Re: AUT: Re: Cognitive Mapping

["Harald Beyer-Arnesen" <haraldba@xxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Hurl" <munkah@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 7. juli 2002 04.07
Subject: Re: AUT: Re: Cognitive Mapping


Chris (Hurl),  mcapri and all

That "people who define themselves as anarcho-syndicalists
refuse to even speak to people who refer to themselves as
anarcho-communists" sounds strange to me, Chris: Maybe a particular
phenomenom in parts of North America. Still "free commmunism"
has been declared the end within the dominant current of anarcho-
syndicalism at least from the beginning of the 1920ies, and is
still there in the IWA principles.
        If you go further back to the "propaganda by the deed" period,
and look at this schematicly, the majority of who those who followed
the blind alley of "propaganda by the deed", that it is as it degenerated
and the original idea was lost, defined themselves as anarcho-
communists (or individualists). Those, on the other hand, who took
up the banner of anarcho-syndicalism in the tradition of  anarchist
sections within the the First International, mostly still referred to them-
selves as collectivists. In all circumstances, this counterposing of
anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism ceased making
much sense long, long time ago, if it ever did.
        "Insurrectionist" (Bonanno etc) is a label that might be said to
capture some of this old division today. Though I very much doubt
it makes much sense at all applied to the differeneces within
USAmercian scene and in Northern Europe.

mcapri writes: "Most anarchists at least that I encounter, if indeed it
is anarchists that are being talked about here, tend to confuse matters
of tactics with matters of principal." To this I can only say, I would
hope so, though my impression is that this is far from always true. One
can have hopes for the future, though. With this I mean to say that
anarchism claims an intimate link between means and ends (the
degree to that it has lived up to this in practice has differed)  and as
such has tended to refute the strong conceptual division between
tactics and strategy , and I think rightly so.

The critique from those of us who from an anarchist perspective have
been critical towards "black-block tactics"  and what we have seen
as an overfocus on summit-protests in general (in particular as
spheres of action) has in part precisely been that "tactics" has departed
too much from "matters of principal," that one have been emeshed too
much in symbolic actions (and not in direct action as is often uncorrectly
claimed) and thus also have departed from the principal matter of "self-
organisation" as opposed to protesting/acting "on behalf of ". Quite of
few who have made this critique, though far from all, are anarcho-
syndicalists (but mostly also anarcho-communists). Thus maybe the
confusion above.

But to not give cause to another misunderstanding. It is not as I
think no good has come out from this summit-protests. Possibilites
always open up when people come together. Thus, in my opinion,
the main focus should also be on communication and not symbolic
protests. If one also manage to carry out some real direct actions,
as opposed to pretended ones, so fine. The "reclaim the street"
event here in Oslo during the World Bank ABCDE conference was
relative sucessful in this regard, as a space was opened up for a
while, not only for the usual crowd of protestors, but also for quite a
few of the local population of different ages and cultural backgrounds
living in the part of the town the event ook place . Though strictly
speaking the event  might rather be called "propaganda by the
deed" (in its orginal positive sense) than a direct action in its _full
sense_, as the intiative was still mostly, if not entirely, an outside
affair.

Chris writes "thus, some groups are all too happy to totalize the
field of opposition with unquestioned common-sense assumptions
on what diversity means while refusing to even listen to the
arguments of a few troublemakers". It seems to me that this largely
works both (all) ways. However you bend and twist it, the actions of
a relative small group on such an events easily carry consequences
for other partipants.  To pretend that it does not, is not vey intelligent.
        Secondly, all this talk about democracy. As far as I can see, as
this protests by defintion are open for all, the majority of participants
never get to have a vote. This is unavoidable as long as not the
vast majority is not also organised in non-hierarchical organisations
that have been able to discuss the framework and general principles
for the protests, and actions to be taken, in advance.
        Another way this could in theory be done, is through broad
assemblies (in plural) prior and during the protests, more like in
Argentina, or the regular community assemblies that took place
during the workers' struggles in Puerto Real in southern Spain
around the future of the wharf industry/wages against uprooting,
but where also a whole lot of other community issues were
addressed.
        But there is a long way to go before that stage is reached in
most places, though some intersting things were done in relation
to community organisation prior to the protests in Montreal.
None the less, what we most of the time end up with is a lot of differnt
activist voices tending to more or less speak on behalf of "the people."
This tends to apply to those who take the "hard line" as much as
those who take the "soft line".

Harald






     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---