A-Infos (en) Freedom 6403 8 Feb, 2003 - Readers' letters

[Worker <a-infos-en@ainfos.ca>]

 ________________________________________________
      A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
            http://www.ainfos.ca/
        http://ainfos.ca/index24.html
 ________________________________________________

Dear Freedom,
What was that almost SWP, lefty bollocks that passed 
for an editorial in the last issue ('What we say', 25th 
January)? Sack whoever wrote it.
Wendy Smith

Dear Freedom,
Jose Marti's view is a popular one, especially with the 
establishment ('Non-violence is no solution', 25th 
January). They like it because it supports munitions 
manufacturers and leads to power politics. I've heard 
it before - the oppressed rise up to overthrow the 
oppressor. But as a permanent solution it goes 
nowhere, since the oppressors and the oppressed are in 
reality the same people, with the same politics and the 
same objectives.

The mistake is in the sentimental belief that the 
downtrodden are virtuous and that this excuses 
stupidity. The idea suggests the problem has only one 
solution, where of course there are many. One, which 
appears to escape many anarchists, is anarchism. 
What I actually find irritating, though, is that the 
editors of Freedom devoted a third of a page to a 
rather meaningless photograph of a youth throwing a 
stone and an emotive quote from Berkman, simply to 
endorse an overworked and dated opinion.
Peter Gibson

Dear Freedom,
Come on, Jose, tell us what your principles are if you 
think we should support the "establishment of a 
society based on Islamic principles". Or do you mean 
an Islamic state? Is there any difference if you 
establish mechanisms for enforcing those principles, 
even on fellow believers? If we're against tanks 
running over people's heads, do we automatically have 
to agree with the ideas in those heads? If we're 
opposed to racism and anti-semitism, do we magically 
become Zionists and, instead of a no-state solution, 
offer a two, three or four-state 'solution'?
The fact that the Israeli state is a tool of western 
foreign policy and is waging a war on its colonial 
subjects doesn't mean we support a Palestinian state 
as the 'opposite' Nor does the fact that we're not 
cheerleaders for Arafat mean we should hold off 
criticising Israeli apartheid. As anarchists, we'll never 
be in with the in-crowd of national liberation. But we 
should make sure we use our distinctive voice to argue 
for freedom, without gods and governments to justify 
each other.
John P.

Dear Freedom,
Trevor Smith's request that anarchists should 
"demonstrate a plan for a future society" (letters, 11th 
January) suggests he's not only in the wrong church but 
sitting in the wrong pew as well. Anarchists have no 
mandate to say how people must live. We carry no 
brief to say how people are to be organised.
It may well be that anarchism was synonymous with 
socialism in the nineteenth century. But right through 
the twentieth century, flirting with power proved too 
much of a temptation for socialists. And I'm weary of 
being told that such tragedies are merely examples of 
'state' socialism. If only other socialists would read 
their Marx properly. I get Jehovah's Witnesses at my 
door saying the fault with other Christians is that they 
haven't read their Bible properly.
All power corrupts. Especially those who have it all 
worked out. The worldwide collapse of Marxist-driven 
regimes has opened up a wealth of joyous 
opportunities for anarchists. Wisdom suggests that 
they exercise great caution when political solutions, 
plans for the future or regimes that promise to wither 
away are dangled before them.
Peter Good

Dear Freedom,
I'd like to remind Iain McKay that calling a fellow 
anarchist a 'liberal' doesn't help maintain a dialogue 
('Anarchist economics', 11th January). A minimum 
definition of anarchist would be someone who 
ultimately wishes to get rid of both the state and 
capitalism. David Dane fits that definition so he's an 
anarchist. A liberal, by the way, is someone who 
believes in both the state and capitalism, so no 
anarchist can ever be a liberal. 
Of course, anarchists have always been divided on 
tactics. There are the militants, of whom Iain seems to 
be one, as is his right. Then there are the moderates, 
to which David probably belongs. So why not just say 
moderate, rather than sneering about liberalism?
As for co-ops and mutual aid societies they may well 
have become conservative and failed to produce a 
mutualist society, but they nonetheless remain as a 
practical example for working people. Where do 
anarchist communists find such an example in daily 
life?
Larry Gambone

*******
                       ********
       ****** The A-Infos News Service ******
      News about and of interest to anarchists
                       ******
  COMMANDS: lists@ainfos.ca
  REPLIES: a-infos-d@ainfos.ca
  HELP: a-infos-org@ainfos.ca
  WWW: http://www.ainfos.ca/
  INFO: http://www.ainfos.ca/org

-To receive a-infos in one language only mail lists@ainfos.ca the message:
                unsubscribe a-infos
                subscribe a-infos-X
 where X = en, ca, de, fr, etc. (i.e. the language code)