ANARCHIST QUESTION AND ANSWER
Q. What is the fundamental difference between anarchism and other political
ideologies?
A. There are many political and social movements in the world who claim
they want to establish an egalitarian community. Some want to do this by
seizing State power, others believe they can do this by being elected into
office. Anarchists are the only ones who believe you can only establish an
egalitarian community by abolishing the State. Anarchists want to establish
an egalitarian community because only by greeting such a community, will
individuals have the freedom to develop to their fullest potential. Whether
who controls the State is determined by elections or force is not the
critical issue. The critical issue is the State itself. Who controls the
State is not the main issue. What is important is that the State apparatus
gives individuals and small groups the power to determine what will happen
to millions of people. Whether people elect or donıt elect their leaders is
not the central issue. The central issue is what power are leaders able to
exercise. Saddam Hussein and George Bush are two sides of the same coin.
Both control the State apparatus and are able through their decisions to
effect the lives of the tens of millions of people.
If they did not exercise control over the State, what they said and did
would not have such a profound impact. What sets them apart from us mere
mortals is their ability to use the State apparatus to further their
individual agendas. Irrespective of who seizes power or who is elected to
office while the State exists, the threat of having tyrants exercising
power is a real possibility. Concentrating power in the hands of an
individual or a group of people is a mistake. Concentrating power in the
hands of the State gives individuals the mechanism by which they can
implement their ideas.
Anarchists overcome their potential problems by abolishing the structures
which give individuals power. Direct democracy leads to the initial
weakening of the State apparatus and would in time lead to its eventual
abolition. Placing power back in the hands of individuals undermines the
need for a centralised State apparatus. The destruction of centralised
authority will lead to the creation of decentralised structures that will
allow people to make and carry out decisions without the need for rulers.
Chaos is not the inevitable consequence of the destruction of the State.
Institutions will be established which will allow people to carry out the
functions carried out by the State, without having to face the problem that
individuals or groups could seize centralised power and re-impose their
will on the people.
ACTION BOX
PUBLIC MEETINGS
In these days of instant communication, very little emphasis is placed on
the role of public meeting in the struggle for egalitarian social change.
The internet, mobile phones, fax machines and even letters and books may be
important as far as communication is concerned, but they run a second best
when it comes to putting together the nuts and bolts you need to create a
vibrant extra parliamentary movement. Public meetings can be that "je ne
sais quoi" (pardon the mutilated French spellings) that helps to form the
bonds that are needed to create lasting useful creative organisations. The
Anarchist Media Institute has designated 2003 as the year when we will try
to revive the public meeting. During this year we will attempt to host a
series of public meetings about anarchism within metropolitan Melbourne and
its outer envoirns. We encourage other anarchist groups to reclaim the
public meeting as a tool for communication and organisation. The Anarchist
Media Institute encourages readers of the Anarchist Age Weekly Review and
people who listen to the Anarchist World This Week who live within a 100
kilometre radius of the Melbourne G.P.O., to contact us if they want to
organise a public meeting about anarchism in their area.
If they can organise the space, we can provide the speakers, help with the
cost of the venue and help to advertise the meeting. Currently we are
helping one group to hold a monthly public meeting and have the energy and
resources to hold at least another 3, possibly 4 public meetings a month.
If you donıt live within a 100 kilometres of the Melbourne G.P.O., we can
still help, although we cannot provide speakers on a regular basis, we may
be able to send out speakers for a special meeting. We can use the
Anarchist World This Week, our radio program that broadcasts across
Australia on the National Community Radio Satellite and the Anarchist Age
Weekly Review, a national anarchist newspaper to advertise public meetings
and events.
So instead of sitting there wondering why the revolution has passed you by,
do something about it and organise an anarchist public meeting in your neck
of the woods. Even if the meeting is unsuccessful, you at least know that
youıve given it a go. Waiting for the corporate and State dominated media
to take up an issue, is tantamount to waiting for pie in the sky. If you
think about it, why would you expect the very people youıre agitating
against, to raise one finger to help make the new world in your heart a
reality.
Think about it, want to introduce anarchist ideas to your community, give
us a call or email or telephone us and weıll see how we can help. At the
very least, we can offer advice on how best to tackle the problem. SEIZE
THE MOMENT, GHANGE THE FUTURE.
AUSTRALIAN RADICAL HISTORY
THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH SIX FOOT OF IT.
The seamenıs union was about the only union that didnıt make wage claims
during the First World War. For their troubles, seamen who become sick
during the 1918 post war epidemic (which incidentally killed more people
worldwide in a few months than died during the whole of World War One) were
offloaded at the first port of call and were expected to find their own way
home at their own expense.
In December 1918, the Seamen Union demanded a 50% wage increase and went to
arbitration expecting that their loyalty during the war would be rewarded.
Unfortunately the seamen had forgotten the first lesson of capitalism, the
meek shall inherit the earth, their demands were rejected by Justice
Higgins. For their sacrifices, he rewarded them with an 11% wage rise.
Faced with this unsatisfactory situation, the seamen elected a militant
unionist, Tom Walsh, as their Federal Secretary.
As soon as he was elected, Walsh held a delegateıs conference to find out
what the seamen wanted. The list of demands drawn up by the seamen included
a minimum wage of 14 pounds a month, a shorter working week, a 6 hour day
while in port, decent food and living conditions and adequate compensation
in cases of sickness and death as well as a place on the ship to wash their
clothes. The employers and the government rejected the seamenıs claims. The
seamen went out on strike and ships began to pile up at Australian wharves.
Although the government offered the seamen arbitration, they refused. Tom
Walsh issued a challenge to the government to imprison him for refusing to
attend arbitration talks. The government obliged the courts, sentencing him
to 6 months jail for his efforts on behalf of the seamen.
The jailing of Walsh led to a complete shutdown on Australian ports. The
seamen were adamant they would never return to work until they achieved
justice. Reeling from the effects on the economy, the government relented
and met most of the seamenıs demands. Although they had won the dispute,
they refused to return to work until Walsh was released from jail. Faced
with economic collapse and mass layoffs, other unions placed pressure on
the seamen to return to work. As soon as they returned to work, Tom Walsh
was released as "an act of leniency" on the part of the government.
Itıs interesting to note that as the Australian shipping industry is
destroyed by the Howard government and the Australian shipping trade
becomes dominated by foreign interests, most of the demands Australian
seamen won in 1918 have been overturned. Today, many seamen working on
ships, flying flags of convenience, work under conditions that rival those
found at the beginning of the 20th century. History has shown over and over
again that itıs only those who seize the moment and take militant action,
who have any hope of obtaining justice in a capitalist society.
BOOK REVIEW
"OBSOLETE COMMUNISM"
"The Left Wing Alternative",
Daniel Cohn-Bendit Gabriel Cohn-Bendit, Translated by Arnold Pomerans, 1st
Published 1968, Library of Congress Catalogue Card No.69-18158. France 1968
created a new chapter in the history of revolution. Although the events of
May and June 1968 failed to dislodge the French State, they destroyed the
credibility of communism as a revolutionary ideology. The lesson of France
1968 that we need to remember is that radical egalitarian revolution can
occur anywhere at any time. Societies that seem impregnable have the seeds
of their own destruction growing within them. Radical revolutionary change
is not only desirable but possible, whether it occurs or not depends on
people themselves breaking the intellectual, physical and cultural chains
which bind them with the forces that oppress them. France 1968 forever
changed the idea that revolution in an industrial parliamentary democracy
is impossible. Daniel and his brother Gabriel put their thoughts down on
paper in a 5 week period just a few months after the tumultuous events of
May/June 1968, to leave a permanent record of why they believed revolution
was possible in an industrialised parliamentary democracy and more
importantly why May/June 1968 failed. They have convincingly shown that at
the very moment the State had been stripped of all its credibility, the
traditional Left joined with the State to defeat those who challenged it.
The book was written to expose those who preach radical change but want to
seize State power and replace one ruler with another. The State, the Trade
Unions and the authoritarian left have much more in common than people
realise. The 1st section of the book examines The Strategy and Nature of
the Revolutionary Movementı looking at the role both the students and
workers played in the upheaval. The 2nd section deals The Strategy of the
Stateı in dealing with this challenge to its authority. The 3rd section
examines the counter-revolutionary role of the French Communist Party, a
party that was more interested in securing votes at elections than in
joining a movement for radical revolutionary change it didnıt control. The
final section 4th section deals with "The Strategy and Nature of
Bolshevism" as a political ideology.
"Obsolete Communism" is as important a book in 2003 as it was in 1968.
Although communism is no longer a viable political ideology, the
traditional and the post 1968 Left, still cling to the idea that
revolutionary change comes from capturing State power not abolishing it.
"Obsolete Communism" continues to be a useful addition to revolutionary
literature because it has shown that there is very little difference
between the government, opposition political parties and institutions and
organisations that attempt to represent workerıs interests. Australian
activists only have to cast their minds back to the Crown Casino blockade
in Melbourne on Sept 11th 2000, to understand that governments,
oppositions, trade unions, the State and corporate sector have much more in
common than people realise. "Obsolete Communism" should be available from
your local library. If you canıt find it there, try a second hand bookshop
or one of those old Left wing bookshops that still manage to eke out a
living in Australia.
http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=41324&group=webcast
