bring in some Scottish stuff such as the radical uprising of 1820, which although not anarchist still has a lot of valuable lessons for any grassroots revolutionary group.

Or how about some practical stuff about how to create autonomous communities within urban Scotland.

Just a thought.

nuclearcivvy
Offline
Joined: 8-10-04
Oct 27 2004 13:40

There's truth in that Henry. It's still a Glasgow-centric party, but it's no longer a one man band.

There's little desire to address issues round out-dated thinking too. Lots of their proposals would only work in the past, before the massive industries were decimated. They say they'll re-industrialise. When you suggest that may not be in the best interests of the environment or the workers, but would do the global elite no harm, they look at you funny and spout 100 year old ideological dogma.

They get involved locally though, and that's how I got involved with them. Whoever's actually doing stuff. That's who I'll come alongside, but blind loyalty is for sheep, and sheepdogs. I've seen the SSP active at Dungavel, the ESF, Faslane, and over hospital closures. I respect that.

The anarchist dayschool has to take into account local feelings, surely. There are people who don't appreciate being lectured about fossilised dogma. I agree the Mexican/Argentinian/Venesuelan current affairs might be a useful area to cover, but the rest sounds dusty to me, and probably the people who'd go too. Independence is a looming issue here. Everyone can see it on the political horizon now. If you turn your back on it, the people will rightly see you as being sidelined in the current political landscape.

The SSP has embraced the call for independence, because they can see that although they do not hold with nationalism and espouse internationalist politics, it is nonetheless an inevitable step on the way.

Refusing to participate in the formation of that independent Scotland means you have no say in it's composition.

I'd lay out a system of human interaction for you. It involves accepting that cities were a bad idea, and setting a maximum group number of 256 people in small autonomous communities, with a minimum of interaction, and no say over other groups appart from a mediating council, with only a mediating role, over 20-30 groups.

Each group of 20-30 groups, has a small town, in which, trade, education, healthcare and specialist skills would be available. Switching from group to group would be made easy here, with the equivalent of a jobcentre/housing dpt in each town.

You can probably fill in the rest for yourself. Autonomy and self determination would be the name of the game, so that would be appropriate. Rules only epply within groups. If you don't like the rules, leave for another group with different rules, or seed your own group.

Aggression towards a neighbour gets the other 20-30 groups down on you. Sanctions would always work, unless that group was willing to go out of the area to trade. If war ever did occur, it would be never be more than 5,000 on either side, and what community would willingly devote their energy to making weapons when they are personally responsible for their own needs.

Anyway, that's all a pleasant daydream.

nuclearcivvy
Offline
Joined: 8-10-04
Oct 27 2004 16:10

PROPAGANDA!

You're talking the people down. Assuming we can't do what the people of Spain, Venezuela, Georgia etc have done recently!

Where's that coming from?

Who's agenda does that serve?

You keep talking us down, and denying our common identity. You keep declaring the all powerful might of capital. We'll get on with showing you how real change can be achieved NOW.

By the way, cellular structures know no bounds. What I described is organic and without bounds. You show your simplicity by not seeing how it enevitably becomes a fluid whole. The most efficient structure known. vastly reducing our need for technology but in no way precluding it's use. It would also reduce our vulnerability to exploitation from corporate greed, which has become technology's primary use.

More abuse. More bullshit. Don't you ever tire?

If you want to wait for the "Anarcho-fairy" to wave her magic wand, and create your utopia from scratch, then go stand over there with the other dreamers, and let us get things changed here and now in whatever way we can, instead of obstructing all progress with your unrealistic mush.

nuclearcivvy
Offline
Joined: 8-10-04
Oct 27 2004 16:25

They did shit. What have you ever achieved Mr mouth?

kevin
Offline
Joined: 26-08-04
Oct 27 2004 17:35

Hate to butt in here, but I like nucivvies idea about setting up autonomous cells across the country, it might be a pipedream, but why not try it. But I don't understand why he thinks discussions at a dayschool about struggles in Mexico, Argentina, Venicezala, are not relevant. We need to learn how other struggles develop in other countries in order to maybe learn from them. It's called education.

I think the dayschool discussion about the fishing industry would be relevant, because it is a current thing.

As for the SSP, they do get involved in a lot of important stuff, as does the Greens.

What is wrong with revol68? He seems to have a chip up his arse.

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
Oct 27 2004 21:24
nuclearcivvy wrote:
I'd lay out a system of human interaction for you. It involves accepting that cities were a bad idea, and setting a maximum group number of 256 people in small autonomous communities, with a minimum of interaction, and no say over other groups appart from a mediating council, with only a mediating role, over 20-30 groups.

Each group of 20-30 groups, has a small town, in which, trade, education, healthcare and specialist skills would be available. Switching from group to group would be made easy here, with the equivalent of a jobcentre/housing dpt in each town.

What the fuck? What is it with anarchists who think an essential feature of anarchism/libertarian communism/socialism/whatever is small communities? Personally I like cities and large towns and don't see why I'd feel any different after the downfall of capitalism. There's no direct link between exploitation and mass communities, and more than there is with technology. And a 256 people maximum? Not only is that an incredibly tiny number (about 50 or 60 houses maybe) but the whole idea of setting an upper limit to community sizes is a farce - even capitalist states don't go to that degree of nuttiness. What are you going to do if the birth rate or people moving in in one place pushes the population over the limit? Force some other people to move out?

I don't see why there would be any need to be any major difference in the dispersal of the population to there is under capitalism. Obviously a few exceptions like people crowded into shanty towns or aristocrats rattling around mansions. There's no reason why we shouldn't still have a mix of cities, towns and villages, just with much more flexibility and global co-operation.

No wonder your tactics for bringing about revolution are a bit crap, your idea of a post revolutionary society is full of shit too.

nuclearcivvy
Offline
Joined: 8-10-04
Oct 27 2004 23:21

You say the small cells idea is lunacy, nutty, a farce.

I say cities are those.

The only difference is I have evidence for what I say.

I also have evidence the cellular system works. The cities system evidently doesn't. They work like a pyramid schemes. Heirarchiess have limitations. In fact they can be shown to be directly responsible for all the social ills you are claiming to be against. Cities are the ultimate corruptors, where predators feed on the weak, and new ways to rip us off or enslave us are devised. But you like cities presonally, so that's OK.

Could it be, you know you couldn't hide in a community like that, and would have an anonymous "Them" to blame. When you are in a group that size, there's enough to find a volunteer, and not too many that you can't recognise everyone and get to know their names. You all pull together. Any bigger than that, and factions are enevitable.

These organic cellular groups would seed like you'd expect them to seed redyred. Do I have to do the thinking for you? Explain the birds and bees perhaps? Heck, I'd draw you diagrams if I thought you were interested, but you demonstrate you are not serious by not even thinking about the possible answers. How do YOU think they's seed new groups?

Are you sreriously saying you can't see any of the obvious benefits or are you just being bloodyminded?

Ironic when you tell people the cause of all their problems, they find it's something they rely on, and reject it as the cause.

This solution directly addresses the main problems we face as a species. (Military, economic and environmental.) You just call it nutty, and see no reason why the capitalist system of city states using military and economic leverage to make rural dwellers subsidise their inefficient choice of living errangements. Cities would collapse anyway if there wasn't exploitation of the rural dwellers.

We should examine the origins of cities. You'd see the origins of war, injustice, despotic rulers, religeon, slavery etc. This is what you are defending.

Do you know any city that wasn't founded for military economic or religeous reasons?

Can you balance the books so that cities don't cause a huge drain on resources and create logistic and beurocratic nightmares for us all to pay for? You guys are so hung up on nations, you can't see that cities are the real machines of oppression.

redyred, your kind of revolution would be like revol's huh? Instant overnight capitulation of capitalism, but everything's basicly the same, only arranged fairer. You wouldn't need to address the underlying causes, and it'll never get corrupted again. Yes?

I suppose you'd keep petrol prices the same too. roll eyes

The truth is, you would both be quickly seen as unhelpful dead weight, and asked to leave. You can go seed a new community, based around nihilistic cynicism and never making constructive comments.

Have you people really thought through these things, or do you simply react? I've been posting for a week or so now, and there's so many things you guys seem to be blinbdly accepting from the booksmart lot.

I speak deliberately and slowly. I never talk about shit I've only heard opinions about. I think everything through, and investigate for myself.

I'm not afraid to express my opinions cos I know where I stand, and I ain't relying on some "Orthodox" version of things.

You just defended the source of all our ills. Explain yourself if you can.

nuclearcivvy
Offline
Joined: 8-10-04
Oct 28 2004 01:27

Not able to rebutt any of it then?

As I said in the last post, I'm not afraid to let anyone know what I think, and why.

You?

Nick Durie
Offline
Joined: 12-09-04
Oct 28 2004 09:02

I don't think there's any eveidence to show that small is better nuke, and I think you go off the rails when you assert that there is irrefragable evidence and yet fail to quote it.

I agree with redyred here, altho I think he could have been more sensitive, anarchism is not about small communities and technological backwardness but about a more rational system that is built on the brotherhood of man, international co-operation and the communalization of property. I personally think cities should be organized, roughly, into smaller management units but that that doesn't require any moving around of buildings per se. For example I live in Glasgow, which is probably to big to be one self-managed unit, but 256 is abitrary, and to me sounds very lonely and inimical to the socialist ideal.

I also don't think it's helpful folks to say that someone "discredits their politics" because they say something you don't agree with. Ideas are not an digital system, or an on/off switch (if the red light goes on you agree - if not they're a fucker and must die). We live in a nasty place at the moment and many peoples ideas are not fully formed, their practices not fully communist. Things change, but not simply by asserting that someone is a fucker.

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
Oct 28 2004 12:00
nuclearcivvy wrote:
You say the small cells idea is lunacy, nutty, a farce.

I say cities are those.

The only difference is I have evidence for what I say.

I also have evidence the cellular system works. The cities system evidently doesn't. They work like a pyramid schemes. Heirarchiess have limitations. In fact they can be shown to be directly responsible for all the social ills you are claiming to be against. Cities are the ultimate corruptors, where predators feed on the weak, and new ways to rip us off or enslave us are devised. But you like cities presonally, so that's OK.

Could it be, you know you couldn't hide in a community like that, and would have an anonymous "Them" to blame. When you are in a group that size, there's enough to find a volunteer, and not too many that you can't recognise everyone and get to know their names. You all pull together. Any bigger than that, and factions are enevitable.

These organic cellular groups would seed like you'd expect them to seed redyred. Do I have to do the thinking for you? Explain the birds and bees perhaps? Heck, I'd draw you diagrams if I thought you were interested, but you demonstrate you are not serious by not even thinking about the possible answers. How do YOU think they's seed new groups?

Are you sreriously saying you can't see any of the obvious benefits or are you just being bloodyminded?

Ironic when you tell people the cause of all their problems, they find it's something they rely on, and reject it as the cause.

This solution directly addresses the main problems we face as a species. (Military, economic and environmental.) You just call it nutty, and see no reason why the capitalist system of city states using military and economic leverage to make rural dwellers subsidise their inefficient choice of living errangements. Cities would collapse anyway if there wasn't exploitation of the rural dwellers.

We should examine the origins of cities. You'd see the origins of war, injustice, despotic rulers, religeon, slavery etc. This is what you are defending.

Do you know any city that wasn't founded for military economic or religeous reasons?

Can you balance the books so that cities don't cause a huge drain on resources and create logistic and beurocratic nightmares for us all to pay for? You guys are so hung up on nations, you can't see that cities are the real machines of oppression.

redyred, your kind of revolution would be like revol's huh? Instant overnight capitulation of capitalism, but everything's basicly the same, only arranged fairer. You wouldn't need to address the underlying causes, and it'll never get corrupted again. Yes?

I suppose you'd keep petrol prices the same too. roll eyes

The truth is, you would both be quickly seen as unhelpful dead weight, and asked to leave. You can go seed a new community, based around nihilistic cynicism and never making constructive comments.

Have you people really thought through these things, or do you simply react? I've been posting for a week or so now, and there's so many things you guys seem to be blinbdly accepting from the booksmart lot.

I speak deliberately and slowly. I never talk about shit I've only heard opinions about. I think everything through, and investigate for myself.

I'm not afraid to express my opinions cos I know where I stand, and I ain't relying on some "Orthodox" version of things.

You just defended the source of all our ills. Explain yourself if you can.

It's class.

henry
Offline
Joined: 12-09-04
Oct 28 2004 12:18

i think everybody is being a bit unrealistic here. Nuclearcivvy made a suggestion about how to set up autonomous communties within urban areas. He suggested 256 as a starting number and not a limit, and anyway there is no way Glasgow is going to be able at this moment to come up with such a high number as 256. If we were going to start such cells then it is common sense that we would have to start small. Every movement starts from a small base, and then tries to reach out to a larger base.

I simply asked a question about how to set up autonomous communities, because I don't know. I'm talking about how from scratch a group would try to set up such a community, and what kind of work and knowledge would people need. I was looking for practical advice, and nuclearcivvy tried to express a opinion and forward some ideas, but everybody else seemed to opportunity to attack his ideas whilst not coming up with any viable alternatives.

The reason I am asking is because the only true independence a anarchist can seek, starts off in his/her own communities. I believe in independence, but to seek independence through one of the political parties, whether SSP, SNP or whatever might change the political class but it does not guareentee true freedom for anarchists.

But even so, in this day and age it is not practical to support any one of the independence parties because none of them are going to wrest power from the Labour/Liberal Democrats. They will hold power for a long time, so if we are to practice our own forms of anarchism we need to start giving thought to trying to build autonomous communities, or else we are going to continue to be nothing but mouths full of ideas but nothing else.

That means we need forums like this to express ideas that lead to action, and not as a forum to verbally abuse friends.

And also, could you cut out the sweary words. The library does not show posts if they show very bad language.

nuclearcivvy
Offline
Joined: 8-10-04
Oct 28 2004 14:46

Small communities can be founded round many ways of life. All it takes is a dozen or so people to spot a few niches and opportunities to take advantage of. I don't think they need to be standardised and defined in advance by some governing body. Let's get them started, then people can try to confederate them afterwards if people are daft enough to let them.

My utopia was a pipedream under idealistic conditions. Reality would dictate expedient moves. The number 256 was chosen because our brains can just about handle retaining that level of personal info. It's also easily divided exactly, and that could be important in a sharing community. The number's otherwise arbitrary, and could only be used as a guide, but it would mean four tiers of community could cover the current world population.

You can see though, ther'd always be some idiot going "Why this way? I don't understand, your having strange ideas, and it isn't exactly what's written in this book here."

The only solution for that problem is to re-institute cannibalism.

Deezer
Offline
Joined: 2-10-04
Oct 29 2004 00:06
nuclearcivvy wrote:
You say the small cells idea is lunacy, nutty, a farce.

I say cities are those.

The only difference is I have evidence for what I say.

I also have evidence the cellular system works. The cities system evidently doesn't. They work like a pyramid schemes. Heirarchiess have limitations. In fact they can be shown to be directly responsible for all the social ills you are claiming to be against. Cities are the ultimate corruptors...

Ironic when you tell people the cause of all their problems, they find it's something they rely on, and reject it as the cause.

This solution directly addresses the main problems we face as a species. (Military, economic and environmental.) You just call it nutty, and see no reason why the capitalist system of city states using military and economic leverage to make rural dwellers subsidise their inefficient choice of living errangements. Cities would collapse anyway if there wasn't exploitation of the rural dwellers.

We should examine the origins of cities. You'd see the origins of war, injustice, despotic rulers, religeon, slavery etc. This is what you are defending.

Can you balance the books so that cities don't cause a huge drain on resources and create logistic and beurocratic nightmares for us all to pay for? You guys are so hung up on nations, you can't see that cities are the real machines of oppression...

You just defended the source of all our ills. Explain yourself if you can.

Cellular structures, birds and bees, and all that are not the equivalent of human society, human interaction and human relationships. Yeah hierarchies are bad but cities are not corruptors, they aren't people, they can't think for themselves, they cannot 'corrupt' us. And thats also a pretty useless concept.

There is nothing to say that people won't decide to change the way our cities are run, in fact that would seem to a be pretty obvious requirement, given that at present they can be pretty awful places. They can also be very interesting and stimulating places.

However rural dwellers don't 'subsidise' cities - unless you are of the view that there are too many people to be fed by our agricultural produce and that production of electricity, televisions, cars, tractors and other agricultural machinery, kettles, kitchen sinks and fuck knows what amount of stuff we all need and desire that is not produced by rural toil is worthless and/or being withheld from our 'country cousins'. Look this sort or rural idyl is a recurrenty theme of nationalism and the painting of a golden age where 'we were one' and the corrupting ways of the oppressor were unknown. Its also utter bollox.

Capitalism does not organise people into city states, capitalism encompasses agricultural industry, capitalism exploits workers whether they are agricultural workers or townies working in a factory, big Mac, call centre or whatever. Capitalism would 'collapse' if it were not for the exploitation of workers everywhere - not that capitalists are just going to stop and let that happen. Capitalism and government by the few over the many are the sources of all our ills - not cities.

circle A red n black star

nuclearcivvy
Offline
Joined: 8-10-04
Oct 29 2004 02:25

The world's military intellegence agencies and terrorist organisations use cellular structure. They do that for good reasons. What do you know?

Part of any cells are you? I am. They work.

When early rulers built the first walled cities for defence, these cities had to be supplied. Soldiers had to be fed, and walls maintained. (Not to mention the king's court.) Up until then, the rural dwellers were only supplying their own needs. Using barter, and living in harmony with their environment.

Now they were expected to produce for the citizens. Locked into money, long hours, and conscription. All for the "Safety" of the city, and it's malitia. Usually, the only threat was all caused by the rivalry of the nearby city. As time goes on, the poor are drawn to cities, because the wealth is constantly drained from the country round about. Each new wave arriving is steadily more likely to get their pocket picked, or find that the beer's been watered down. Each new wave adds to the problem, and learns the city ways. that has been ongoing until today. Cities produce none of the essentials we need to live. It's a fact, that they are a net drain on resources, but make financial contributions. Well those cash rewards come at the cost of us all, and give them more to defend, with more weapons, which means more taxes. The rural dweller has a backbreaking existence for mere subsistence, while well healed city dwellers exploit town and country alike. They couldn't do it without the city though. This is a science called demography. Go investigate. Anyway, you can see it all in the beginnings of cities. Civic bodies, banks, monarchy, slavery, militrism, fraud, exploitation legal bias, environmental destruction. Little has changed in the basic arrangement. Ask any economist about it. They know what a true audit reveals about the flow of wealth.

So you see, capitalism and governments are products of cities, along with banks, monarchies, militarism, beaurocracy and legislation.

What I've been describing for several posts now is basically the tribal arrangement we lived by for aeons before cities. A system we find thriving in areas still too remote for capitalist systems to exploit.

It staggers me how many people have ridiculed them as unworkable, and declared them strange, wacky ideas. Our species lived that way, in groups of 200-300 for at least 150,000 years. Why don't they recognise their own natural state? How detatched from reality can you get? Tsk. City folk.

henry
Offline
Joined: 12-09-04
Oct 29 2004 12:41

So how do we seperate ourselves from the capitalist state? Could we occupy buildings and declare ourselves independent from state law, council tax, rent, rates and taxes? I have heard of the Paris Commune, I also believe ( although, I am not certain), that in recent times there are autonomous communes within Copenhagen.

Obviously the first step to revolution would be to organise, set up groups, with centres and dayschools to promote the message, and hopefully build up a bigger following. The Edinburgh groups use something called 'Claimants' which helps promote empowerment amongst folk hassled by the dole.

Then we could locate disused building within the cities and then take them over. To make it a relevant event all groups in all cities across the country could occupy buildings and declare independence. We would all get kicked out eventually, but such coordinated occupations would give the establishment a bit of a scare, and promote the ideas of anarchism countrywide. The press would have a great time demonising us, but we would be a lot of people curious to find out more about us.

With the lessons learned, we can do it again and again, until we are either all jailed, or the council and police decide it is not worth the cost and hassle and allow us to remain occupying the building.

This might be a idea with plenty flaws, but how else are we going to free ourselves from the state?

henry
Offline
Joined: 12-09-04
Oct 29 2004 16:43

Never mind the wit of Oscar Wilde, how about the wit of revol68? Has a lot in common with Oscar does revol68, both obsessed with sodomy. Just count how many times old revol68 has mentioned sodomy or anal sex in his posts. Poor guy needs some lovin, I think this is one deeply repressed Belfast boy. Don't keep those feelings inside luvey, don't keep suffering in silence, come on out the closet. Be a man.

Do they have Gays in Belfast, or did Paisley have them all tarrred and feathered?

bandu
Offline
Joined: 24-10-04
Oct 29 2004 17:03

YOUR RIGHT! Apart from the last post revol68 mentioned sodomy 12 times. Count them, the guy is totally fascinated by the act of gay love, and best of luck to him. Wonder if he's butch or bitch.

SUPPORT GAY RIGHTS FOR THE OPPRESSED BELFAST MINORITY. SUPPORT REVOL68 IN HIS/HER RIGHT TO PRACTICE GAY LOVE IN A DIVIDED SOCIETY.

nuclearcivvy
Offline
Joined: 8-10-04
Oct 29 2004 17:56

Sure. So long as he respects my right to listen to Jimmy Shand records, and quote Tam O`Shanter.

Deezer
Offline
Joined: 2-10-04
Oct 30 2004 01:01
nuclearcivvy wrote:
The world's military intellegence agencies and terrorist organisations use cellular structure. They do that for good reasons. What do you know?

Part of any cells are you? I am. They work.

When early rulers built the first walled cities...

The rural dweller has a backbreaking existence for mere subsistence, while well healed city dwellers exploit town and country alike...

So you see, capitalism and governments are products of cities, along with banks, monarchies, militarism, beaurocracy and legislation.

What I've been describing for several posts now is basically the tribal arrangement we lived by for aeons before cities. A system we find thriving in areas still too remote for capitalist systems to exploit.

It staggers me how many people have ridiculed them as unworkable, and declared them strange, wacky ideas. Our species lived that way, in groups of 200-300 for at least 150,000 years. Why don't they recognise their own natural state? How detatched from reality can you get? Tsk. City folk.

Apart from the speculation about revols sexuality, which while dubious really isn't anything to do with this thread, lets look at the above and the idea that some of us are detatched from reality.

I didn't actually think that nuclearcivvy was mad enough to be espousing the same sort of cellular strucutres used by military intelligence agencies and 'terrorist' organisations. There are very specific operational reasons they do this and they CANNOT be extended to any sort of social organisation that hopes to produce according to need. 'Terrorists' and intelligence agencies favour small cellular structures which are usually marked by the fact that, in some ideal setups, three cell members are known to each other, a go-between or contact who usually only knows one member of the cell is their link to the wider organisation. This contact relays orders and intelligence and collects intelligence. Someone else, a quartermaster, is responsible for the holding of and distribution of arms when needed, the cell may also have less specialist arms available to itself on a permanent or semi-permanent basis.

The structure is to protect the wider organisation should the cell, or active service unit, be captured or infiltrated. Go betweens have limitesd knowledge also in order to protect as many as possible.

Is this the type of relationship we would like to see applied to production or the direct democratic running of our communities by the people who live in them? I fucking hope not!

What sort of cell are you part of? I've been involved in quite successful collectives which were quite small and in others where 'factions' arose between much less than a dozen, let alone between, what 256 people was it.

What sort of cell are you in? A terrorist one, an intelligence agency one or is your cell really more like an amoeba?

Medieval cities and the cities which grew up with the development of capitalism and industrialisation are not the same things - the later may have been based on an already exisiting 'city' but the development of capitalism transformed cities beyond recognition.

Do we still have subsistence farming? Do you know what subsistence farming actually means?

Capitalism and governments as the result of cities, I think you may have got things a bit arse about face here. And btw where I live there aren't many who could be referred to as 'well healed city dwellers', let alone well heeled.

So you are a tribalist, go find yourself a tribe of 256 other people, if you can find that many people who could put up with you, and go an eek out a perfect little tribal existance. Preferably as far away from the rest of us as possible. But then it would have to be for it to work - and I don't think you'll be convincing many of your fellow Scots country men to go along with this particualr scheme. Detached from reality, don't think so, but I'm sure you'll go right ahead and let usa know how weak a grasp you have on that all over again.

Reality for most consists of how they get by day to day, its about the impact of redundancies, cut backs, waiting lists, injury and death at work, not having any work, having dire meaningless work, putting up with the latest shite from government, getting by on the dole or a pittance wage, fear of job insecurity, struggling to pay the bills and a multitude of other issues that we should really be working on in order to prove that at least some anarchist do actually have a grip on reality.

circle A red n black star

Deezer
Offline
Joined: 2-10-04
Oct 30 2004 01:10

And sorry but as for henry's idea well revol68 is actually right to dismiss this out of hand. Its a plan based on a largely irrelevant anarcho activist ghetto - and one that'll just perpeuate the existance of that ghetto due to the hairbrained nature of suggestions like this. Really we need to be developing our ideas in relation to actually exisiting class struggle, building up the resources of our movement and increasing our credibility and relevance of our ideas in actual working class struggle. Anything else is just substitutionist and pretty fucking infantile. Sorry to piss all over your wee daydream but it really ahs to be done.

circle A red n black star

henry
Offline
Joined: 12-09-04
Oct 30 2004 07:39

Hairbrained my suggestion might be, but I have never admitted to being a expert on any of these type of issues. I was asking a hypothetical suggestion about how to start a anarchist revolution, the reason I did that it because there seems to be lot of people on this site who spout venom at every suggestion that everybody makes, but don't seem to be able to forward any of their own suggestions or ideas.

Not exactly constructive critism is given on this post. I am just trying to learn from other people, and engage people in debate.

Racists and homophobes like revol68 are sad individuals with fuck-all else to do but stir up negative shit.

Boulcolonialboy stated that he was involved in something successful. Well why does he not tell us about this success? Give out some positive ideas. Expand by what you mean by "building up the resources of our movement and increasing our credibility and relevance of our ideas in actual working class struggle". Give examples. Everything you say sounds fuckin brilliant, but you don't give examples.

Explain to me why my plan in your opinion is based on "irrelevent anarcho activist ghetto". How else are we going to physically create communities if not by physically taking over land and property?

Are we just going to wait for the right social conditions, or are we going to create for ourselves the right social conditions.

Novices like myself are not going to become enlightened like your good self until you articulate your opinions into an actual plan of action. Until then I'm afraid all your words and opinions are irrelevant hot-air.

Nick Durie
Offline
Joined: 12-09-04
Oct 30 2004 19:39
Quote:
Really we need to be developing our ideas in relation to actually exisiting class struggle, building up the resources of our movement and increasing our credibility and relevance of our ideas in actual working class struggle.

Couldn't agree more with you on that one but i think you have to be a bit more sensitive. Sometimes mad ideas are actually quite useful, even if they are not a little bit out there; some of the best schemes and projects I've worked on have been the result of streams of consciousness or unusual ideas that have resulted in people thinking outside the box.

That said I think the anarchist movement only has a chance if it starts to get capital and resources together, works at the grassroots/taproots and links in with other folks struggles, and also avoids dogma. :red: circle A :red:

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
Oct 31 2004 09:21
henry wrote:
Racists and homophobes like revol68 are sad individuals with fuck-all else to do but stir up negative shit.

Errr... back that up maybe?

nuclearcivvy
Offline
Joined: 8-10-04
Oct 31 2004 13:51
redyred wrote:
henry wrote:
Racists and homophobes like revol68 are sad individuals with fuck-all else to do but stir up negative shit.

Errr... back that up maybe?

This thread backs that up. So do several others.

By the way; Trident Ploughshares works on a cellular system without tiny cells. It works well for them. The majority of native american first nations federate on this basis, with few problems. The constitution of workers co-opreatives often have very similar structure.. Ever heard of Fau Lun Gong? The covenanters? The black panthers?

"Medieval cities and the cities which grew up with the development of capitalism and industrialisation are not the same things - the later may have been based on an already exisiting 'city' but the development of capitalism transformed cities beyond recognition.

Do we still have subsistence farming? Do you know what subsistence farming actually means? "

Yes I do. They do still exist in remote areas. Have you heard of Babylon?

It's history makes most of what you say wrong in timeframe, and concept..

The concept I put forward is not wacky or new. You have failed to recognise something effective and in use. You dismiss an effective proven option as if it's a foolish untried idea. And surprise surprise, you put no alternative forward.

If you want to discuss cellular living in greater depth well fine, but bring something to discuss. An opposing view, an alternative, or even a constructive dismissal. If you just deny things are so, we just end up discussing your ignorance.

henry
Offline
Joined: 12-09-04
Oct 31 2004 13:52

Sure, in one of his posts he made a comment about commiting sodomy against a Islamic. So apart from being a racist, homophobe he is also a Islamphobe.

Maybe a joke but it tells a lot about his sense of humour, and your attention to detail.

henry
Offline
Joined: 12-09-04
Oct 31 2004 14:27

I will just repeat my last statement about revol68.

HE IS A RACIST HOMPHOBE AND ANTI ISLAMIC!

look up the past posts if you don't believe me. Is that clear enough? And as for the stuff about 'negative shit'; redyred, bullshitboy, revol68, have come on this thread without one positive thing to say.

You are either spouting fuckin numerous theories and critisms like typical armchair anarchists. Basically you are full of shite. Empty shells with absolutely nothing to offer the Left.

Also to Nick Durie, "Couldn't agree more with you on that one but i think you have to be a bit more sensitive."

Dear Nick, I don't want Bullshitboy's sensitivity. He can critise my opinions until he is blue in the face, because his opinion does not matter a fuck to me. He does not have opinions. He is full of rheteric and quotes, he's a fuckin talkin Anarchist dictionary.

I mean, how are we going to attract people to our movement with statements like "Really we need to be developing our ideas in relation to actually exisiting class struggle, building up the resources of our movement and increasing our credibility and relevance of our ideas in actual working class struggle."

If he can't expand on that, or offer practical examples, folk with no political experience are just going to shake their head and walk away and go back to watching popstars, or whatever.

You also state, after dismissing me as a madman, that, "I think the anarchist movement only has a chance if it starts to get capital and resources together, works at the grassroots/taproots and links in with other folks struggles, and also avoids dogma."

So by capital you mean we should continue to be part of the capital system. And all so-called communes and anarchist communities that are set up will continue to be integrated into the capitalist system. Your ideas are gradualist.

My idea, and i don't think it is mad, is about ripping ourselves away from the capitalist system and directly challenging the state and all state conventions. Off course it would not work, because in this country there are not enough people in the country with the belief that you can turn ghettoes into utopias.

Until then we will continue to be anarchists in thought but not in deed.

nuclearcivvy
Offline
Joined: 8-10-04
Oct 31 2004 15:29
henry wrote:
"I think the anarchist movement only has a chance if it starts to get capital and resources together, works at the grassroots/taproots and links in with other folks struggles, and also avoids dogma."

I agree. There's a process going on here, not a great leap forward. Anything to improve our current situations. I've never suggested we all instantly drop out of society, but like Henry, I think we should get behind anything that strengthens our communities. Anything that decentralises power, or makes us less reliant on the state. As I've said before somewhere, I think there is a concerted effort to destroy community. It's easier to have individuals react to fear, and become completely dependent on the global order governing their lives.

Soljenizin said something like "Oh that we had met them in the stairwells when they had first come for us. Oh that we had met them with knives, and rolling pins when the first come in the night. For if we had, they would have run out of secret police before we ran out of people."

The only reason they were able to do it was because their communities had been destroyed, and they only had to deal with frightened individuals. That's the key to tyrany.

If anyone knows the exact quote, please quote it here. (And at the dayschool too!)