đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș workers-solidarity-movement-points-of-unity.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:54:23. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Points of Unity Author: Workers Solidarity Movement Date: 18 May 2006 Language: en Topics: principles Source: Retrieved on 15th October 2021 from http://www.wsm.ie/wsm-points-unity
The WSM regularly discusses, debates and decides on what our collective
political approach is. All members take part in this process and the
results are preserved in the position papers you will find linked to
below. These papers define our collective approach, we donât require
that every member agree with every point in them but they do describe
the politics the WSM will implement.
All members broadly agree with points 1 to 9 below which outline the
core of our collective view of anarchism.
majority of society (the working class) and the tiny minority that
currently rule. A successful revolution will require that anarchist
ideas become the leading ideas within the working class. This will not
happen spontaneously. Our role is to make anarchist ideas the leading
ideas or, as it is sometimes expressed, to become a âleadership of
ideasâ.
gaining control of the power structures. This means we reject both the
electoral strategy of the social democratic and green parties and the
ârevolutionaryâ strategy of the various left groups. Instead we advocate
for direct, participatory, democratic institutions which will make the
state obsolete.
anarchist-communist or especifista tradition of anarchism. We broadly
identify with the theoretical base of this tradition and the
organisational practice it argues for, but not necessarily everything
else it has done or said, so it is a starting point for our politics and
not an end point.
for anarchist political organisations that seek to develop:Theoretical
UnityTactical UnityCollective Action and DisciplineFederalism
organisations of the working class (labour organisations, trade unions,
syndicates) where this is a possibility. We therefore reject views that
dismiss activity in the unions because as members of the working class
it is only natural that we should also be members of these mass
organisations. Within them we fight for the democratic structures
typical of anarcho-syndicalist unions like the 1930âs CNT. However, the
unions no matter how revolutionary cannot replace the need for anarchist
political organisation(s).
unions and the workplace. These include struggles against particular
oppressions, imperialism and indeed the struggles of the working class
for a decent place and environment in which to live. Our general
approach to these, like our approach to the unions, is to involve
ourselves with mass movements and within these movements, in order to
promote anarchist methods of organisation involving direct democracy and
direct action.
movement and society in general and we work alongside those struggling
against, for example, racism, sexism, religious sectarianism,
queerphobia, intersexphobia, and ableism, as a priority. We see the
success of a revolution and the successful elimination of these
oppressions after the revolution being determined by the building of
such struggles in the pre-revolutionary period. The methods of struggle
that we promote are a preparation for the running of society along
anarchist and communist lines after the revolution.
to nationalism. We defend grassroots anti-imperialist movements while
arguing for an anarchist rather than nationalist strategy
of nature, for our own basic quality of life and for the sake of other
species. This aim is not fundamentally opposed to technological
development or mass society, which are always expressions of the current
social system. Rather, we strive for a libertarian, ecological,
technology.
'1. Anarchism will be created by the class struggle between the vast
majority of society (the working class) and the tiny minority that
currently rule. A successful revolution will require that anarchist
ideas become the leading ideas within the working class. This will not
happen spontaneously. Our role is to make anarchist ideas the leading
ideas or, as it is sometimes expressed, to become a ''leadership of
ideas''.â
We're usually told that class society is a thing of the past. After all,
aren't we all middle class now? But this isn't true, and there still
very much exists a severe division between people based on property and
work, a hierarchy which is a basic fact of the economic system known as
capitalism.
In this society people are divided into the capitalist classes and the
working classes - and to some extent a 'middle class' - regardless of
how we personally choose to identify. Starkly, we live in a world of
super yachts and starving children. As of 2017 the regime of private
property has allowed 1% of the human population to own half of the
global wealth and merely 8 billionaires own as much as the poorest 50%
combined (or 3.7 billion people). Within every country on this planet
people go to bed hungry, if they even have a bed, are consistently
denied opportunities in life, and have effectively no say in the society
they live in, while others live in ease and extravagance, free to choose
their own course in life, and have disproportionate influence over what
happens in our world.
This is largely because a tiny minority are in control of what are
called the 'means of production', i.e. offices, shops, fields,
warehouses, factories, apartment blocks, natural resources, and so on.
The vast majority of us don't have the luxury of being able to live out
of our bank accounts or returns on property - most of us have to rent
ourselves as workers in order to buy back the things that we need.
Otherwise we won't survive for very long. We are the working classes:
the employees, the unemployed workers, the small farmers and street
traders.
This is an irrational situation. Human beings have far more to gain by
co-operating than competing in a vicious and endless economic cycle. The
WSM fundamentally opposes that regime, in favour of a free society with
no classes where property is held by all for the good of all:
libertarian communism. The Earth belongs to everyone and no one. This
does not mean we think that Society should own your toothbrush, or the
Community should own your guitar. That is personal property, your
possessions, which you own because you use them. That's a very different
kind of property to a businessperson owning a factory where others make
money for them, or a property developer renting out a whole estate of
houses they don't live in.
People have proposed an abundance of radical and alternative futures in
the last few hundred years. However most of them are and were very vague
or unrealistic about how to make that really happen. In contrast to
these more naive schemes, we draw on the lessons of history to find a
feasible route towards freedom. For example, we recognise the harsh
reality that the interests of these two classes canât be reconciled. If
the capitalists gain, we lose, and vice versa. Bigger profit margins
mean smaller meals, smaller rooms, less leisure time, and more stress.
That means rather than trying to exist side-by-side in the best possible
truce between the capitalists and the masses, we need to transform our
society so that the possibility of this hugely damaging social conflict
ceases to exist entirely, so there are no capitalists at all. This push
and pull between opposing social forces, our struggle for freedom in
spite of a social order constantly shaking us down and holding us down,
is called the 'class struggle'. We didn't start the class war, but we
have to fight it.
Unfortunately, the working class can't rely on the goodwill of the
capitalist class to make this happen. The capitalist class works hard
every day to keep us in our place and extract more and more profit from
our lives. This is not even because those at the top of the economic
hierarchy are all individually awful people - they aren't - but because
that is how to make money, and the market demands it. Indeed one of the
great tragedies of capitalism is how ingenuity, creativity, and hard
work, are transformed into destructive activity by anti-social
incentives. Really, capitalism is not a matter of the vicious minority
at the top and the virtuous majority at the bottom - it is a social
machine which pits human against human whether they like it or not.
As the wealth creators of this world, and the overwhelming majority, the
working class are positioned to take over the running of society.
Capitalism will be dismantled and replaced with a system of democratic
worker self-management. 'From each according to ability, to each
according to need' will be our spirit. Enterprises will be owned and
operated as by those who work there, with no bosses needed, and will be
accountable to the community and the ecosystem. They will federate
across large geographical areas to co-ordinate production and
distribution. The good things in life will be for everyone. Consumption
will happen according to need, rather than profit. Boring, unpleasant,
or dangerous, work will be automated where possible and otherwise shared
between people by agreement. Although a globally successful anarchist
revolution is yet to be won, these ideas have been put into practice
many times, most notably in the Spanish Revolution of 1936, and Rojava,
Kurdistan provides a contemporary inspiration.
In getting to this future society, unlike authoritarian socialists the
WSM refuses to take positions of power that lift us above the broad
movement and give us control over it. Instead we rely on the strength of
our ideas and the example we set to convince people. In short, we donât
make the revolution for the proletariat, we donât direct the struggle
'in their interests', and we donât govern them 'for their own good'. We
simply exist as an organisation within our class and attempt to speed up
its growth and emancipation. We do this by working within mass movements
and spreading anarchist ideas through our publications and events. That
is the role of the WSM.
The aim is not for every single working class person to identify as an
anarchist, or to join our organisation â that is impractical. Of course
it is important that we grow our organisation. But the primary aim is to
make anarchist ideas and methods the most popular and respected within
the working class, so that in the time of a revolutionary upheaval it is
anarchist ideas and methods which will determine the form of the
revolution and lead to a bright future.
'2. We reject the idea that society can be changed through 'good people'
gaining control of the power structures. This means we reject both the
electoral strategy of the social democratic and green parties and the
'revolutionary' strategy of the various left groups.'
The WSM is working towards a free, equal, democratic society. We believe
the only way to achieve this is by people taking their destinies into
their own hands, forming grassroots mass movements, and creating new
truly democratic institutions.
However, the standard political approach taken across the globe is to
gain power over already existing institutions and try to use them to
change society from above. In Ireland this is seen either in various
social democratic, socialist, or republican, parties running for
election to Stormont, the DĂĄil, county councils, and so on, or in some
republican groups seeking to stage a coup and take control of the state
by force. We reject this strategy simply because it doesn't work. The
totalitarian disasters of the USSR and Communist China show the danger
of trying to force socialism from above, while the surrender of social
democratic, green, and anti-colonial parties to capitalism worldwide
demonstrates the weakness of the parliamentary route â regrettably
confirming arguments anarchists have been making since the 19th century.
The reasons are simple. The use of an institution can only be as good as
the institution itself. You can't make a good meal from rotten
ingredients. Under capitalism, the state is trapped by the dictatorship
of the market. Further still, whether under capitalism or not, the state
is an institution fundamentally about taking power away from people at
large and giving that power to whoever the ruling elite is, whether
feudalists, capitalists, or even socialists. Lastly, our social problems
are built into the very fabric of this society. You cannot simply
legislate them away. That work has to be done 'on the ground', so to
speak, to get to the root of the problem. That is the essential
difference between 'radical' politics and reformist politics.
It doesn't matter how good the people are, seizing power over rotten
institutions doesn't work. Having leftist politicians, generals, judges,
police commissioners, and union bosses, won't address the root problems
of our society anymore than nicer CEOs will. And moreover, we would do
well to remember the wise old saying that 'power corrupts'.
The WSM has the common sense attitude of 'begin as you wish to
continue'. If we all want a society of free equals where everyone
participates, it makes no sense to start by handing control and
leadership over to a small group of people. This way of doing things
infects our organising in the present, creating a culture of hero
worship, the expectation that 'Someone Else will do it', and politics
watered-down for election time.
This is why the WSM will never run in such elections or aim to seize
state power for ourselves but will instead work at the grassroots of
unions, community, and activist groups, and take direct action. We say
imagine if all the energy put into grabbing existing institutions, in
electioneering, was put into building the independent power of the
masses to make fundamental social changes.
We see the way forward in creating new institutions which are actually
democratic. The principles are widespread and frequent participation,
that people have a say roughly in proportion to how much a decision
affects their lives, and that decision-making is from the âbottom-upâ.
Instead of ârepresentativesâ there are delegates who are mandated and
recallable - basically they have to do as we say rather than calling the
shots themselves. So, we take inspiration from societies which have had
success in implementing this real democracy, such as the Paris Commune
of 1871, the workersâ councils and peasant communes of early
revolutionary Russia and Ukraine, similarly for revolutionary Spain in
the 1930âs, the Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico today, and more recently
in the TEV-DEM system of Rojava, Kurdistan, which is arguably the
greatest ever experiment in democracy on planet Earth. A more modest
example at home is the community democracy practised during the struggle
against the water charges in the mid-to-late 2010s.
'3. We identify ourselves as anarchists and with the "platformist",
anarchist-communist or especifista tradition of anarchism. We broadly
identify with the theoretical base of this tradition and the
organisational practice it argues for, but not necessarily everything
else it has done or said, so it is a starting point for our politics and
not an end point.â
Sometimes a person associates anarchism with chaos, with a complete
disinterest in organisation, system building, and regularity. This is a
critical misunderstanding of the anarchist project. The WSM practices a
form of anarchism which strives to be highly organised and coherent,
learning as much as we can from attempts in the past to create a free
world.
The 1917 October revolution took the world by storm, it was the first
great anti-capitalist revolution which survived capitalist repression
long-term, and the fact that it degenerated into such miserable
despotism disappointed hopeful millions. Following the Bolshevik
take-over and counter-revolution in the wake of this revolution, exiled
Russian and Ukrainian anarchists asked themselves what went wrong. Two
strains of thought emerged on the perceived failures of the anarchist
movement in those countries. For the Dielo Truda group (Workers' Cause),
which included Nestor Makhno, a lack of organisational principles had
led to the general weakness and insignificant influence of anarchist
ideas despite not insignificant numbers of anarchists. They wrote a
pamphlet on this topic - what is informally called 'the Platform'.
The main contribution of the Platform document was, therefore, to stress
the importance of a shared understanding of theory and goals across any
future anarchist organisation, and a commitment to discipline and
co-operation, so that anarchists could work as a coherent force for
change.
The reality is that there is no perfect or pure struggle. Everywhere
anarchists will face reformists and authoritarians (from the left and
right) who will attempt to control or subdue struggles. Individuals
involved in these struggles will also often exhibit contradictory ideas,
or have ideas that may seem to conflict with those we wish to advocate
(many people are nationalist for example).
Against this, platformists argue that we need to be well organised, we
need to have confidence in our own ideas and we need to act on a common
programme. Being an organised anarchist means being able to put forward
a coherent strategy and enacting a common set of ideals that inspires
others to do the same. If this appears to be common sense, that is not
unusual, but these ideas remain controversial among many anarchists who
prefer looser, informal, methods.
The authors of the Platform encouraged criticism of established
positions to avoid a stagnant and conservative political culture. In
other words, they argued that dissident and minority positions are to be
considered as valuable as, and not necessarily in conflict with, the
overarching aims of an organisation that strives for unity.
The Platform is a historical document â in fact it was actually the
draft of a text meant for discussion. The WSM does not exactly follow it
due to the nature of the circumstances it arose from (1910s and 1920s
Russia and Ukraine, civil war) and gaps in its analysis (for example,
feminism, anti-racism, intersectionality). Anarchist organisation and
politics in Ireland must take its own course dependent upon our own
particular history and conditions. Moreover, anarchists should not want
or need a socialist holy book to quote scripture from. So for us the
Platform is a rough starting point, and thatâs it - however, its basic
principles remain vital and relevant.
The especifismo tradition of anarchism (think of the word âspecificâ),
which arose within the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation (FAU) came to
similar conclusions for the need of a specific, political anarchist
organisation and, in practice, working in an organised fashion within
mass movements. Although the WSM does not follow this exact line of
action (for similar reasons we don't exactly follow the Platform) it is
a tradition worth learning from and aligning with.
The Platform was largely an urgent re-statement of ideas as old as
modern anarchism itself. The WSM draws upon a long history of organised
and anarchist communist politics, from well before the Platform, right
back to the formulation of these politics in the anarchist international
of St. Imier in 1872. There formed an international workers'
organisation after the anarchists and the Marxists split in the First
International over the use of state force. Also, we acknowledge the
lessons of the Friends of Durruti (in particular 'Towards a Fresh
Revolution'), an anarchist group established in 1937 when the Spanish
Revolution was in peril due to collaboration with the government.
The WSM is a member of Anarkismo, a network of anarchist organisations
inspired by the platformist and especifist traditions - living
revolutionary traditions which continue to develop and change as the
situation requires.
'4. The core ideas of this tradition that we identify with are the need
for anarchist political organisations that seek to develop:
Federalism is an organisational structure based on âthe free agreement
of individuals and organisations to work collectively towards a common
objectiveâ. It is finding the best balance between independence and
coherence. This means, for example, that all decisions are made by those
affected by them as opposed to centralism, where decisions are made by a
central committee for those affected by them. Or that while all WSM
branches are united under a common national policy, they can make their
own local decisions. It also means that we have no leaders or officials
with higher authority than others. Rather, we have 'officers' who are
delegated temporary authority to perform certain tasks as mandated by
the membership (for instance, to be treasurer).
Theoretical Unity means simply that if you fundamentally disagree with
someone, donât be in a political group with them. This doesnât mean that
everyone has to agree all the time but there does need to be a certain
baseline amount of ideological unity â for instance in the WSM's nine
points of unity. Otherwise, basic ideological disagreements will
frequently break out and make effective organising very difficult - are
we communists or mutualists, do we work in the unions or not, etc.
Further to this, theoretical unity also means developing a more advanced
collective political understanding which carries over time. The WSM does
this formally by producing substantial 'position papers' on certain
topics (like racism, or ecology). Though it is not required to agree
with every point, these position papers represent the collectively
agreed politics of the WSM. This theoretical unity allows us to act more
decisively, to concentrate our resources and hence have greater
influence.
Tactical Unity means that the members of an organisation should struggle
together as an organised force rather than as individuals. Once a
strategy has been agreed by the collective all members should work
towards ensuring its success, saving resources and time and multiplying
our effect as individuals by concentrating in a common direction. For
example, making intervening in a particular campaign the main focus of
our collective activity, or forming a working group to host an event.
Collective Action and Discipline means that there is a minimum expected
commitment of each member, that they should take part in the collective
decision-making process and respect the decisions of the collective, and
also that the organisation is accountable to the individual.
In this manner we try to tackle some of the problems that have faced the
anarchist movement, which we believe are partly due to lack of
organisation, while at the same time being consistent with the
libertarian ideas of free association, self-management, and democracy.
'5. A major focus of our activity is our work within the economic
organisations of the working class (labour organisations, trade unions,
syndicates) where this is a possibility. We therefore reject views that
dismiss activity in the unions because as members of the working class
it is only natural that we should also be members of these mass
organisations. Within them we fight for the democratic structures
typical of anarcho-syndicalist unions like the 1930's CNT. However, the
unions no matter how revolutionary cannot replace the need for anarchist
political organisation(s).'
Throughout history the trade union movement has been a vitally important
mass movement. In the face of bitter hardship and repression - even
state murder - the downtrodden have banded together and demanded more,
driving society forwards in the process. For instance, in Ireland we can
thank the union movement for the end of child labour and for the
'weekend'. However, unions are not a relic for museums. Recent victories
for better conditions and pay are a practical proof of that, not to
mention participation of some fairly large unions in wider grassroots
political campaigns. In spite of the relative decline of trade unions in
the past neoliberal decades, their role today is still greatly
important, as long as there are zero-hour contracts, wage cuts, pay
freezes, lay-offs, unpaid overtime, long days, workplace bullying, and
capitalism itself.
In a class society, where there is eternal pressure from capitalists to
cut costs and increase profits, unions are basic self-defence for the
working class. Without them, we are isolated and fully open to attacks
on our quality of life. Also, at the most basic level, being part of a
union shows a basic recognition of the class nature of our society, the
simple fact that the employers are pitted inevitably against the
employees, that we have different interests. In fact, this is exactly
why the owning class constantly try to undermine the unions and pretend
that we're one big happy economic family.
Of course today unions are commonly ridden with bureaucracy and
conservatism, and in many cases can be considered part of the system we
are fighting against. In the biggest unions, like SIPTU, the leadership
largely calls the shots, acting as middlemen between the state and
business on the one hand and the workers on the other. Sadly, union
members are mostly reduced to apathetic and disenfranchised order-takers
who see 'the union' as something outside of themselves. Although even in
the most rigid and hierarchical unions there are exceptions to this and
popular initiatives.
This is the exact opposite of the ideals and organisational strategy of
the WSM, but also people like Jim Larkin and James Connolly who were
both staunch 'syndicalists'. Syndicalism (from the word 'syndicate') is
basically radical trade unionism. Unions are directly democratic and
actively run by the membership - i.e. from the 'bottom-up' rather than
from the 'top-down'. All officers are mandated and recallable, and there
is an emphasis on initiative and direct action. Workers organise by
industry rather than splitting up by trade (for instance, health rather
than doctors, nurses, porters, cleaners) to encourage people to stand up
for each other and to wield more social power. With this federalist
structure, large numbers of people can co-operate over large
geographical areas democratically.
Furthermore, syndicalist unions are deliberately building towards the
working class ending capitalism and taking over the operation of
society, from providing clean drinking water, to counselling, to
designing and manufacturing computers. As the wealth creators of the
world, withdrawing our work is one of our most powerful weapons. The aim
is to build towards a general strike, threatening to grind the whole
capitalist machine to a halt.
The pinnacle of syndicalism was the anarchist revolution in 1930s Spain,
where at its peak the anarcho-syndicalist CNT â the largest union in the
country â had 1.5 - 2 million members and, to give one example, ran the
collectivised transport system of Barcelona. Examples of syndicalist
unions in Ireland today are the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW)
and the Independent Workers' Union (IWU, not exactly syndicalist but
radical) which though small show promise.
However, while the WSM advocates for syndicalist structures within the
unions, we do not see building revolutionary syndicalist unions as
enough to make revolution. We need specifically anarchist political
organisations, like ourselves, which will spread anarchism.
Because of all of the above, it is WSM policy that members join a union
where appropriate. Not just radical unions like the IWU and IWW, but
ordinary unions. Not all mainstream unions are the same, or as
stitched-up as SIPTU, and there can be significant room to do good work
and influence them to become more democratic and radical. And even when
a union is poor locally itâs still the case it will be a space where we
can talk with our fellow workers and organise for our interests in the
workplace - something very much more difficult if not impossible in
non-union workplaces.
'6. We also see it as vital to work in struggles that happen outside the
unions and the workplace. These include struggles against particular
oppressions, imperialism and indeed the struggles of the working class
for a decent place and environment in which to live. Our general
approach to these, like our approach to the unions, is to involve
ourselves with mass movements and within these movements, in order to
promote anarchist methods of organisation involving direct democracy and
direct action.'
While the workplace is of course a critical site of political activity,
there is a much broader terrain on which to strive for our liberty, to
enrich our shared world. Ultimately, we want a world where all people
are free and content. And, of course, we face many obstacles to that
free world apart from challenges in our workplace, or that can be solved
by our unions. So, everywhere that we are ripped off, suppressed,
attacked, sidelined, or degraded, is a place for us to fight back and
band together with others. In a social order which thrives on us keeping
our heads down and being passive, resistance in its many forms is to be
encouraged and supported. Whether or not that resistance is as radical
or as 'pure' as we would like, we should engage, of course with our
anarchist heads screwed on. While being a purist sect on the sidelines
can feel satisfying to the initiated, ultimately it is a redundant way
to make change.
Whether itâs campaigning for free, safe, and legal, abortion, against
Church control of our schools, for free public transport, for
decriminalisation of drugs, building support for the Palestinian people
and BDS, building greater acceptance of trans people in everyday life,
protesting the Special Criminal Court and conditions of republican
prisoners, decriminalising sex work, combatting domestic violence and
rape culture, getting U.S. warplanes out of Shannon, abolishing direct
provision, keeping the far-right in its box, or running a social centre,
there are so many ways to improve our lives outside of workplace
struggle - although of course, they are linked, and unions have a far
greater socially progressive role to play than they do currently in
Ireland.
In order to affect others who are fighting against power and who
envisage a better and fairer society, we should work alongside them and
introduce aspects of anarchist organising in practice where appropriate
and possible. Through the bonds of mutual respect and comradery that
emerge in working and struggling with another person, a more open ear is
given to our perspectives which have developed within the anarchist
tradition. This is a perspective which is often not listened to by
others due to both the deliberate smearing of the word anarchism, and
because of just how different anarchist ideas are to the way our society
works today. Both through affecting the thinking of our peers and
holding a voice in the organisation and decision making of the group we
can influence groups toward non-hierarchical organising and accepting
sceptical views of all power systems and coercive institutions. It also
helps create useful solidarity between different groups and expands our
networks well beyond the WSM
'7. We actively oppose all manifestations of prejudice within the
workers' movement and society in general and we work alongside those
struggling against racism, sexism, [religious] sectarianism and
homophobia as a priority. We see the success of a revolution and the
successful elimination of these oppressions after the revolution being
determined by the building of such struggles in the pre-revolutionary
period. The methods of struggle that we promote are a preparation for
the running of society along anarchist and communist lines after the
revolution.'
Human beings are complex. We have many sides, many needs, wishes,
strengths and weaknesses, many different obstacles and opportunities in
life. So while acknowledging the huge harm caused by capitalism and the
state, our concerns naturally do not end there. The Workers Solidarity
Movement are anarchists because we want the total liberation of
humankind, the full realisation of our need and wish to fed, sheltered,
clothed, respected, in charge of ourselves, within a real community, to
be our true selves, and the rest of the rich tapestry which makes a good
life. And so we recognise that patriarchy, racism, queerphobia, ableism,
religious domination and sectarianism, xenophobia, and every way that
joy is sucked out of our lives, that we are stifled, attacked, are
important forms of oppression and marginalisation in their own right
which must be eradicated. While capitalism and the state are
instrumental in spreading these oppressions, and while these oppressions
are instrumental in sustaining capitalism and the state, they have their
own independent existence and reasons to be replaced by healthier
relations between people.
The WSMâs politics are fundamentally intersectional. âIntersectionalityâ
is a fancy word for some rather basic ideas. You can think of it as
âoverlap-ismâ instead, or perhaps a holistic approach to politics. There
are three main points, 1) that each person needs to be seen as a whole,
2) that no power system exists in isolation, and 3) that all forms of
oppression and exploitation should be uprooted at the same time. These
ideas were put together in coherent form in in 1960âs/70âs U.S.A. by
black feminists who faced problems of racism within the supposedly
universal âsisterhoodâ, and sexism within the supposedly class-united
left.
The first point refers to the fact that real people arenât cartoons. We
are each complicated and multi-dimensional. For instance, a person is
not just working class. They also have a gender (and a race, and a world
view). In general, life for a working class woman will be significantly
different than for a working class man, not only because a woman is
oppressed by sexism but because class itself is experienced differently
according to your gender.
This leads to the second point. Being precise, there is no such thing as
âgenderâ as a free floating thing. As a practical example, note how
wealthy women can afford to travel to England for abortions but poor
women often cannot. We can see here the effect of class and gender
âintersectingâ or overlapping. Notice how this example shows both that
gender is different depending on class (wealthy and poor women), but
also that class is different depending on gender (cis male workers don't
personally need abortions). Gender does have its own independent
existence in a sense, but for each person it is coloured by everything
else in their world. The same is true of any social system or
phenomenon.
The third point says two things: that single issue politics donât work,
and that no struggle is the âmost importantâ or primary struggle. The
most common case of single issue politics on the left is socialists
stating that we must focus on the âclass struggleâ because capitalism,
which tramples on all working class people, is our real priority. The
reality is that, as described above, class doesnât exist in isolation,
people arenât one-dimensional. There is no cartoon worker. In practice,
putting a priority on 'class' at the expense of struggles against
specific oppressions like patriarchy and racism means side-lining those
oppressed people in favour of what is usually the straight, white Irish,
settled, cisgender, male citizen. Saying that capitalism is the âmost
importantâ raises the question of âmost important for whom?â.
Furthermore, the idea that capitalism can be overthrown without being
part of a broader movement against oppression is false. For example, how
are the working class to succeed if over half of them (women and
non-binary people) are being repressed? All power systems are linked, or
overlap, or are part of a greater whole.
Equally we reject the liberal distortion of these ideas, unfortunately
also referred to as 'intersectionality', which advocates for fairer
treatment of all groups while under the tyranny of capitalism and the
state. Itâs the flipside of the above. Attempting to achieve our freedom
by picking away at issues without tying that into a broader project of
replacing the economic and political system as a whole will fail.
Capitalism and the state function to support and spread all forms of
oppression worldwide, keeping us divided, busy, brainwashed, and if it
comes to it, incarcerated.
The model of 'bring capitalism down, and the rest will come down with
it' is overly simplistic. Even in the Spanish Revolution, sexism was
rife among anarchists and women were compelled to organise themselves
separately to advance their rights in the Mujeres Libres (Free Women).
In Rojava today, this mistake has been learned from and gender
liberation is at the heart of the revolution. Considering all of the
above, itâs clear that we can't wait until 'after the Revolution' to
root out these oppressions or even for them to magically disappear by
themselves, they must be worn away constantly in the present. A
revolutionary movement which makes these affronts to humanity a low
priority is not so revolutionary. The groundwork must be put in today,
and after all revolution is a continuous process, to free the whole
person.
â8. We oppose imperialism but put forward anarchism as an alternative
goal to nationalism. We defend grassroots anti-imperialist movements
while arguing for an anarchist rather than nationalist strategy.â
Many places, including Ireland have a history of being occupied by
colonial powers and anti-colonial struggles that included a radical
element. For instance the role of the Irish Citizen Army, initially set
up to protect striking workers from the police, along with James
Connolly are well known radical elements within the anti-colonial
struggle here. But there are others, as far back as 1798 there were
organised groups within the anti-colonial movement that promoted a
radical, levelling democracy not just a change of rulers. There were
also reactionary elements who wanted a 'free' Ireland to have its own
colonies or who supported the slave trade or otherwise advanced white
supremacist positions. Nationalism insists on blending all such elements
together into a single movement and history in which being Irish erases
the difference between radicals and reactionaries of the past and
present.
We stand in solidarity with movements against colonialism but reject
that nationalist project that seeks to erase differences within those
movements in the name of unity. Instead we focus our solidarity on
radical anti-colonial movements and tendencies in particular those that
include elements strongly compatible with anarchism. In the last couple
of decades this is why we had a particular focus on Chiapas and Rojava
where unconventional national liberation movements had developed an
anti-authoritarian and in some respects anti-nationalist project being
implemented on a mass basis. Both cases have strong elements of
bottom-up decision making structures based on community assemblies.
There havenât been equivalent movements in radical Irish nationalism
which instead has tended to focus on the use of armed struggle rather
than grassroots decision making structures. Which is not to say such
elements have not semi-spontaneously appeared, Free Derry of 1969-72 and
the workplace occupations of the 1919-21 war both represented tendencies
that went well outside the common terrain of militant nationalism. The
task of anarchists is to discover, encourage and help build such
tendencies within anti-colonial movements rather than simply lining up
behind the leadership of such movements.
'9. Revolution must aim to bring human society into harmony with the
rest of nature, for our own basic quality of life and for the sake of
other species. This aim is not fundamentally opposed to technological
development or mass society, which are always expressions of the current
social system. Rather, we strive for a libertarian, ecological,
technology.'
When we consider the billions of barren, lifeless, planets in our
universe, it is a stark reminder of how vital the physical environment
is to the existence and flourishing of life. The proper balance and
functioning of the Earthâs climate and ecosystems is the basis of
everything good on our planet â access to food, water, tolerable
temperature, and shelter from extreme weather.
In recent decades, humans have seriously begun to unravel that crucial
balance and functioning, threatening irreversible, catastrophic, damage
to both our own societies and to the livelihoods of other species. The
threat to humanity is not an abrupt 'bullet-to-the-head' scenario where
we quickly go extinct, but a long, slow, painful, decline into
barbarism. The primary cause is human-caused climate change. There is a
small, closing, window of opportunity to halt and reverse this process,
which urgently calls us all to action, action which will involve
substantial change both at the highest institutional levels and in our
day-to-day lives.
However, we do not accept that this destruction is a ânaturalâ,
inevitable, fact of Homo sapiens. Rather, it is the predictable outcome
of an irrational social system governed by a small minority, which
demands infinite material growth, while having no method of accounting
for ecological costs. That system is capitalism, and the state as its
sibling institution has been equally incapable of executing the changes
necessary to restore balance.
We cannot solve a problem with the same level of thinking which produced
it. The only adequate solution is to fundamentally transform our
societies, re-writing its basic driving forces, and the way we relate to
one another. Ecological harmony and sustainability must become the new
âbottom-lineâ. This is only possible within the direct democratic,
co-operative, rational, framework of libertarian socialism.
Some respond to this crisis by blaming technology and large-scale
settlements themselves, advocating a return to a much simpler time,
often a life within small bands of hunter gatherers. We reject that
conclusion both because it is not feasible to return over 7 billion
humans to such an existence and because we believe it is possible and
preferable to live in a mass, technological, society which is both free
and in harmony with the rest of nature, albeit one which would be
practically unrecognisable from today.
Neither technology nor human nature are the critical issue. We, of
course, recognise the great harm caused by technologies used
inappropriately (such as supercomputers used to game the stock market),
or technologies which are definite products of a society based on greed,
warfare, and control (such as Facebook, the stealth bomber, and tear
gas). However, we also recognise the enormous liberatory potential of
technology, much of which has been actualised already even within an
unfree world (Wikipedia, anaesthetic, prosthetic limbs, central
heating). Automation is a clear illustration of these two possibilities.
Under capitalism and the state it will destroy jobs, sharpen war, and
bolster repression. Under anarchism, it could free us from toil to
pursue our highest natures. The choice is ours.
We emphasise that humans are not the centre of the universe, the only
species which counts. Humans should use our uniquely advanced capacity
to reason, co-operate, and work for an altruistic purpose, to be
stewards of planet Earth for the sake of all species, rather than
irresponsibly plundering and vandalising the home we share.