Remembering the victims of Iraq War


On Sunday last, March 19th, about 40 people gathered outside Warsaw's U.S. Embassy to remember the 4th anniversary of the official outbreak of hostilities against Iraq. Organised by the Anarchist Federation, Praga section, speakers highlighted the ongoing human, financial and moral cost of this ongoing military misadventure. Furthermore, they voiced their opposition to the potential anti-ballistic missile system the U.S. are pushing Poland to host alongside their neighbours in the Czech Republic.

Recent polls in Poland, conducted by right-wing and pro-militaristic newspapers admit the majority of Poles oppose the anti-missile installation. According to the authors a mere 8% of people questioned strongly support the installation while only 22% tend to support it. The terrible twin (who is more terrible is any one's guess)Mr. Lech Kaczyinski's deference to U.S. imperial militarism was criticised loud and clear by those who marched from the U.S. embassy to the presidential palace adjacent to places that symbolise Warsaw's resistance to their former Communist overlords

Damien Moran from Ireland pointed out the hypocrisy of christian Polish police officers protecting the headquarters of a State engaged in an immoral and illegal war. He also reminded embassy staff of a viable alternative path to take - a road thread upon by former U.S. soldiers like Kelly Dougherty, Jimmy Massey, Joshua Casteel and other friends from the Iraq Veterans Against the War whose dissenting voices continue to reverberate and expand across the U.S. The path to becoming a whistleblower in the U.S., one has the honour to not only uphold a clear conscience but also follow in the footsteps of significant advocates of peace like Daniel Ellsberg of the 'Pentagon Papers' notoriety.

I also announced that a rich ploughshares tradition has existed since 1980 and that in the event that the conservative PiS (Law and Justice) gvt. give the green light for U.S. military expansion in the Tatra mountains, then all peacemakers would have a serious obligation to reflect on how best to disrupt operations and if necessary dismantle the system itself.

My Danish friend and I planted 20 roses were planted in permanent flower pots, which are situated directly outside the embassy, both men symbolising two nationalities who have ongoing complicity in the occupation of Iraq. The roses will hopefully serve as a reminder to those who defend the embassy and drive it's politico-corporate military internal mechanics that the victims of their employer's war continue to cry out for respite, justice and peace. The thorns on the roses' stems should remain a symbol for those of us who may succumb and fall into inter-anniversary date passivity, that responsible citizens have a responsiblity to prick the conscience of the war-designers and sustainers by our ongoing committment to pro-active non-violent resistance.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Jacques Ellul, heh?

Checked out your blog after your intro on the Beatroot blog and I hope you continue to hang around there.

Sorry to hear about your movement away from the Church, though. It is indeed tough all the time. I somehow remain faithful. I figure I owe it to JC. Long private story.

Ever hear of Jesus Radicals?

http://www.jesusradicals.com/index.php

Another interesting group I've come across is the Commonweal (Catholic magazine similar to the Tablet out of London) Discussion Group on Yahoo:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/commonweal/


And there are a couple of Catholic Worker groups as well but the original is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cathworker/

I gotta tell ya though... I don't think too favorably of Dawkins and even less so of Sam Harris.

And please don't be too quick to summarily dismiss Polish Catholic ritualism.

At any rate, thanks for resisting the madness.
Damien Moran said…
Geez, if ur in the Warsaw region I'd be happy to lend you Ellul's book Christianity and Anarchy?


I ain't moving away from the community of believers (church) just yet;)God knows the journey is a tough one but I've always found that it was the least fortunate in life who have restored my faith in humanity and the good that the church contains - I remember a feminist theologian telling me that once there is always one holy person in the church the church wil always be holy.

Well I know lots of great folks who are battling on through thick and thin and sustain their faith somehow. The 'Is God a Delusion' pieces I've written thus far should be looked upon as a period of outspoken growth that I think wach and every one of us adherents undergo at various stages of lives.

I helped found and sustain a Catholic Worker community in Ireland between '03 and '06 in the period that my friends and I were on trial. I have a lot of good contact with internatonal CW folk.

I think I've been pretty patient with the Polish church - and I've been lucky to meet one very cound priest who works with Vietnamese refugees, but still think the hierarchy and it's politics stink. Way too close to the State, palaces, good cuisine, nice cars, and way too far away from being a radical peace church on the frontline for my liking.

Anyhow, one's gotta keep an open-mind. I'm a hopeful and optimistic person.

Over and out! I'm only up this late cause have an inspection at my school tomorrow, gotta do lesson plans galore, etc.

Thanks for posting.
Anonymous said…
I've read Ellul. Wonderful.

Another wonder is Berdayev.

And they're discussed on Jesus Radicals and the yahoo CW list I provided.

Discussions on Dawkins and Harris are more likely on the Commonweal yahoo list.

As long as there's one...

JC!

And again, your resistance is appreciated and no doubt blessed.
varus said…
Damo,
a very interesting day it seems. I'm not sure about the logic of your beef with the police. They have a duty to protect all, regardless of politics. Your argument would seem to support Lech Kaczyinski's actions when he forbade the Warsaw police to protect a gay rights march. Police are public servants with a duty to protect all regardless of political belives. They can not and should not alow any bias to affect their actions. Regardless of the actions of the US government, their workers in the embassy deserve to be protected, this is especially the case when the US is an a somewhat controversial perdicament.
Damien Moran said…
Hi Varus,

'Somewhat controversial predicament' (complete moral, legal and military fuck-up)

Congrats., you've just won my first 'euphemism award'.

That's sure to go right up there with collateral damage (murdering civilians) and extraordinary rendition (torture)'!

The role of the police is to protect the State, not necessarily its' citizens. Not sure if you are up to date about the international day against racism events in Wroclaw where the police stood aside and allowed fascists spew out their hate speech, seig-heiling (breaching Polish law) et al. and holding their racist signs while the police (unbiased of course) arrested 2 anti-fascist protestors, one who was on a crutch [dangerous threat to the state he was].

Human rights lawyers were even shocked at how the police beahved in this situation, surrounding a group of anarchists and provoking a situation where 2 people made an efforts to escape from.

My point in the above article was specifically directed to christian police officers whose moral authorities on earth, e.g. the current or previous pope, have strongly condemned the actions of the U.S. state and their warmongering as immoral, as did all major worldwide religious leaders.

We are all bound to act in accordance with international law, and the fact that the war is deemed illegal by the international law community should surely wrestle with the conscience of those who are asked by their superior state authority to stand in front of the U.S. embassy and thus aligning themselves as their first line of defence.

Do you seriously expect me to believe that the police as a force are unbiased? You should read the Ombudswoman's recent report in Northern Ireland about R.U.C. collusion with loyalist paramilitaries. You should read up on the inherently racist attitudes which are prevalent in many U.S. states' police forces. You should read up on the actions of the Garda Siochana in Ireland who continue to act as private security for Shell Inc. in Bellanaboy, Mayo, assaulting young and old non-violent resisters praying the rosary in Irish.
You shoulda, coulda, woulda!

With all due respect one could hardly call it protecting the embassy staff. Where was the threat to storm and burn it down?
20 roses, a dog and a loudhailer deemed too threatening nowadays.

The British embassy was burned down in Ireland after Bllody Sunday in '72 http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/2/newsid_2758000/2758163.stm and though the protestors anger was understandable I don't agree with such violent tactics, especially with the use of arson/fire as it seems to me a very uncontrollable phenomenon.

I am a firm advocate of non-violent means of overturning oppressive conditions and institutions, and the appeal I made outside the embassy was directed towards the workers and the police, to inform them that there is a long and respectable tradition of people refusing to serve states that advocate illegal and immoral policies of warmaking and occupation.

One tactic in this long tradition that I mentioned is refusal to serve as a result of conscientious objection, e.g. the cops and soldiers joining in to bring down the Berlin wall.

I understand the fact that the police are obliged legally to impose authority upon people who may act in a variety of threatening ways. I appreciate that the cops are not 'yellow beard' in a cheap uniform with a long truncheon. But I also know that the cops are not unbiased. When you spend 3 1/2 years on bail, sign on regularly at your local cop station, work with homeless people who get a lot of hassle from cops, etc. you soon realise what side their bread is buttered on.

The flip side of the coin of the peacemaker cop impression is that they often provoke people to act in violent ways, exacerbating a situation which would could remain nonviolent if they had good training in people skills. There are countless examples provations by cops and state provocateurs: Seattle, '99; Genoa '01; and I have seen it first hand on a number of occasions from my own activism in Ireland.

Sorry to say it but your opinion of the cops is not one that measures up as unbiased and informed with the experiences of the many who rock the boat (and I'm speaking about non-violently rocking it here;) to expose social injustices.

There are a number of well-known studies which honestly look upon the roll of police officers and their over-excessive use of force -here is just one:
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/Johnson.pdf

Re. your comments on the Equality parade, I fail to see the logic of your analogy. On the one hand we are talking about their standing outside the U.S. embassy as representatives of their friends, the Polish State, and the policies they both continue to press in Iraq specifically. That is what 40 people were gathered outside to commemorate.

On the other hand there was the freedom of assembly, movement and speech carried out by peace-loving folks who were very fluffy indeed.

I was at the parade you are talking about and was just about lucky enough to not get clobbered by the fascists, who were the only ones I saw that day using violence.
The cops did nothing to check I.D.'s of well known fascist ringleaders nor their bonehead followers who were calling for all gays to be sent to the gas chambers. Nor did they do anything to stop the knuckleheads from continuing to throw dangerous objects over a 45 minute period before the march set off.

If you are a fan of advertisements (I'm not) you'd know from the toothpaste ads that 'prevention is better than cure'.

Of course it would be utopia to think that one day the current Polish gvt. might seriously tackle the ugly head of racism in this country - afterall, they have a quasi-fascist in their cabinet and a xenophobic anti-semite in their pulpit rallying the masses on voting days.

Finally, if one is employed to protect the State and citizens and think that their role is unbiased, as you say, then they should see how far they get by refusing to serve outside the U.S. embassy (surely the poor 40 anarchos are the ones who need protection from the powerful U.S. State;) or rejecting an order to protect Giertych, his cronies, and their apparatus during the next teacher's trade union demo. (grrr! them Commie-funded teachers).

The police are all too often a distraction, a threat, and a unthinkingly biased protection force for the crappiest of policies enforced by a whole range of States (from Mugabe, Bush, Blair, to Merkel, Chirac, and Lech) - though of course I accept that there is a wide range in their levels of crapiness in the examples provided.

As the great pacifist Catholic Worker Ammon Hennacy said:
"An anarchist is a person who doesn't need a cop to tell him/her what to do".

But, nevertheless, I praise the actions of cops when they stop drink-drivers; speedy gonzales car-drivers; arrest granny-muggers; bust white-collar fraudsters, etc.
I don't think their daily activities are completely hopeless!
varus said…
Damo,
that was the longest single reply that i have seen on any blog. I haven't got time now to reply in kind (supposed to be at work), suffice to say that i appreciate your non-violent credentials, yet many may not share your views. I know from experience, that even the nicest most peacefull demostration can attract an unruly element> The police have to pre-empt any possible situation (contingency planning etc). I take your point about cases o biased police. However, you can not and should not tar them all with the same brush. My point was that the police didn't know what was planned by the 'annarchists' (scary word for any copper)and the staff of the embasy are not a faceless institiution. They are real people. Unless you belevie in tit-for-tat, which reading your blog i doubt, then they should be protected... more pehaps later
Damien Moran said…
Yeah, 'twas pretty long alright. Brevity is not my strong point.
Are you aware of the political situation in Northern Ireland? I meant to write a blog entry some time ago about the fact that about 1,000 Poles had applied for membership of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) and were subsequently threatened by dissident militant republicans.

I can appreciate that the word 'anarchist' can drive the fear of the divil into some people, though the etymology of the word is quite nice, methinks:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anarchy

Contingency planning et al., the U.S. Embassy is fairly well protected without having cops there. Actually, the main reason the cops were there I'd say is as the 'legal' application made by the organisers was to walk on the street to El Presidente's palace.

We agreed to the cops request for us to walk on the pavement for the most part - a good move for all those concerned as I for one don't trust Polish drivers. We only walked on the street from Nowy Swiat, traffic very light anyhow.

Over and out, thanks for comments.
varus said…
Damon,

As you will see on Beatroot's blog ref your post there, I do know a little about NI. But Republican's protesting Catholics joining the PSNI is a bizarre case. Was it that they didn't like the fact that they were Poles, or that the still don't accept that the Police have been reformed fully. Personally, I think most of the Nationalist community see the 'dissidents' as a bit of a pain. I know for sure that SF and PIRA think so.
Damien Moran said…
More that they don't believe the new abbreviation PSNI has changed the colour of the Service's politics. 2 dissidents were killed recently in the North and Adams called on the nationalist community to cooperate with the police re. the investigation - the overwhelming agreement in the North to the Good Friday Agreement and the subsequent developments have certainly all but wiped out the dissidents.

Though they are theoretically a threat to the general public I think they will probably just end up either dying of all age soon or else kill each other so that there is nobody left in their cells.
varus said…
I agree about the demise of 'dissidents' they are hanging on to an outdated ideology.

I looked up your anarchy reference (wikipedia); i agree that is has a special ring to it. But like ideas such as communism and fascism, it is an idea that looks ok on paper, but doesn't take human nature into consideration. People need rules and boundaries to co-exist. If these are not here then chaos will reign and ultimately authoritarianism. - Tell me, do you actually prescribe to the concept of anarchy? I looked at a link from your blog ref the Anarchy Federation. Again, a good initial idea, with undoubtedly honest and well motivated principles. But i am still unsure as to if these people are actually advocating anarchy as a system or just use it as counter-point with which to juxtapose the mainstream political system.
Damien Moran said…
I disagree with you that fascism and communism look good on paper. And we both know they look even worse when put into practice through the apparatus of the State.

Most anarchists would disagree that anarchism is just another politically utopian 'ism' which wants to replace communism, fascism or capitalism. Most of us already lead pretty anarchic lives, though we don't call it that. Any time we make a decision in consensus with our family members (to go on a holiday), partners (to have a baby;), neighbours (to clean up our local environment), work colleagues (to strike for better pay and conditions), we are performing actions which can be described in a loose sense as anarchic. That is, we don't rely on any religious,State, corporate, military or other authority to consent to our actions.

For sure we should be grateful to enjoy the freedoms we do in the West, but we should never forget that the reason we have 8 hour working days, freedom of speech, etc. is not primarily as a result of the 'key men in history' way of thinking, but rather because a lot of ordinary people engaged in long, hard struggles to secure the wide range of freedoms we enjoy - from suffragettes to war tax resisters, to conscientious objectors and eco-prisoners of conscience, etc.

I probably differ from many anarchists in that I do not see a fixed point in our future history when an anarchist society will be ubiquitiously realistic - rather I believe it is the only worthwhile political struggle to engage in, particularly from the perspective of anyone who sees themselves as firmly aligned with grassroots communities and struggles.

Anarchy, in my view, does not mean there will be no rules per say - just that there will be no coercive ruler. Rape will still be frowned upon and the victim/society will deserve some form of justice (execution and ridiculously expensive and futile current incarceration methods aside). The key thing of course is how to prevent the next crime, whether it be mugging, theft, gangland shooting, etc. with having to call on the apparatus of State police. I think voluntarist organisations of community policing to prevent violence and expolitation have worked relatively well, from New York's metros to Spanish anarcho-syndicalist councils.

But it is also of chief importance for us to consider the basis for many crimes - I've spent time in jail and currently have a number of friends in jail (some for political crimes and others for sex crimes). In my albeit small and limited experience it seems that the vast amount of crimes are not grave enough for the current model of imprisonment to apply, and more importantly there is little or no evidence that it prevents recidivism. The givernor of Ireland's biggest jail, Mountjoy, is one of the most prophetic critics of current prison models that I have heard and read of.

Ooops, I'm writing too much here.
I gotta learn to make these into posts and not comments!!!!

Anyhow, it seems to me models of restorative justice and alternative economic systems based on mutual aid (and not the one-way expoitation as we currently see in many places throughout our world) need more intellectual and economic investment for us to see their true value.

To be ctd.
varus said…
"Rape will still be frowned upon and the victim/society will deserve some form of justice" Are you now slipping into euphemisms or is the idea of frowning upon rape a little too gentle? :)

"voluntarist organisations of community policing to prevent violence" And the danger of vigilantes? The danger of a roaming lynch mob is definitely present.

"Anarchy, in my view, does not mean there will be no rules per say - just that there will be no coercive ruler."

Ok on a small scale, however, how would this work on a national level? Who agrees the rules? Is there not a danger of no agreement, resulting in chaos? Aslo on an international level, who protects the country, with no army etc..

"and others for sex crimes)." - no comment, not sure I want to know!

However, I take your point regarding justice and agree that present levels of incarceration are ridiculous. But not so sure that community based methods are the answer, although concede that they probably are part of it.

- As far as your long posts go, please continue because I am enjoying reading them. I am not an advocate of any particular system, and so wish to know as much as i can about all types. As i said before i respect the motivation of you and people like you, but am a little unsure as to the practicality of this.

Anyway, i look forward to your next instalment.
Damien Moran said…
Agreed, I unsuccesfully used 'frowned upon' here in a pre-emptively sardonic fashion as many believe disorder would reign if the mechanics of the State implode.

That's one problem I have with using blogs - commenting asap. leaves one wishing they had used a different verb/word to ensure their concept had no gaping holes open to attack!

How about 'snarled upon'? By no means was I trying to undermine the seriosity of such an act. I know a number of women who have been raped, some horrifically. I also lived, worked and was very close friends with a guy who's now doing 18 years for rape.

I think the wikipedia entry on anarchist law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_law
will do more justice to the issues here than I can in a short comment.
Ultimately, the anarchist concept of society favours social contracts amongst loosely federated groups (which I would see being fundamentally based on the anarcho-syndicalist model).

This philosophy derives largely from Kropotkin's scientific work where he espoused mutual aid and cooperation is a key aspect to our evolutionary survivial.

On a national scale I think it and hope it would work like it did in Spain.

Enforceability is a major sticking point. Pierre Joseph Proudhon believed that it was the duty of each federated body to deal with those who preyed on the weak - this would doubtlessly result in the isolation of paedophiles, rapists, psychopaths for the protection of their victims/potential victims. Models of restorative justice piloted by my friend New Zealender Jim Considine have made considerable progress in rehabilitating offenders.

Chaos is not exactly absent from our current societies and I find it hard to see how worse it could get for the majority scraping the bottom of the barrell due to their own corrupt States and our current economic system standing on their heads while they drown in the ocean below.
For sure Utopia would not pop up immediately after a nation-wide or world-wide revolution. I am a rare breed of anarchist who has many doubts about human nature and it's current essenctial state - whether it be derived from centuries of being pitched against each other for the benefit of our rulers or whether it's just that we have a natual tendency to dominate the other and covet their goodies!

Believe it or not there are already 27 countries in the world without a standing army. Moat anarchists would agree to worker militias being established, just as happened in Spain in the 30's to fight the fascists and occured more recently in Oaxaca to fight the Mexican State recently. Personally I adhere to the nonviolent tactics of Tolstoy, Gandhi, King et al. and believe very much in the proverb that 'an eye for an eye keeps everybody blind'. However, I believe one's nonviolence should be a militant one - willing to die but not willing to kill for the cause of maintaining liberty and equality.

I think you would find the Plowhsares movement fascinating - there is a link on the homepage of this blog. 27 years old, it practically envisions a world in peace is a world without nuclear weapons and military equipment used in a belligerent fashion, therefore citizens in affinity groups are invited to participate in disarmament actions, appealing to international law and the Golden Rule: 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!'
Some priests have spent two decades in jail for such actions.

The mob rule point is a very real one and you are spot on to draw it into this discussion. After the teachers went on strike against their corrupt governor in Oaxaca province of Mexico and a popular uprising occured, a number of lynch mobs got vengeance for criminal activities occuring in their community.

Similarly in N.Ireland when the I.R.A. went on ceasefire in '94 the army council approved a Direct Action Against Drugs campaign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Action_Against_Drugs
which was basically to showrepublican communities that they were still willing to kill when they deemed it necessary.

Taking these two points into account, it certainly would abhor any anarchist that such mob rule would take place - it is my belief though that if the mechanisms were established by the directly established and accountable community council to apprehend the perpetrators for a) the safety of the wider community and b) their own safety, and furthermore that restorative justice was not only done but was also evidently seen to be done. Lynch mobs usually occur out of anger at authorities or elected representatives, etc. failing to do their job. I think it's impossible to take this problem out of a society or 'archys' or 'anarchys', but hopefully they would be limited with best practice adhered to and derived from the fuck ups of the hierarchical and bureaucratic court system to ensure a relatively speedy, public and fair trial for the accused.

I was 3 1/2 years on bail in Ireland so trust me I know what a pain in the ass the court system can be.

Ok, time to browse the www and see what's new in the world. Have I beaten my former record of the longest comment ever?;))
varus said…
I've read the wikipedia reference about anarchic law systems. Again, on a local level i can see what you mean. However, in a federated system, how would inter-entity cooperation work and more importantly, with militias how would they deal with a modern sophisticated army? In the Spanish civil war they were fighting internally. However with external threat, i am not convinced a militia could stand it's ground. For example it takes years to train a fighter pilot which you need to protect your airspace. This requires detailed organisation and planning. This can not be done with an as-hoc non-hierarchical militia system.

Also, who negotiates international treaties regarding air transport or the postal system for example? Unless you wish to regress civilisation, you need a central authority to agree treaties and regimes.

On with the ploughshare organisation. As i said i totally respect the motivation, however
according to that website reference of Anarchic law, their is only one justification for coercion: self-defence. The two schools stipulate either individual self-defence or collective. Fine, but they also both agree that a standing army would constitute reliance on a third party which is against the principle of self-defence. Therefore, i can't figure out the anarchist's justification for the Ploughshare's actions. They constitute coercive action done buy a third party, as no one in Ireland is directly affected by the US Air Force, as in your example. Have i got this wrong, or do they contradict the principles of the anarchy movement?
Damien Moran said…
Military Defence

The form of anarchism I would espouse would include phased military disarmament whioch in turn (I hope) would clarify to other nations, anarchist or not, that there is not beliigerent bone in our body (whether that put my life and the lives of my comrades at risk, well, I'm willing to take that risk cause as I see it it is no more grave than the current shit that is happening, albeit, people who are generally not my skin colour)- Trident, the psychology that builds weaponry behind Mutually Assured Destruction policies, and the Polish gvt.'s recent purchasing of almost 50 F-16's policies, etc. are in my and the eyes of many not taxpayer's money well-spent. A society of peace needs tobe constructed on the foundation stones of justice; the more justice internally the less need for an army to defend enemies from within. The more gestures of peace towards neighbours - solidarity actions, mutual aid in social, economic contracts (like the oil one between Livingstine and Chavez;) would generate mutual dependancies where there is no incentive for insecurity in either country, work industry, etc.

There can never be room in an anarchist society for the proliferation of weaponry which strips resources from reaching the basic needs of its' most vulnerable citizens. I don't think an anarchist milita could ever stand up to an F-16 or A-10 warthog in terms of aerial combat. I don't know any anarchist who wants anything to do with these brutal toys. But are we too think in the currect political environment that Poland will be under threat if it gets rid of its' airforce or that Britain can defend itself against its' gravest threat, terrorism, with more nukes - that is, when the real threat they face is as a consequence of their ongoing economic imperialist policies.

With the NPT and other international treaties already agreed about reducing arms all we need is for the people currently in power to get the fuck out of the way so we can actually do what has been recognised as internationally desirable and responsible from international moral philosophers to international lawyers.

Re. Inter-entity co-operation:

The World Social Forum is a model that is currently being tried to engage a whole range of issues concerning millions of people.

There are many flaws with how it recently operated in Kenya but it does give a hint at how people from various linguistic and cultural backgrounds can invest their intellectual energies to overcome a whole range of barriers that face us who don't have the artillery which the State system has at their disposal (and who waste an awful amount of them resources by making a wide range of policy fuck-ups that exclude large sections of society from enjoying the fruits of their labour).

An example of how indigenous communities can articulate and defend their rights through an international treaty may be seen here:

http://www.cwis.org/260fge/260tcptr.html

UNICEF has a quite interesting track record as a body which, although part of a UN which is in bad need of reconstruction, has been able to collate data internationally in very difficult circumstances to condemn for example, the U.N. Security Council sanctions policies in Iraq. It's humanitarian mission has not decapitated its' ability to challenge the powers that be in this example and though it is structured hierarchically I think many humanitarian orgs. actually complete most of their work in a democratic fashion. Problem is they all just increasingly follow the corporate model which continues ot marginalise many who like to become more empowered to help in society.

International Treaties to organise the postal system could be orchestrated from national councils directly voted for by the workers with a strict mandate from those who have a proven track tecord as acting in the interest of the public domain. With the advent of current communication technologies it seems to me that the everyday running of such systems is increasingly possible without the 'archys' that exist. The level of organisation in an anarchist society would certainly have to be able to prove it's efficieny in this and other public service quarters if it was to maintain the faith and confidence of the general public.

I don't see any big problems with current forms of running the post office service apart from the fact that fatcats who line their own pockets run it and with the cooperation of the capitalist state are imposing cutbacks to the detriment of those who toil and, for example, get my aunt's letter from her home in San Francisco to my apartment in Warsaw. Again, most of the shitwork is done by Josephine and Joe Soap so well-organised workers' councils and their directly elected representatives who don't earn 50 tims the ordinary workers' wage would be expected to use their expertise to deal with the necessary global jigsaw which can ensure that all opearates as smoothly as possible.

The principle of subsidiarity would have to underlie all moves towards striking international partnerships and social, economic, political contracts - but of course, those who would be engaged in all these activities, as a result of being human and under a large amount of pressures from various force fields, would surely fuck up at some stage of the way. That is why mechanisms to oust those who have misusedtheir mandate for personal benefit would have to be intrinsic to the whole system of organisation. A system of checks and balances, which in theory already exist, would have to be enforced (through demotion, expulsion, etc.) if someone breaches the trust of the workers who elected him/her.

Civilisation

Remember what Gandhi said to the journalist when asked about western civilisation: 'That would be a good idea.'

Technological regress would only be necessary in some quarters (cause many areas are still not techologically progressed)- that is for those in the privileged sections and geographical areas of the world who utilise convenient gadgets that make lives seem so rosey. There is a shit load of crap stuff on the market that is totally and utterly not necessary for the betterment of humankind - just go to your local hypermarket to seewhat I mean.

Air travel org.'ing I think could do with an injection of environmentally trained folks who can begin to assess how best to cut down on emissions; but certainly those who know what they are talking about would have to be given a mandate from the workers in the industry to represent them in an accountable manner. The only real way I can see such complex models working in an international context is if we unite the industries beyond the national self-interst imperative that drives many of our current leaders to engage in populist short-term politics that does not have the interest of airline, postal, steel, etc. workers in its' interest.

But it is hard to envision at times who exactly it would orshould look like. There are many models devised with more advanced intellectual hardware than myself (again wikipedia has a pretty comprehensive outline or links that address some of the core concepts) - but until such time as forms of organisation are

Some other links to what already exists can be found here:

Anarchist Orgs.
www.broadleft.org/anarchis.htm

The role of the Anarchist Org.
http://raforum.info/article.php3?id_article=1423

There is no contradiction between the Ploughshares movement actions and an anarchist philosopy. You are making the mistake of thinking that anarchism is a political party like structure with a chief whip.

The anarchic law is not agreed by all anarchists - it is merely one approach. The anarchist movement is hugely divided on a while range of issues. But that's all ok cause we;re not trying to push a neo-liberal E.U. constitution down the throats of those who don't want it; nor are anarchists planning on suppressing the world with their bogeyman as the deputy chairman of a world gvt.; nor do we have to even all like each other (a lot don't). I for one do not agree with the violent resistance of many anarchist movements in for example Greece or Oaxaca - but the vast majority of their work is nonviolent and I do support that in whatever way I can.

The violence in Oaxaca was largely as a result of State oppression and the citixens' need to defend themselves.

The ploughshares movement is individual activists forming affinity groups and physically, symbolically disarming military equipment, nearly always when the State have threatened to use it in a belligerent fashion. Most if not all those who have taken part in ploughshares actions would be anti-Statist. Most actors in the U.S. have been from religious backgrounds.

The collective and self-defence is enshrined in amny laws: the one that we got acquitted oon in Ireland was because we were trying to save our own lives and property (by preempting potential reprisals for Ireland's belligerent role in facilitating U.S. troops and planes) and the lives and property of another (Iraqis and the U.S. troops). The latter was of course the key aspect which won over the jury as the former is relatively impossible to prove unless there has been a reprisal (like in Madrid, London, etc.).

Thanks for reading this far. I'm too lazy too proofread this so hope it doesn't sound too convoluted!
Damien Moran said…
It should read:

albeit, to people who are not........
varus said…
I was in a super market yesterday and saw how the man infront of me placed his basket on top of the others on the floor by the check-out. He made no effort to put it inside of the other one but just dumped it hap hazardly on top. To me this typafied the problems with a collectavised system. People just are not inclned to do something for the benifit of others and out of some sence of civic responsibility. Some are, but not most. I often find my self rearanging heaps of baskets while waiting in a que, (sad, but true!).

This is why i feel that some of the things you mentioned would not work in practise, as was the case in communism. Without the capatalist incentive for action, people are inclined to let someone else do the work and so often no work gets done. In poland, this has meant theat there exists no a generation of people who resent working as they were offered a free meal-ticket by the state for doning basically nothing. This is only changeing, with the younger generations. Again this is not everyone, but a sizeable proportion. - Answer? Not quite sure!

Popular Posts