Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
 



       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> History
Dave Coull

ANARCHISM IN PALESTINE AND ISRAEL

ANARCHISM IN PALESTINE AND ISRAEL

by Uri Gordon

Anarchism has been a political undercurrent in Palestine and Israel for a century, appearing in three disconnected waves: the libertarian socialism of the early Kibbutz communes, the publishing and cultural activities of Yiddish-speaking immigrants, and contemporary Israeli anarchism. In Palestinian society there are individual sympathizers, but no organized anarchist movement, with Marxist parties such as Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine leading the secular left wing. Yet the first Intifada (1987-1989) drew widespread support from anarchists as a grassroots uprising involving tax refusal, general strikes, urban confrontation and the establishment of underground schools and mutual aid projects. Since 2000, Israeli and international anarchists have been leading solidarity campaigns in Palestine.

EARLY KIBBUTZ MOVEMENT, 1910-1926

Anarchist ideas circulated widely in the second and third waves of Jewish immigration to Palestine, and were central to the formation of the early Kibbutzim. The first twenty eight communes were founded in 1910-1914, following labor disputes and strikes at the colonies established during the first wave of immigration. The founders, mostly young and unmarried, built the communes on principles of collectivism, equality and self-management, aspiring to create a free socialist society of Jews and Arabs in Palestine.

Anarchism was highly influential in the communards' party Hapoel Hatzair (The Young Worker), whose paper included articles by and about Proudhon and Kropotkin. Aharon David Gordon (1856-1922), a forestry clerk who immigrated as a laborer to Palestine aged 47, became a spiritual leader of Hapoel Hatzair and was very close to anarchism. Influenced by Hassidic mysticism and the writings of Nietzsche and Tolstoy, Gordon promoted collective manual labor as a key to Jewish regeneration, and spiritual liberation through creativity and reconnection to nature. A staunch anti-militarist and pacifist, Gordon spoke nothing of a Jewish State and called for respect and cooperation with Arab peasants.

Joseph Trumpeldor (1880-1920), an immigrant soldier who organized early Jewish defence forces, was influenced by Kropotkin and Tolstoy and declared himself "an anarcho-communist and a Zionist".

Inspired by Trumpeldor, Gdud Haavoda (the Labor Battalion) was formed as a decentralised commune, whose bands of construction workers sought to establish a General Commune in Palestine.

Gustav Landauer had a direct influence on members of Hashomer Hatzair (The Young Guardsman), an immigrating Zionist-socialist youth movement who founded a federation of new Kibbutzim in the third wave of immigration from 1919. Its members made explicit references to anarchism in their calls for communal independence, egalitarian relationships, direct democracy and spiritual renewal.

In the later 1920s anarchist tendencies in Palestine weakened, with the influx of private capital into the country and increasing economic and political control of the Kibbutzim by the central Jewish institutions in Palestine dominated by Ben Gurion's party Mapai.

YIDDISH ANARCHISM, 1948-1989

After the State of Israel was established, anarchist circles formed among the Yiddish-speaking survivors of Nazism who immigrated to the country. The earliest was led in Tel-Aviv by Eliezer Hirschauge (1911-1954), formerly an exponent of anarchism among Chassidic youth in Warsaw and author of a history of Polish anarchism. Activities took an upswing with the arrival in 1958 of prolific anarchist theorist, critic and translator Abba Gordin (1887-1964). Gordin was a key member of the Moscow Anarchist Federation, and from 1925 lived in New York where he published the literary-philosophical review Yiddishe Shriften (1936-1957). In Israel Gordin founded the anarchist circle ASHUACH (Agudat Shocharei Chofesh, "Freedom-Seekers Association"), who had a large meeting-hall and a library of classic anarchist works in Yiddish, Hebrew, and Polish. ASHUACH had approximately 150 members and hundreds attended the lectures it organized. Gordin edited the association's monthly review in Yiddish and Hebrew, Problemen/Problemot. The review largely played down revolutionary propaganda in favour of philosophical and literary essays, and was especially interested in the spiritual roots of anarchism and in classical Jewish and current Yiddish literature. Gordin also regularly corresponded with prominent Yiddish anarchist publications in New York (Freie Arbeiter Stimme) and Buenos Aires (Dos Freie Wort).

After Gordin's death, Problemen was edited by Shmuel Abarbanel until 1971, when Joseph Luden (1908-) assumed editorship and affiliated the review (now printed only in Yiddish) with a publishing house that released over fifteen Yiddish books and pamphlets of fiction and poetry. ASHUACH came to a halt in the 1980s as the old anarchists passed away, and the final (165th) issue of Problemen (December 1989) was the last Yiddish anarchist periodical publication in the world.

ISRAELI ANARCHISM, 1967-PRESENT

Anarchist tendencies were present in the Israeli anti-militarist and anti-capitalist Left since its emergence, following the 1967 occupation of the Palestinian Territories and parallel to the wave of radicalism in Western countries. Libertarians were active in the Israeli Socialist Organization (1967-1977), which issued the paper Matzpen and cooperated with the Israeli Black Panthers - a militant movement of second-generation Jews from North African countries. During and after 1973 war The Black Front - Trippy Anarchist Group was active from a commune in Tel Aviv, producing flyers and pamphlets including Liberation News and the anti-militarist comics Freaky. Radical student cells were active in Tel-Aviv (1975-6) and Jerusalem (1986-7). Protests against the first Lebanon war saw the release of subversive propaganda by The Committee for Public Health (1982-1987), and the founding of  the Israeli chapter of War Resisters International by Hungarian-Israeli anarcho-pacifist Yeshaayahu Toma-Schick (1939-2004).

From the late 1980s, anarchism was central to the politicized section of the punk movement and to army refusal and evasion during the first Palestinian Intifada. The Israeli Anarchist Federation (1991-1993) held demonstrations against police brutality and Israel's first McDonalds outlet, put on benefit concerts, and later spawned the militant animal rights group Anonymous. Direct action and propaganda groups such as the Isra-hell Collective and the Anarchist Brigade of the Northern Galilee released photocopied political magazines including "It's All Lies" and "The War of Words". Tel Aviv's Left Bank club was founded to provide a space for radical punk shows, talks and exhibitions.

The movement grew quickly in the late 1990s with the anti-capitalist environmental group Green Action and the direct action campaign against the construction of the Cross-Israel Highway, which connected issues of pollution, open spaces, Arab land rights and government-corporate collusion. Inspired by the major anti-capitalist protests in London and Seattle at the end of 1999, Israeli activists began organizing Reclaim The Streets parties and Food Not Bombs stalls, and founded the Salon Mazal infoshop and the Israeli Independent Media Center (Indymedia).

The second Intifada reinvigorated Israeli radicals' anti-occupation and Palestinian solidarity efforts. The network Ta'ayush (Arab-Jewish Partnership), though not nominally anarchist, organized informally to break sieges and bring supplies into Palestinian towns, as well as defend farmers from settlers and soldiers as they cultivated their land. From the summer of 2001, many international anarchists arrived in Palestine with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), accompanying Palestinian non-violent actions to tear down military roadblocks and break curfews, and serving as human shields and live witnesses during the Israeli offensive of spring 2002. The ISM was weakened following the killing of its volunteers Rachel Corrie and Tom Hurndall in the Gaza Strip, and a repressive Israeli campaign including raids on its flats and offices, deportations and denials of entry.

From spring 2003, Israeli anarchists began to organize autonomously to cooperate with Palestinians and internationals, particularly in the campaign against the construction of the Segregation Barrier in the West Bank. Invited by farmers from the village of Mas'ha, the group built a protest and outreach camp on their land, about to be confiscated for the fence. The camp lasted four months and led to the founding of the group Anarchists Against the Wall. Anarchists remain active in the West Bank and inside Israel, and took part in the opposition to the second Lebanon War in August 2006 and the Gaza War in January 2009.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

Goncharok, Moshe (2002), Ashes from our Fires: A Historical Survey of the Yiddish Anarchist Movement (Jerusalem: Problemen).
Horrox, James (2008), A Living Revolution: Anarchism in the Kibbutz Movement (Oakland: AK Press)
Massey, David (ed., 2002), It's All Lies: Leaflets, Underground Press and Posters ­ The Fusion of Resistance and Creativity in Israel (Tel Aviv: APICC)

See: http://awalls.org
jamesieboy

Anarcho-communism. Now there is the oxymoron to end all oxymorons.
Dave Coull

The interesting thing about Uri Gordon's history of anarchism in Palestine and Israel is that it is an aspect of history generally ignored. But Jewish immigrant anarchists did play an important part in such things as the early kibbutzim, and it is interesting to note that they were NOT seeking the establishment of a specifically Jewish state, but of a libertarian socialist society in which Jews and Palestinians could live in harmony. And today, despite facing quite severe repression by the Israeli state, Israeli anarchists are one of the firmest sections of the anti-war movement in Israel.
Rinty

How is anarcho-communism an oxymoron?  Personally I dont think it is all that useful a term, like many such terms, but used in the right context it serves a purpose.  But it isnt an oxymoron as both anarchism and communism are theories based on removing 'the state' from society.  The 'anarcho' prefix to communism refers to how they plan to get there, in my opinion.
Dave Coull

jamesieboy wrote:
Anarcho-communism. Now there is the oxymoron to end all oxymorons.
You're making the elementary mistake of assuming that communism must have something to do with the ideas of Karl Marx and/or with the USSR etc. That isn't the case. I suggest you try reading the work of the Jewish anarchist Alexander Berkman, who wrote "The ABC of Anarchist Communism", which has never been out of print since he wrote it, although nowadays it tends to be called simply "The ABC of Anarchism" (available from Freedom Press, of London, who can be contacted by email at shop@freedompress.org.uk). Going further back, the early Christians were communists: "the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul : neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things in common"   -   The New  Testament, the Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 4, Verse 32.  I realise every inch of the Earth is known nowadays, Jamesie, but just suppose that, hundreds of years ago, a new, un-inhabited island had been discovered, not huge, but with sufficient resources to sustain a human community. And just suppose a group of people who didn't believe in having a government, but who did all share a strong belief in "having all things in common", went and settled there. That would be an anarcho-communist community, wouldn't it? Whether you think it a good idea or not, whether you think it would work in the longer term or not, statement of fact, it would be an anarcho-communist community.
Rinty wrote:
The 'anarcho' prefix to communism refers to how they plan to get there, in my opinion.
The Marxist idea of a vanguard party taking power and establishing what was supposed to be a "dictatorship of the proletariat" which was then supposed to just "wither away", thus leading to a stateless society, has been tried. It didn't work.
Rinty

Quote:
Rinty wrote:
The 'anarcho' prefix to communism refers to how they plan to get there, in my opinion.
The Marxist idea of a vanguard party taking power and establishing what was supposed to be a "dictatorship of the proletariat" which was then supposed to just "wither away", thus leading to a stateless society, has been tried. It didn't work.


Dave, that is what I said, the communists who prefix their description with 'anarcho' dont believe in the idea of a vanguard party and have a different plan of how to get there.

I am not sure that you can easily suggest that something being 'tried and didnt work' means that it cant or doesnt work.  Many pressures internal and external have an affect on whether any system works.

I dont label myself a communist, marxist, anarcho or other.  I am not bothered if people label my politics that way as we all need descriptions to out arguments in context.

I am not arguing for a vanguard party or anarcho-syndicalism either way, just pointing out, as you did, that jamesie's remark was based on a misunderstanding of what the terms mean.
Reluctant Hero

I agree with Dave and Rinty, anarcho-communism is not an oxymoron.  What I take from it is that everybody would live in a stateless society where they would share the means of production between themselves.  Now this an overly simplistic summary, but illustrates that it is possible.

But as Rinty alluded to, people get carried away with labels.  For instance there are about ten different strands of anarchism.  The thing that gets over-looked is the common feature that all of them have.  

A society without government.
agentmancuso

Reluctant Hero wrote:
 For instance there are about ten different strands of anarchism.  The thing that gets over-looked is the common feature that all of them have.


An overwhelming antipathy to humdrum reality?
Dave Coull

Reluctant Hero wrote:
there are about ten different strands of anarchism.  The thing that gets over-looked is the common feature that all of them have.
agentmancuso wrote:
An overwhelming antipathy to humdrum reality?
I used to be the proud possessor of two books by Voline: "1917: The Russian Revolution Betrayed", and "The Unknown Revolution: Kronstadt 1921, Ukraine 1918-1921". Like a lot of other excellent books, I loaned them out, and never got them back. Maybe the person I loaned them to loaned them to somebody else. Maybe they were put to good use. Anyway, the thing is, I remember a story which Voline (real name Vsevolod Mikhailovich Eikhenbaum ) told about Jewish life in the ghettoes of central and eastern Europe in the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth century. Jews couldn't be Nationalists, since they always felt kinda excluded from the Nation. They tended to be supporters of radical ideas. Voline said that there were three competing ideologies in the ghettoes of central and eastern Europe: Marxism, Anarchism, and Zionism. Of these three, the REALLY far-out one was Zionism. How could there possibly be an exclusively Jewish state?????!!!!!!!!!! In the Middle East, for goodness sake????????!!!!!!!!!!!!! There are more Jews in Moscow and its surrounding areas than in the whole of the Middle East!!!!!!!!!! It could only be achieved by waging an aggressive war, and by physically expelling the native population of Muslims and Christians!!!!!!!! And committing such a crime would mean that such a Zionist state  could only be maintained by endless war!!!!!! Now THAT'S crazy !!!!!!! By comparison, anarchist ideas of a libertarian socialist society, and even the idea being put forward by Lev Davidovich Bronstein (Trotsky) for a Marxist revolution, seemed more sensible. (Zionism WAS a crazy idea; it took the unthinkable craziness of the Nazis to make the craziness of Zionism seem thinkable.)

Even if you think anarchist ideas show an antipathy to humdrum reality, Agentmancuso, antipathy to humdrum reality is not the thing which DEFINES them. There are plenty of ideas  which show  an antipathy to humdrum reality which don't have the slightest connection with anarchism.  A Jacobite Restoration of a House of  Stuart monarchy, for example. Modern day Jacobitism has little connection with humdrum reality, yet it has absolutely nothing at all to do with anarchism. The establishment of a Muslim Caliphate aiming to rule the entire world according to strict Islamic principles  -  that's another idea which shows an antipathy to humdrum reality, and yet which has got absolutely nothing at all to do with anarchism. How about a restored Confederacy in the southern states of the USA? Another idea which shows an antipathy to humdrum reality, yet which has not the slightest connection to anarchism. That's just three examples. Without even having to try very hard, I could come up with dozens more. Reluctant Hero was right about the aim that is shared by all the different strands of anarchism, the aim that is NOT shared by modern Jacobitism, Islamism, Latter-day Confederatism, etc etc etc
Reluctant Hero wrote:
A society without government
agentmancuso

Dave Coull wrote:
There are plenty of ideas  which show  an antipathy to humdrum reality which don't have the slightest connection with anarchism.


Both true and irrelevant: an antipathy to humdrum reality is a cast-iron connection between all forms of anarchism.
jamesieboy

Any form of anarchism as a few of the previous comments have described is basically naive, ignores human nature and would never work.

Name a place where this form of government has worked, in modern times?

Too many people are basically selfish. Thatcherism proved that. The grasping me me me consumer greed that characterised the 80's, 90's and right up to the present illustrates that mentality perfectly. It's sad but it's reality.

Think of all the times you've been in a company where the subject of how much someone's made out of their house! For me, the figure would run into the hundreds.

Communism is not remotely near Anarchism. Exact opposites in fact. One advocates no state control, the other total state control over ever aspect of life.

I spent some time in Albania a few years ago. They went from one extreme to another in a few years. Very few countries have experienced that.

Questions which arises when we think of anarchism:

What if, in this perfect society, you get people who don't pull their weight?
Drug addicts, alcoholics, malingerers for example. Who pays for their keep if there is no state? Do we all just chip in for their vodka or their methodone?

Who pays for the police of someone robs your house? The fire brigade if it's on fire? The doctors if you have an illness?

Those who advocate a system that has never, ever worked have to think of the practicalities of how individuals within that system would survive.
Rinty

"Communism is not remotely near Anarchism. Exact opposites in fact. One advocates no state control, the other total state control over ever aspect of life."

No, you are mistaking the theory of communism with communist parties who have been authoritarian.

Thats like using Gerry Adams as an example to describe the USA Republican Party.

Essentially you would be right if you were saying that Communist parties, when in power have shown little enthuusiasm for advancing communism, preferring to remain at ethe place wher state controls a planned economy and/or society.

But an 'anarcho-communist' would not be a supporter of these sort of parties or their methods so it a wrong comparison.
jamesieboy

Where would be an example of anarcho-communism, then?
Rinty

Dave has given you some excellent sources to read about it.  But you can distract all you like, you were mistaken in saying that anarcho-comunism is an oxymoron.  Anarcho-Stalinism would be, or anarcho-authoritarian even but you were wrong, basically because you dont know much.
Dave Coull

I have a firmer record of principled opposition to so-called "Communist" dictatorship than members of the Conservatives, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, or, indeed, the SNP. When the leaders of the Conservative Party (then in opposition) entertained the leaders of the Soviet Union to lunch at the Carlton Club in London, I was an active participant in the very lively picket/demonstration outside, shouting slogans (in Russian and in English) about freeing all political prisoners. When workers at the Gdansk shipyard in Poland occupied their place of work, I took part in the very first act of SOLIDARITY with them to be held anywhere in the world. Long before hypocrites like Thatcher and Reagan jumped on our bandwaggon, I was one of just three people who formed the campaign  for a boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics in protest against the lack of freedoms in the USSR. I plastered our boycott posters all over the London Underground. One of my two colleagues was arrested at Moscow airport trying to enter the USSR with a rucksack full of our anti-regime leaflets. But Jamesie thinks he can teach me a thing or two.
jamesieboy wrote:
Anarcho-communism. Now there is the oxymoron to end all oxymorons.
I wrote:
You're making the elementary mistake of assuming that communism must have something to do with the ideas of Karl Marx and/or with the USSR etc. That isn't the case. I suggest you try reading the work of the great Jewish anarchist Alexander Berkman, who wrote "The ABC of Anarchist Communism", which has never been out of print since he wrote it, although nowadays it tends to be called simply "The ABC of Anarchism" (available from Freedom Press, of London, who can be contacted by email at shop@freedompress.org.uk). Going further back, the early Christians were communists: "the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul : neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things in common"   -   The New  Testament, the Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 4, Verse 32.  I realise every inch of the Earth is known nowadays, Jamesie, but just suppose that, hundreds of years ago, a new, un-inhabited island had been discovered, not huge, but with sufficient resources to sustain a human community. And just suppose a group of people who didn't believe in having a government, but who did all share a strong belief in "having all things in common", went and settled there. That would be an anarcho-communist community, wouldn't it? Whether you think it a good idea or not, whether you think it would work in the longer term or not, statement of fact, it would be an anarcho-communist community.
But Jamesie chooses to ignore the clear evidence that the earliest Christians were communists, chooses to ignore the long history of non-marxist communism in general, preferring to wallow in his own ignorance. Regarding anarchism,
jamesieboy wrote:
this form of government
By definition, anarchism is not a form of government.
jamesieboy wrote:
Communism is not remotely near Anarchism
Jamesie, you know so little about anarchism you think it is "a form of government", so you are hardly in a position to pontificate about this. Your statement is true of the "Communism" defined by both the propaganda of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the propaganda of right-wing Anti-Communists such as Ronald Reagan and Maggie Thatcher. However, the fact that hypocrites such as Thatcher and Reagan could agree with hypocrites like the rulers of the Soviet Union about something doesn't make it true. It just means they had a mutual interest in distorting the truth.
jamesieboy wrote:
Exact opposites in fact. One advocates no state control, the other total state control over ever aspect of life.
So, what about the example which I already gave you, of a group of people who didn't believe in having a government, but who did believe in the early Christian idea of "having all things in common"?
jamesieboy wrote:
Those who advocate a system
This is the History section of the Our scotland forum. The only thing I'm advocating here is the better study of some neglected aspects of history. In particular, I forwarded Uri Gordon's history of "Anarchism In Palestine and Israel" because it deals with aspects of the history of that region which Zionists, Christian fundamentalists, and Islamists all seek to pretend did not happen. I find it particularly interesting   -   and, indeed, a hopeful sign for the present day and for the future   -   that not all Jewish immigrants to Palestine were Zionists. Some Jewish immigrants OPPOSED the racist idea of an exclusively Jewish state, advocating instead a libertarian socialist society in which Jews and Palestinians could live in harmony. That idea is as least as old as Zionism itself, has existed in Palestine/Israel just as long, and is represented in the present day by the Israeli anarchists who, despite severe repression by the Israeli state, are one of the firmest sections of the anti-war movement in Israel.
Reluctant Hero

jamesieboy wrote:
Any form of anarchism as a few of the previous comments have described is basically naive, ignores human nature and would never work.


I think your assumption that it would never work is perhaps more naive.

In this current economic downturn, there are pockets of anarchist activity occuring on an increasing basis.  For instance, workers taking over factories that management had decided to close, and running it themselves for the benefit of everyone.
agentmancuso

Rinty wrote:
No, you are mistaking the theory of communism with communist parties who have been authoritarian.


Communist ideology is as authoritarian in theory as communist parties are in practice.
agentmancuso

Reluctant Hero wrote:
I think your assumption that it would never work is perhaps more naive.


I don't. Anarchism is a form of Rousseau-derived Noble Savage nonsense. Man is not a good creature corrupted by bad government. He is a better or worse creature, getting by with the help or the hindrance of better or worse government. The wholething is a fantasy, though an appealing one at least.

Quote:
In this current economic downturn, there are pockets of anarchist activity occuring on an increasing basis.  For instance, workers taking over factories that management had decided to close, and running it themselves for the benefit of everyone.

Good for them. A feasible way to run a factory is not necessarily a feasible way to run the country.
Rinty

And cynicism is just frustration dressed up as sophistication Smile
agentmancuso

Sophisticated? Moi? Cool

I don't think I'm all that cynical. As a liberal, government from my point of view is a necessary evil, to be resisted and kept firmly in its place. But to get from that to believing that government is the root of all evil is, well, jumping the shark.
Reluctant Hero

Dave Coull wrote:
I suggest you try reading the work of the Jewish anarchist Alexander Berkman, who wrote "The ABC of Anarchist Communism", which has never been out of print since he wrote it, although nowadays it tends to be called simply "The ABC of Anarchism" (available from Freedom Press, of London, who can be contacted by email at shop@freedompress.org.uk).


I have also got that text, but the book I have combines the "ABC of Anarchism" and "What is Communist Anarchism?" and is called "What is Anarchism?" from AK Press.

Quote:
But to get from that to believing that government is the root of all evil


I don't think anyone was saying that government was the root of all evil.  We were just saying that we could get by without a government.
jamesieboy

So who would take the decisions that affect the country?

And would we lose all the jobs which are associated with government?
Dave Coull

This is the History section of the Our Scotland forum. I posted Uri Gordon's thing on the history of anarchism in Palestine and Israel here because I think it's quite interesting in itself, but especially because it highlights an aspect of the history of that region which the Islamists, the Zionists, and the Christian fundamentalists would ALL agree they would prefer to be forgotten and ignored. Far too often the politics of that region are presented as if there are just two "sides", and there always were just two "sides", and you have to choose either one or the other of these two sides, and there are no other possibilities. Well, that's all lies. Now, as a result of me posting Uri Gordon's history of anarchism in Palestine and Israel here, one of the folk who had swallowed those lies, and who had helped to spread those lies, is beginning to ask questions. But Jamesie, if you are genuinely interested in learning more about anarchist ideas, then I suggest there are far better places to find out the answers to your questions than here. For a start, there's the Anarchist FAQ . FAQ stands for "frequently asked questions", and the Anarchist FAQ takes the form of questions and answers, and, sure as anything, you will find YOUR questions in there, together with answers. Although the Anarchist FAQ has now been published as a book, with Iain McKay from Glasgow as the author, it's still available on line at various websites, including this one: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html (By the way, Freedom Press, of London, have just this week re-published Kropotkin's classic work on evolution and 'human nature', "Mutual Aid", with a new foreword by Iain McKay.)
agentmancuso

Reluctant Hero wrote:
I don't think anyone was saying that government was the root of all evil.

Anarchism proceeds from exactly that position.

Quote:
we could get by without a government.

How would we run the court system? Taxation? Uphold law & order? Arrange road works?

Privatisation is all well and good, but it has its limits.
Dave Coull

I have already explained several times that my reason for posting Uri Gordon's history of anarchism in Palestine and Israel was to show that the conventional portrayal of events in that region as just a matter of Islamism versus Zionism is a gross distortion both of history and of what is happening today. I didn't intend to get into an ideological debate. I will continue to treat this as a matter for proper discussion in the History forum.
Reluctant Hero wrote:
I don't think anyone was saying that government was the root of all evil
agentmancuso wrote:
Anarchism proceeds from exactly that position.
That's a bit of an over-simplification of what anarchism has been historically, and is today, in such present day movements as the Israeli Anarchists Against The Wall. Anarchism does reject government, but, more generally, it rejects all authoritarian social relationships. It rejects the idea that these are somehow "inevitable" because they are "just human nature". I already mentioned that Freedom Press, of London (an enterprise whose founders, a hundred and twenty years ago or so,  include Kropotkin himself) have just, this week, re-published "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution", which was written by one of the most famous anarchists of them all, Prince Peter Kropotkin (well, he couldn't help being born a prince, and he did manage to divest himself of most of the trappings of his aristocratic background) with a new foreword by  my Glaswegian friend Iain McKay. As well as being an anarchist, Kropotkin was also a distinguished scientist, and he wrote "Mutual Aid" specifically to refute the distortions of Darwin being promoted in his day by Thomas Huxley and the "social darwinists". Many distinguished scientists, such as the biologist Stephen Jay Gould for instance, have recognised the importance of Kropotkin's work on evolution. That argument about what is, and what is not, "just human nature", continues to this day. Anybody who wants to be knowledgeable about that debate really does need to read Kropotkin.
jamesieboy

All of that is fine and fair, Dave. As long as you're not applying anarchism to the modern reality which, to be fair (which I always am) I don't think you are doing.

Part of my academic background is the Spanish Civil War, where the Anarchists played a large parge in events leading up to it. Between them and the Communists many analysts blame them for splitting and weakening the opposition to the Franoist forces.

Siempre venceremos juntos!
Dave Coull

jamesieboy wrote:
the Spanish Civil War, where the Anarchists played a large part in events leading up to it.
The anarchists played a huge part in events DURING the Civil War also. Essentially, if there had been no anarchists, there would have been no Spanish Civil War. General Franco and his colleagues never intended to fight a civil war. They thought they could stage a military coup d'etat which would all be over in a matter of days. As indeed it would have been, if it hadn't been for the anarchists. When it became clear that so-called "loyal" republican forces and police had no stomach for opposing the fascists, the anarchists told them to get out of the way, raided the armouries, and formed militias which stopped the fascists in their tracks. Now, I suppose you could argue that, if Franco's military coup d'etat had succeeded quickly, a lot of lives would have been saved. But would they? When the fascists finally did win, they went on a murderous rampage of near-genocidal proportions. If there had been no resistance, they would simply have done that sooner.
jamesieboy wrote:
Part of my academic background
You have LIED about your academic background, Jamesie. You claimed you have "a degree in geography from Cambridge". Yet you got North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa mixed up, you thought that an aid convoy to Gaza would have to go through Syria, and you misplaced Misrata by more than a thousand miles. Even though Cambridge University may not have the very best of university Geography departments, I find it hard to believe they could be quite THAT bad. Therefore, I think you tell lies. Why does this matter? It matters to me. It matters to me that people should not tell lies.
agentmancuso

Dave Coull wrote:
Now, I suppose you could argue that, if Franco's military coup d'etat had succeeded quickly, a lot of lives would have been saved. But would they? When the fascists finally did win, they went on a murderous rampage of near-genocidal proportions. If there had been no resistance, they would simply have done that sooner.

That's highly debatable. What's more certain is that the determined anarchist resistance in Catalunya was sabotaged by Marxist deference to the USSR.


Quote:
Therefore, I think you tell lies.

That's for certain too.
Dave Coull

To Jamesieboy,
I wrote:
I suggest you try reading the work of the Jewish anarchist Alexander Berkman, who wrote "The ABC of Anarchist Communism", which has never been out of print since he wrote it, although nowadays it tends to be called simply "The ABC of Anarchism" (available from Freedom Press, of London, who can be contacted by email at shop@freedompress.org.uk).
I have just received an e-mail which I'm going to quote parts of. Some bits have been left out, to protect the guilty.
Quote:
I was lurking on the Our Scotland board, and happened to see a post of yours where you happened to recommend The ABC of Anarchism by Alexander Berkman. Given how little I’ve read on the subject, I bought it, and read some of it on the way up to............protest in Dundee............I just wanted to drop you a quick email saying thanks for suggesting it (admittedly it was to some anti-arab guy on the our scotland board, but a suggestion is a suggestion.....…)It’s a fascinating book and probably the least pretentious political book I’ve read ............Sorry for bothering you with this, but I always like finding stuff I think I should have read years ago, but didn't.

Rinty says Jamesie is a troll, and wonders why I bother answering the likes of him.

Because he's not the only person reading the answers.
jamesieboy

Dave, I have a degree from a college in Cambridge. A combination of a number of subjects, Geography being one of them. And Spanish - I had to spend a year in Barcelona and lived opposite the stadium of RCD Espanyol, on Av General Mitre.

My lecturers at Cambridge were Dr Anthony Morgan, (Spanish) Dr Fitzpatrick and Dr Peter Taylor. You can still find Dr Morgan on the website of Anglia Ruskin College.

So I am not, after all, a liar.
Lord Pitsligo

jamesieboy wrote:

So I am not, after all, a liar.


Yes, you lied. You said you got a degree from Cambridge. You didn't, you got one from Anglia Ruskin College, one of the new trendy universities that never fails anyone because they're more interested in money than academic standards. I worked in one of these not far from Cambridge for a year and they're an utter disgrace.

So what was your actual degree in? Not what courses did you do, what was the degree awarded?
jamesieboy

You take top prize for pedantry. And that's saying something on this list.

I never, at any time, said I was at Cambridge University so how can I be a liar.

My college was on East Road, which is in the city of Cambridge. Not Oxford, not York but Cambridge.

Your comments about the college stem from sheer ignorance and snobbery. They are also based on your view on the current situation. I started my course in 1987.

The reason I chose that course and that college was due to the diversity it offered. In the so-called 'traditional' universities much of what they offered was staid and inflexible, studying Cervantes for example. I preferred to learn the working/living language.

The reason I was accepted for the course was that i had already spent a year in a Spanish-speaking country (Peru). There was a civil war at the time between the government and the Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) guerrillas and Peru was generally out-of-bounds to the main tourist/travellers at the time. It was unsafe.
jamesieboy

Humanities/Social Studies.2/1. The examining body was the CNAA.

I also went to Jordanhill for my PGCE. And Pilgrims at the Univ. of Kent at Canterbury for the TEFL Certificate.

And you?
Lord Pitsligo

So can I say I studied mathematics, chemistry, physics & english at Edinburgh because I went to school there?
Alasdair

Maybe I can say I studied Accountancy and law because I took a couple of basic introductory modules?

It certainly sounds better than the BA (hons) Business and Management (with HRM) I wasted 4 years of my life to get Rolling Eyes
Lord Pitsligo

I think I once browsed a self build magazine in the services at Oxford, how about I say I studied architecture at Oxford?

I may have glanced at a paper back as well. Yay-hey! English literature!
Dave Coull

Lord Pitsligo wrote:
I once browsed a self build magazine in the services at Oxford, how about I say I studied architecture at Oxford?
My older brother, Bert, went to Oxford. He not only studied how to build, he actually put architecture into practice at Oxford.  

(Like me, Bert is a bricklayer by trade. He worked on building some housing estate in Oxford. Which was probably more useful than many of the things a majority of the graduates of Oxford University have done.)
agentmancuso

jamesieboy wrote:
In the so-called 'traditional' universities much of what they offered was staid and inflexible, studying Cervantes for example. I preferred to learn the working/living language.


I wasn't planning to waste any more time interacting with you, as you're quite obviously a hopeless f***ing liar. I imagine that even some two-bit polytechnic could teach you better Spanish than the online translator you've been using here.

But I couldn't let the above comment lie: Cervantes is a genius, and only an ignoramus would claim otherwise.
jamesieboy

Did I say Cervantes was not a genius? It's just that some people want to learn the living language. In the shops, bars, businesses of Madrid.

You use this word 'liar' freely when you can't substantiate your pathetic claims.

First you doubted my qualifications. Then when that didn't work you said the college was c**=, but could provide no evidence.

You are out of your depth. Obviously.
jamesieboy

Pedants United.

What is the problem with the city of Cambridge, of which the university is a part, along with the other colleges, the Grafton Centre, the shoe shops, the Boat Race pub, Cambridge United FC (where I used to spend my Sat Afternoons),the museums, Grantchester??????????What is the problem you have with going to a college in that city that isn't part of the university?

Snobbery, I detect. (I exclude Dave in that one)

For your info, I was also a fork-lift truck driver for 10 years in a photographic company outside Glasgow.
Dave Coull

jamesieboy wrote:
What is the problem you have with going to a college in that city that isn't part of the university?
The problem is NOT that you went to a college in Cambridge which is not part of Cambridge University. The problem, in my opinion, is that you quite deliberately gave the wrong impression. You stated that you had a geography degree from Cambridge. Any reasonable person reading that claim would take it to mean you had a degree in Geography from the University of Cambridge. It turns out that, in actual fact, geography was only one of the subjects in a degree of a more "general" nature, and your degree, although issued by Anglia University, which has campuses in both Chelmsford and Cambridge, is not from the University of Cambridge. The problem, so far as I'm concerned, is NOT the relative merits of two academic institutions. The problem is that YOU gave a mistaken impression because YOU believed "a geography degree from Cambridge" would sound more impressive. Furthermore, when you realised that some of us had taken your statement to mean you claimed a degree in geography fom the University of Cambridge, you did NOT , to begin with at any rate, correct me (for instance) about that. It was only considerably later that the truth was virtually dragged out of you. Now, there is no requirement on anybody here on this Our Scotland forum to give out details about themselves. If folk want to keep quiet about their education etc, they do have that choice. But you quite voluntarily gave out information which turned out to be misleading. That's the problem.
Reluctant Hero

I couldn't believe it when I saw a thread with the word anarchism in the title as it is something that I have strong feelings for.

Unfortunately though, this thread has degenerated into the debate about one individual's eduaction, or lack of, depending on your viewpoint, therefore it is locked.

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> History
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Our Scotland Hit Counter Scottish Top Site - Topsites Our Scotland Forums Critical Acclaim ~ Politically Progressive Top Sites View Site Stats Scottish Politics