Anarchy

Well then we aren't that different, because appearently i am also anti-"Insurrectionism, however i don't like labels, and you appear to. and hey thats fine, disagreements are great.

I completely believe that if the usa was to right now announce the military was disbanded, that another country would not hesitate to rush in and invade. That does not mean or should be construed that I believe in the military. For sake of argument, what do you think would happen if the military all of a sudden disbanded?

You have me at a disadvantage here, because i do not know what ideas you are referring to.

I support the right to pacifism, yes. I, myself am not a pacifist. I believe with revolution will come blood shed and loss of lives. But I would willingly give my life if it came down to it. I am willing to fight. Also, did you not see the peace symbol on the header of this thread?

I believe in respecting the environment, but not at the cost of human lives, just like I don't believe in protecting animals over humans, as I have said in the ALF thread. I never said anything about programs and such, I don't know where you got that idea, I want no government. not programs they can use to pretend they are helping us. The only state I want is NO STATE. I want people to be able to choose to live and govern themselves their own way.

I may not fit in with the cookie-cutter definition of an anarchist, but I first and foremost believe in and support the destruction of the government. I would prefer it not to happen violently, but that may not be an option someday.

 

There is a nice explanation of this in literature. May I suggest you read "The Great Explosion" by Eric Frank Russell. (I have a copy you can borrow http://80.165.130.44/here.prc) Alternate formats available on request).

 

Don't apologize for your grammer, we can understand you... this isn't a goddamned english course.. and secondly as I've stated before there is a long tradition of armed anarchic insurrection ie: Mexican Revolution (Flores Magon-Aquiles Serdan) Those among us who oppose the lifting of arms are only fooling themselves...

 

Syndicalism doesn't have a monopoly on working class organizations, syndicalism is unionism (Unionism-Syndicalismo in Spanish, Syndicalisme in French, similar in Italian etc). I am anti-Syndicalism because unions are by nature reformist organizations, a union that does not fight for reforms won't exist. This being said, you can look at past Syndicalist organizations as a clue into their reformism. The SAC after WW2 decided to cooperate with the Social Democratic state and become an institutionalized union. The CGT-SR in France pulled Anarchists away from mainstream workers' organizations and into more obscurity (CGT-SR had 30,000 members at its height, versus the much larger CGT).

During the Spanish Revolution, the CNT itself did NOTHING in creating the revolution, it was not a planned general strike like Syndicalists strive for, it was a revolution. In Russia, the revolution was not because of a general strike (as seen by how irrelavent the Workers' Opposition was to the general working class). In all workers' revolutions, they have NEVER been provoked because of a syndicalist union. During the Spanish Revolution, the CNT not only entered the government, but also aided in the destruction of the Revolution. Syndicalism is reformism.

See: Friends' of Durruti:

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws92/fod34.html

http://libcom.org/tags/friends-of-durruti

Best theoretical critique, better than my late night tired rambling:

http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/unions.htm

Revolutions and actual insurrections are different from the "insurrectionists " (I''ll call them Individualists for now, since I'm writing a 30 page thesis paper on how individual "insurrectionism" and propaganda by the deed differs from mass revolutionary action, and I refer to them as "individualists" because it best shows the difference). I'm talking about the people you refer to in the last paragraph, the people who hate mass organizations, and consider broken windows to be a victory.

"Anarcho-insurrectionism" is nonexistant, by which I mean that term is completely unneeded. The act of both individualist attacks and revolutionary action goes back much further. As far as the mass revolutionary organization, that much predates Makhno. Ricardo Flores Magon and the Mexican Liberal Party during the revolution, the Red Brigades in Mexico during the revolution (Syndicalists who helped crush Zapata, I'm working on the book Anarchism and The Mexican Working Class 1860-1930, when I get there I can explain more). The Paris Commune, the Lyons Commune, the various peasant insurrections led by the Italian section of the IWMA (I've been gradually doing the Anarchism in Italy page, I don't know if I have that stuff up there yet since I've barely done it, but it's better than the 4 event timeline there was before. But if it's not listed there you can check out Italian Anarchism 1864-1892). The list goes on.

This is differed from the acts of the individualists. The individualists were the ones that used assasinations, bombings, and modern window smashing, manifesto writing, and vegan pot-lucks. These acts were done not in a mass revolutionary wave, repress rival insurgent elements, or in some other event that could further the revolutionary movement.

Erm, I wasn't saying that....I was pointing out something Anxiety had said previously.

So is NAMBLA, that doesn't mean I support it. Syndicalism has always stood in the way of revolutionism, almost all genuine revolutionaries, once faced with its practice in revolution, break with it. See: The Friends of Durruti, or the Casas Veijas Uprising (which, interestingly enough, was an uprising by a local CNT "syndicate", that had broken with Syndicalism!).

 

Strangely enough what your saying Jack makes complete sense to me, growing up in Tijuana, Mexico my dad was part of a "Syndicato Alba Roja" or "Union of the Red Daybreak or Dawn" in English. My dad was very active so I acompanied him to the weekly meetings and was on the frontlines during several strikes against the Corporation which happened to be the Agua Caliente Race Track. They addressed each other as comrades and covered the doors in the traditional Red and Black drapes during the strikes. But this group was a breeding ground for traditional politicians who would go on to mainstream wholesale corruption, and it also weilded great political and finacial clout. I'm sure during the origins of the Union it was hardcore communist but it was coopted by the State just as the P.R.I. political party was. So as you see I have a first wittness account that what your talking about is true.....

 

I'm resurrecting a dead thread, but this is gold. Too bad Jack turned Marxist-Leninist, anyone knows why?