DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Why do the world's poorest reject Anarchism?

56 posts / 0 new
Last post
censored
Offline
Joined: 27-04-04
Apr 27 2004 18:25
Why do the world's poorest reject Anarchism?

There are no third-world @ movements - save for a few small groups on the scale of Trot ones.

Why is this? Why do the colonised peoples still look to Maoist/Guevarist tactics when our rich tradition of Anarchist theory is older and wiser?

circle A circle A red n black star

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Apr 27 2004 19:02

lol, Hi again, Ern Mr. T

I'd say one reason is that Leninism of all kinds, including Maoism, is basically a 'radical' form of social democracy, and thus builds on the generations of socialist, trade union and nationalist struggle in those countries.

This also means that the Social Democrats tend to have a base in the universities (radical lecturers and students) and even sometimes in the civil service, because marxism is sometimes useful to economists...

Anarchist movements, on the other hand, tend not to develop those kinds of resources, and to get swept away, only to build up anew each generation.

I'd say the MST in Brasil have a lot in common with libertarian novements, and they've certainly not come out of theMaoist movement nor are they friendly with the Social Democrat party.

Why am I giving a sensible answer to a piss-take question? confused

Mr. T

star green black

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Apr 27 2004 23:17

Cos the various groups got funding from communist countries, at points in the past at least. The leadership of all the Maoist/Guevarist groups are basically middle class students/managers/professionals who want to be able to exploit "their own" working class better...

There were massive anarchist movements in Cuba, Manchuria, and Korea, amongst many others. However the Communist parties, together or independently of the right, CIA and fascists, went to great lengths to eliminate them...

censored
Offline
Joined: 27-04-04
Apr 27 2004 23:19

Like the Naxalite?

I love history lessons from people who use the word 'cos'...... wink

PaulMarsh's picture
PaulMarsh
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Apr 28 2004 07:33
censored wrote:
There are no third-world @ movements - save for a few small groups on the scale of Trot ones.

Why is this? Why do the colonised peoples still look to Maoist/Guevarist tactics when our rich tradition of Anarchist theory is older and wiser?

circle A circle A red n black star

I thought most people in such countries turned to religion rather than Maoism.

In Africa tribal or ethnic politics often dominate. Many of the worst cases of outright corruption/murder occur when a despot from one ethnic group is outed by some from another tribe - now its there turn to bleed the country for all its worth.

Needless to say this wealth rarely trickles down to the masses.

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Apr 28 2004 09:10

Ern, is this what will happen every time you agree to shut up on urban for cash? We could set you up your own little forum if you like...

I would suggest that the failure of the Maoist and leftist revolutionary movements to deliver the goods that they promised has lead to a shift away from those tactics for Majority-world revolutionaries. Whilst not anarchist, the Zapatistas, MST, Piqeteros etc seem to have evolved organisational forms more akin to libertarian than authoritarian socialism.

Additionally, these newer movements aren't massacring their own potential constituents like the Nepalese Maoists, the FARC etc.

What do you think Ern?

AlexA
Offline
Joined: 16-09-03
Apr 28 2004 09:33

Also of course, like Marxist-Leninism I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of the world's poorest have never heard of it...

censored
Offline
Joined: 27-04-04
Apr 28 2004 10:19

Despite many Indians having easier access to the vast amount of Anarchist propaganda written in English, and presumably some of them having access to the vast amount of free Yahoo Geocities FAQs, how come they tread the path of the Naxalite?

Pingtao - stop trying to claim everything for the Liberals...

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Apr 28 2004 10:52

Haven't the Keralan Communist Party done a good job managing capitalism?

And the Naxalites are practically dead now anyway.

Next!

censored
Offline
Joined: 27-04-04
Apr 28 2004 11:05
pingtiao wrote:
Haven't the Keralan Communist Party done a good job managing capitalism?

And the Naxalites are practically dead now anyway.

Next!

a) How big is the anarcho-liberaltarian opposition to the ruling CP in Kerala?

b) Proof?

The proof, kid, is in the pudding.

JoeMaguire's picture
JoeMaguire
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Apr 28 2004 14:14

Emma Goldman said something like anarchism could never appeal to the starving or the wretched cos they have no hope, the point of anarchists would surely to give them hope methinks roll eyes

anyway some poor countries do have a history of libertarian movements but its just its easy to see them strangled at birth by the rise of CP's and part of the USA's Coldwar stratergy of supporting extremists

Jacques Roux's picture
Jacques Roux
Offline
Joined: 17-07-06
Apr 28 2004 14:24

I think you have to draw a distinction between 'organised', theory based anarchy based on 'intellectualism' like we find in the Uk and maybe more practical, spontaneous anarchy that we may find in the developing world - ie not backed up by theory, not even reffered to as anarchy - just kinda natural.

censored
Offline
Joined: 27-04-04
Apr 28 2004 14:44
october_lost wrote:
Emma Goldman said something like anarchism could never appeal to the starving or the wretched cos they have no hope, the point of anarchists would surely to give them hope methinks roll eyes

anyway some poor countries do have a history of liberaltarian movements but its just its easy to see them strangled at birth by the rise of CP's and part of the USA's Coldwar stratergy of supporting extremists

Vanguardism then - what makes you think whitey knows best? Why not go down to Peru/Nepal/India/Philippines/Kurdistan/Turkye and 'give them hope', Joanna?

Insomniac
Offline
Joined: 28-04-04
Apr 28 2004 20:45

The poorest would like to oust the rich and place themselves in power. Anarchists (as i understand it) want equality beetween classes red n black star circle A

censored
Offline
Joined: 27-04-04
Apr 28 2004 22:06
Insomniac wrote:
The poorest would like to oust the rich and place themselves in power. Anarchists want equality between classes red n black star circle A

Fwc that Liberal crap I want the queen's head on a spike.

brizzul
Offline
Joined: 7-10-03
Apr 29 2004 00:39
Insomniac wrote:
The poorest would like to oust the rich and place themselves in power. Anarchists (as i understand it) want equality beetween classes red n black star circle A

Sorry, pal. No peace between classes. red n black star circle A

brizzul
Offline
Joined: 7-10-03
Apr 29 2004 00:57

I'm not blaming insomnia because he's only been here a little bit but I'm getting a bit embaressed. Isn't it time we split the site into:

a) Class Struggle Anarchism (Libertarian Socialist)

b) Primitivist Anarchism (Post Left)

I don't care which order but it's getting really hard constantly disputing stuff people make up off the top of their heads. Everywhere else except here and the US sees anarchism as based on (con)federalism, class struggle, working class based and direct action.

I'm prepared to accept that others here can have a different idea (and all power to them) but can't we agree that they are two different systems and stop pretending?

Ceannairc
Offline
Joined: 6-04-04
Apr 29 2004 09:09

From what I have read on here, anarchism is split into far more than just 2 types! Still we have to work together to achieve anything, short term or long term. More divisions won't help.

That being said, I still maintain that violent direct action is counter-productive to our long term goals and so has no place in anarchist activism. Everyone sees things differently I guess...

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Apr 29 2004 09:34

Brizzul:

Are any of the other trends internally consistent though? I generally just ignore them as being rants, like what that Steve111333 guy has been banging on about.

Jacques Roux's picture
Jacques Roux
Offline
Joined: 17-07-06
Apr 29 2004 10:02

Yeah i dont think splitting things up is any use at all..

Everyone has different ideas but no one has the single right idea.... I think its far to simplistic to try and split them up, for me an anarchist society can only come out of a melting pot of many different anarchist (and some non-anarchist!) ideas. Lots of different ideas appeal to different people depending on their past and how they express themselves, but i dont think we can rule out any possibilities, we have to always be open to new criticism and ideas.

As for insomniac - brizzul he didnt actually say 'peace between classes' - he said 'equality between classes' which could mean a load of different things (it just isnt very well worded) so its a bit out of order to totally misquote someone like that.

Maybe we should let him/her say what they mean but he he/she could just has well of meant the abolition of class because once everyone was equal there wouldnt be class boundaries....

coyote
Offline
Joined: 28-03-04
Apr 29 2004 14:25
brizzul wrote:
Isn't it time we split the site into:

a) Class Struggle Anarchism (Libertarian Socialist)

b) Primitivist Anarchism (Post Left)

I don't care which order but it's getting really hard constantly disputing stuff people make up off the top of their heads. Everywhere else except here and the US sees anarchism as based on (con)federalism, class struggle, working class based and direct action.

but can't we agree that they are two different systems and stop pretending?

dammit!

are you trying to force me to take sides in a dichotomy that doesn't exist?

As a "primsymp" who has stood on countless picketlines, sat thru endless strike support meetings and is a member of a trades union I think your split is not at all helpful...

PS your view on non-anglo circle A ism is not entirely accurate (actually utterly wrong but there you go...) there's plenty of dodgy prims across europe, in autralasia, hell, even in africa...

star green black red n black star

brizzul
Offline
Joined: 7-10-03
Apr 29 2004 14:33
rkn wrote:

As for insomniac - brizzul he didnt actually say 'peace between classes' - he said 'equality between classes' which could mean a load of different things (it just isnt very well worded) so its a bit out of order to totally misquote someone like that.

I wasn't quoting him. That's me speaking not him. Otherwise I would have quoted him like I've just done you, above.

rkn wrote:
Maybe we should let him/her say what they mean but he he/she could just has well of meant the abolition of class because once everyone was equal there wouldnt be class boundaries....

He did say what he meant and then I said what I meant. What's the problem, again?

AlexA
Offline
Joined: 16-09-03
Apr 29 2004 14:46
brizzul wrote:
He did say what he meant and then I said what I meant. What's the problem, again?

I think what rkn was trying to say is that bulletin boards can be scary places for newbies, especially ones not very familiar with anarchist or libertarian ideas. It can be very intimidating to be jumped on by an "experienced" poster such as yourself after your very first post!

I personally think these boards would be nicer with a bit less confrontation - I mean I know certain people can start to grate after a while, but I don't think that Insomniac is one of those people smile

brizzul
Offline
Joined: 7-10-03
Apr 29 2004 15:06
coyote wrote:

dammit!

are you trying to force me to take sides in a dichotomy that doesn't exist?

You're not going to believe me when I say that Zerzan on Bushmen and 18th Century english textile workers is brilliant. I was excited about that. I agree with Bob Black in his criticisms of Bookchin (who is statist in parts) and his Zero Work (which isn't zero work - it's playful labour, in our own time, as little as possible) stuff.

I don't want a division but it's just getting plain embaressing when people can make up idealogies that already exist. And I'll say again it's not insomniac's fault (he's just got here) but other posters (and the troll) who were the straw that broke my camel's back.

coyote wrote:

PS your view on non-anglo circle A ism is not entirely accurate (actually utterly wrong but there you go...) there's plenty of dodgy prims across europe, in autralasia, hell, even in africa...

star green black red n black star

And all those places have plenty of base unionists, wobs, anarcho-communists, self organised peasants, etc who don't let these people get away with painting real politics as anything you want it to be.

Jacques Roux's picture
Jacques Roux
Offline
Joined: 17-07-06
Apr 29 2004 17:40

Sorry brizzul - i spend my time trying to stick up to newbies as Alexa said the internet is a shit place when it comes to discussing anarchism cos every1 is always flaming each other and i caught the wrong end of the stick with your post i think.

I was just trying to say that Insomniac didnt actually say he wanted peace between classes so i got a bit confused by your post which started off "Sorry, pal"....

Thats all smile

censored
Offline
Joined: 27-04-04
Apr 29 2004 18:12
Insomniac wrote:
The poorest would like to oust the rich and place themselves in power. Anarchists (as i understand it) want equality beetween classes red n black star circle A

ahem

Jacques Roux's picture
Jacques Roux
Offline
Joined: 17-07-06
Apr 29 2004 18:13

Yes and ernie? Can you highlight the word in that post which says PEACE? roll eyes roll eyes

censored
Offline
Joined: 27-04-04
Apr 29 2004 18:20

'Equality between classes' implies that classes will remain. I'd opt for the liquidation of parasitical classes meself, by any means necessary.

But then I'm not a liberal, eh?

black bloc RESPEC'!

Jo Bloggs
Offline
Joined: 20-01-04
Apr 30 2004 11:06

Greetings comrade Lynch

Or should that be "Death to the neo-stalinist running dog of state capitalist imperialism"?

Are you aware of Zapatistas, MST, OPM in West Papua, resistance to water privatisation in Bolivia or to electricty disconection in South Africa, Neighbourhood Assemblies in Argentina.....

I'm not saying these movements are 'Anarchist' or that they haven't made mistakes. However, they seem to adopt a praxis which is closer to anarchism than Leninism and to involve lots of people down South.

Have you seen this web site?

http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/

Jo Bloggs
Offline
Joined: 20-01-04
Apr 30 2004 11:27
censored wrote:
'Equality between classes' implies that classes will remain. I'd opt for the liquidation of parasitical classes meself, by any means necessary.

But then I'm not a liberal, eh?

black bloc RESPEC'!

Fair point Ern. We should get you to write us a little Black Book so that everyone gets their theory up to scratch. Or maybe we could have re-education camps for anarchists with liberal tendancies and poor class analsysis.

Should I get re-educated for suggesting we don't have to liquidate all the members of parasitical classes? If we can bring down the system of domination we can spare the less intransigent former parasites.

Alternatively we could give the parasites their jobs back as generals in an army we use to crush the more radical elements of the revolutionary working class. wink

I think that it is quite sweet that Ern stimulates debate here. Shit stirring is a bit easier on U-75.

Augusto_Sandino
Offline
Joined: 21-02-04
Apr 30 2004 13:04

I didnt know the world's poorest did always reject anarchism. There are big syndicalist unions in south america, and anarchists in mexico.

But if you mean, "why arent there ethiopian anarchists" (for instance), i think its because anarchist unions, groups etc can be quite hard to organise. I mean, if you want to make a socialist "liberation front", you just proclaim yourself the leader, make a catchy chant and let it run, you dont have to many theoretical restraints to worry about. With anarchism you always have to bear theory in mind, which means that anarchist unions and groups only seem to arise when there are specific cultural conditions, or help from outside (like alot of south american unions were set up, or helped up, by Spanish CNT members, and Italian USI anarchists).