> ?The basic social and economic cell of the anarchist society is the free, independent
> commune?. (A. Grachev, quoted by Paul Avrich, The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution).
> ---- ?The communes of the next revolution will not only break down the state and
> substitute free federation for parliamentary rule; they will part with parliamentary rule
> within the commune itself. They will trust the free organization of food supply and
> production to free groups of workers which will federate with like groups in other cities
> and villages not through the medium of a communal parliament but directly, to accomplish
> their aim?. (Kropotkin, The Paris Commune). Anarchist communism developed from the workers
> movement, within the first mass organisation of the working class, the First International
> or International Workers Association.
>
> It had its roots in the communist current
> that had developed during the
> French Revolution, with Babeuf
> and Sylvain Marechal, and then
> with the communist banquets of
> Belleville, a working class neigh-
> bourhood of Paris in 1840, and
> then with Cabet and Wilhelm
> Weitling. In cross-pollination
> with the libertarian current that
> emerged among the most ad-
> vanced French workers in the
> First International, themselves in
> contact with the Russian Bakunin
> who had developed similar ideas
> to them, it mutated into the idea
> of anarchist communism, which
> appears to have simultaneously
> emerged among French exiles
> in Switzerland, within the Swiss
> Jura Federation of the First Inter-
> national itself, and in the Ital-
> ian section of the International.
> French workers like Dumartheray
> and Italian intellectuals like
> Covelli appear to have assisted in
> its birth, but it was eagerly taken
> up by those who had been close
> to Bakunin in the International,
> people like Malatesta, Costa, Cafi-
> ero and Brousse, by Elisee Reclus
> and by latecomers like Kropotkin.
> This development would most
> likely have happened anyway, but
> it was the epochal events of the
> Paris Commune of 1871 that re-
> ally left their mark on the birth of
> anarchist communism as an idea.
> The Paris Commune meant dif-
> ferent things to Marx and his
> followers than to the current
> that had begun to define itself as
> anarchist. To the first current it
> meant the worker?s state and the
> dictatorship of the proletariat. To
> the latter it meant free federation
> of a system of communes and the
> abolition of State and Govern-
> ment. Kropotkin was well aware
> of the shortcomings of the Paris
> Commune, writing:
>
> ?The Commune of 1871 could not
> be any more than a first sketch.
> Born at the end of a war, sur-
> rounded by two armies ready
> to give a hand in crushing the
> people, it dared not declare itself
> openly socialist and proceeded
> neither to the expropriation of
> capital nor to the organization of
> work nor even to a general inven-
> tory of the city's resources. Nor
> did it break with the tradition of
> the State, of representative gov-
> ernment, and it did not attempt
> to achieve within the Commune
> that organisation from the simple
> to the complex it adumbrated by
> proclaiming the independence
> and free federation of Com-
> munes. But it is certain that if the
> Commune of Paris had lived a
> few months longer, the strength
> of events would have forced it
> towards these two revolutions.?
> (Kropotkin, Words of a Rebel).
>
> In the article he wrote on the
> Paris Commune in 1880, Kropot-
> kin expands on the concept of the
> commune as the essential and
> basic unit of the social revolution,
> in a characteristically optimistic
> fashion:
>
> ?The next rising of communes
> will not be merely a "communal"
> movement. Those who still think
> that independent, local self-gov-
> erning bodies must be first estab-
> lished and that these must try to
> make economic reforms within
> their own localities are being car-
> ried along by the further develop-
> ment of the popular spirit, at least
> in France. The communes of the
> next revolution will proclaim and
> establish their independence by
> direct socialist revolutionary ac-
> tion, abolishing private property.
> When the revolutionary situation
> ripens, which may happen any
> day, and governments are swept
> away by the people, when the
> bourgeois camp, which only exists
> by state protection, is thus thrown
> into disorder, the insurgent people
> will not wait until some new gov-
> ernment decrees, in its marvellous
> wisdom, a few economic reforms.
>
> They will not wait to expropriate
> the holders of social capital by a
> decree, which necessarily would
> remain a dead letter if not ac-
> complished in fact by the workers
> themselves. They will take pos-
> session on the spot and establish
> their rights by utilising it without
> delay. They will organise them-
> selves in the workshops to con-
> tinue the work, but what they will
> produce will be what is wanted
> by the masses, not what gives the
> highest profit to employers. They
> will exchange their hovels for
> healthy dwellings in the houses of
> the rich; they will organize them-
> selves to turn to immediate use
> the wealth stored up in the towns;
> they will take possession of it as
> if it had never been stolen from
> them by the bourgeoisie?.
>
> Paul Brousse had dwelt on the
> ideas of the Commune as the
> essential unit of the revolution in
> an earlier number of articles in
> 1873, called Le Socialisme Pra-
> tique (Practical Socialism). He saw
> the Commune as the ?vehicle of
> revolution?. The Commune, of
> course, was already the basic unit
> of French governmental adminis-
> tration but increasingly became
> to be used in a different sense
> by anarchists. So the Communes
> on a local level would be seized
> through revolution involving the
> majority of the working class, ac-
> cording to Brousse. ?The autono-
> mous Commune, there you have
> the means, but not the ends?,
> that being a far sweeping revolu-
> tion. At the annual Congress of
> the Jura Federation in 1875, the
> anarchist Schwitzguelbel ad-
> vanced the idea of the Federation
> of Communes, contrasting it with
> the idea of the workers? State.
> With these ideas Brousse, Schwit-
> zguebel and Kropotkin were
> expanding on the statement of
> Bakunin who in his writing on
> the Paris Commune proclaimed:
> ?I believe that equality must be
> established in the world by the
> spontaneous organisation of la-
> bour and the collective ownership
> of property by freely organised
> producers? associations and by
> the equally spontaneous federa-
> tion of communes, to replace the
> domineering paternalistic State.?
> Thus, whilst the organisation of
> workers within the workplaces
> always remained a major concern
> of the anarchists, certainly from
> it developing as a current within
> the First International and carry-
> ing on with the establishment of
> libertarian workers? organisation
> in Spain and other countries as a
> direct consequence of develop-
> ments within the International,
> the idea of the Commune as the
> revolutionary vehicle was the cen-
> tral concern of those anarchists.
> This communal idea was seen as
> the most viable way of organis-
> ing the whole of the oppressed
> and not just in the workplaces.
> It would be the means of ex-
> pression of the mass of the
> oppressed, whether workers in
> large or small factories, women,
> the unemployed, the youth, the
> old, and it would as be as effica-
> cious in the countryside among
> the peasantry and the agrarian
> workers as it would be among the
> urban masses. The organisation
> of workers in the workplace was
> seen as an extremely valuable
> adjunct to that, but it was not as
> yet seen as a substitute for the
> idea of the Commune. The idea
> of the Commune meant obviously
> a communal organisation of life
> which would unite the interests
> of the mass of the working class,
> not just those sections actu-
> ally employed in factories and
> workshops. In his Ideas on Social
> Organisation written in 1876, the
> close friend of Bakunin, James
> Guillaume expanded on the
> nature of communal organisation
> in both countryside and city. The
> idea of the Commune met with
> approval at the 1880 congress of
> the Jura Federation, which draft-
> ed a statement including the fol-
> lowing: ?The ideas set out regard-
> ing the Commune are open to the
> interpretation that it is a matter
> of replacing the current form of
> State with a more restricted form,
> to wit, the Commune. We seek
> the elimination of every form of
> State, general or restricted, and
> the Commune is, as far as we are
> concerned, only the synthetic
> expression of the organic form of
> free human associations.?
>
> In another document drafted at
> the same congress the functions
> of the Commune were defined:
>
> ?What are to be the powers of
> the Commune? Upkeep of all
> social wealth; monitoring usage
> of various capital elements-sub-
> soil, land, buildings, tools and raw
> materials- by the trades bodies;
> oversight of labour organisation,
> insofar as general interests are
> concerned; organising exchange
> and, eventually, distribution
> and consumption of products;
> maintenance of highways, build-
> ings, thoroughfares and public
> gardens; organising insurance
> against all accidents; health
> service; security service; local
> statistics; organising the main-
> tenance , training and education
> of children; sponsoring the arts,
> sciences, discoveries and appli-
> cations. We also want this local
> life in these different spheres of
> activity to be free, like the organi-
> sation of a trade; free organisa-
> tion of individuals, groups and
> neighbourhoods alike, to meet
> the various local services we have
> enumerated.?
>
> Whilst the idea of anarchist
> communism and the Federation
> of Communes as the principal
> revolutionary vehicle remained
> central to anarchist ideas in the
> 1880s, in other ways the anarchist
> movement made a number of
> serious mistakes, not least those
> originally advanced by those like
> Kropotkin and others from the
> days of the First International.
> These erroneous ideas were en-
> gendered by the following
>
> 1. The climate of repression reign-
> ing throughout Europe and the
> United States
>
> 2. The bullying tactics used by so-
> cial democrats like Jaures, Hynd-
> man, Millerand, Bebel, Liebknecht
> and Eleanor Marx to physically
> exclude anarchists and libertar-
> ian socialists from the Socialist
> Congresses of the 1880s.
>
> 3. An increasingly narrow inter-
> pretation of the idea and tactic of
> Propaganda by the Deed. Origi-
> nally used to mean exemplary
> action by a small group of revo-
> lutionaries to illustrate tactics of
> direct action and/or spark revolu-
> tionary movements in a situation
> that was ripe for revolution (as
> seen by anarchists in southern
> Italy for example), it soon came
> to mean attentats and assassina-
> tions of individual members of
> the ruling classes, whether they
> be from the monarchy or from
> government
>
> 4. A move away from the organi-
> sation developed in the Interna-
> tional towards small and some-
> times secret groups organised
> through affinity of friendship and
> political conviction.
>
> This created isolation from the
> mass of the working class (though
> it should be emphasised that the
> bulk of the anarchist movement
> at that time was composed of
> advanced workers). Thus Kropot-
> kin could say in 1880: ?Perma-
> nent revolt in speech, writing,
> by the dagger and the gun, or by
> dynamite...anything suits us that
> is alien to legality?, although he
> always dissociated himself from
> the extremely narrow definition
> by Brousse of the idea of propa-
> ganda by the deed as defined as
> individual acts of terrorism. In
> addition he is referring not just to
> the conditions prevailing in West-
> ern Europe but those within the
> autocratic regime of Tsarist Russia
> where different tactics might be
> called for. Whatever, in the long
> run these concepts brought down
> further repression on the anar-
> chist movement, with the execu-
> tion and imprisonment and exile
> of many of the most courageous
> militants. Kropotkin was able to
> see the dead end of isolation
> that the anarchist movement was
> marching into and had the pres-
> ence of mind to make various
> corrective statements.
>
> Kropotkin was to pen a series of
> articles in 1890 where he stated
> ?that one must be with the peo-
> ple, who no longer want isolated
> acts, but want men (sic) of action
> inside their ranks?. He cautioned
> against ?the illusion that one can
> defeat the coalition of exploiters
> with a few pounds of explosives?
> and proposed a turn to agitation
> in mass movements.
>
> It was in response, on the one
> hand, to the trade unions under
> the tutelage of parliamentarian
> and legalistic social democratic
> parties, and on the other to the
> small anarchist affinity group
> prone to attentats that a new
> tendency arose within the anar-
> chist movement. This was anar-
> cho-syndicalism, as pioneered by
> French activists like Pelloutier and
> Monatte.
>
> Kropotkin himself pointed out
> that the strategy of agitating
> among associations of workers
> based in the workplace went
> back to some of the tactics used
> by Bakuninists within the First
> international, in Switzerland, Italy
> and Spain, and traced the birth of
> French anarcho-syndicalism back
> to Bakuninist tactics.
>
> Anarcho-syndicalist unions were
> seen as operating in two ways, on
> one hand defending the interests
> of the workers in the here and
> now, through fighting for better
> pay and conditions, and on the
> other hand providing the organi-
> sation for a coming free society.
> As one of the chief propagandists
> of anarcho-syndicalism, Rudolf
> Rocker, put it: ?According to the
> syndicalist view, the trade un-
> ion, the syndicate, is the unified
> organisation of labour and has
> for its purpose the defence of the
> interests of the producers within
> existing society and the prepar-
> ing for and the practical carrying
> out of the reconstruction of social
> life after the pattern of socialism?
> (Program of Anarcho-Syndical-
> ism).
>
> One of the key concepts of
> anarcho-syndicalism, apart from
> anti-parliamentarism and direct
> action, was the General Strike.
> This moved from being one
> weapon among several that the
> working class could use both in
> everyday struggle and in times
> of revolutionary upheaval, to the
> main means of bringing about the
> social revolution and the ensu-
> ing free society. Indeed, it can be
> seen that it became a key plank
> in the programme of the German
> anarcho-syndicalist Freie Arbeiter
> Union Deutschland (FAUD) as a
> substitute for insurrection and
> armed revolution and as a direct
> result of the defeat of the Ger-
> man Revolution of 1918. In fact,
> a specifically pacifist discourse
> around the idea of the General
> Strike was pushed by the main
> leading lights within the FAUD like
> Rocker, although it had its internal
> opponents like Karl Roche and
> among the youth, who refused
> to reject the use of revolutionary
> violence.
>
> Thus, to a lesser or greater extent
> within the different anarcho-
> syndicalist organisations, and
> according to local conditions, the
> General Strike came to be seen
> as a substitute for insurrection
> and head on conflict with the
> State, whereas the idea of the
> Commune was always intimately
> associated with revolutionary
> upheaval.
>
> Kropotkin, Malatesta and other
> veterans of the anarchist move-
> ment recognized the potential
> of anarcho-syndicalist unions in
> organising workers and in seiz-
> ing the means of production. On
> the other hand they were wary
> about the dangers of reformism
> within the syndicalist movement.
> Kropotkin recognised that: ?Since
> the great struggle for which we
> prepare ourselves, is an essential-
> ly economic struggle, it is on the
> economic ground that our agita-
> tion has to take place?. However
> whilst welcoming such organisa-
> tion he put equal emphasis on the
> idea of the Commune. Saying ?It
> is necessarily under the banner of
> the independence of the munici-
> pal and agricultural communes
> that the next revolutions will be
> made. It is also in the independ-
> ent communes that socialist
> tendencies are inevitably going
> to appear. It is there that the first
> outlines of the new society will be
> sketched out...?
>
> At the international anarchist
> congress of 1907 in Amsterdam,
> Pierre Monatte argued that syndi-
> calism was ?sufficient unto itself?.
> Malatesta responded that whilst
> he had always been involved with
> working class politics such strug-
> gles were a means to an end, and
> that to see the general strike as
> a ?panacea for all ills? was ?pure
> utopia?. Malatesta agreed that
> the anarchist movement had, in
> the decade of the 1880s, isolated
> itself from the working class
> movement, but now it was going
> to another extreme and losing
> itself in a syndicalist movement
> open to reformism, bureaucratisa-
> tion and opportunism. Malatesta
> attacked the idea of the General
> Strike in these terms:
>
> ?Now, let us move on to the
> general strike. As far as I am con-
> cerned, I accept the principle and
> promote it as much as I can, and
> have done so for several years.
> The general strike has always
> struck me as an excellent means
> to set off the social revolution.
> However, let us take care to avoid
> falling under the dangerous illu-
> sion that the general strike can
> make the revolution superfluous.
> We are expected to believe that
> by suddenly halting production
> the workers will starve the bour-
> geoisie into submission within a
> few days. Personally speaking, I
> can think of nothing more absurd.
> The first to starve to death dur-
> ing a general strike will not be
> the bourgeoisie who have all the
> accumulated produce at their dis-
> posal, but the workers, who only
> have their labour to live on.
>
> ?The general strike as it is de-
> scribed to us is a pure utopia.
> Either the workers, starving after
> three days of striking, will go back
> to work with his tail between
> his legs and we add yet another
> defeat to the list, or he will decide
> to take the products into his own
> hands by force. And who will try
> to stop him? Soldiers, gendarmes,
> the bourgeoisie itself, and the
> whole matter will be necessarily
> decided with rifles and bombs. It
> will be an insurrection and victory
> will lie with the strongest.
> ?So then, let us prepare for this
> inevitable insurrection instead of
> limiting ourselves to exalting the
> general strike as if it were a pana-
> cea for all evils.?
>
> Jean Grave was to add that ?syn-
> dicalism can- and must ?be self-
> sufficient in its struggle against
> exploitation by the employers,
> but it cannot pretend to be able
> to solve the social problem by
> itself?.
>
> Murray Bookchin had deeply
> flawed criticisms of anarcho-syn-
> dicalism, in the way he interpret-
> ed the proletariat in a narrow way
> as the industrial working class.
> He often hurled the accusation
> of ?vulgar Marxism ?at his oppo-
> nents, when he was just as guilty
> of that offence in his understand-
> ing of what constitutes the pro-
> letariat. However sometimes his
> salvos hit home as can partially be
> seen in the following:
>
> ?The authentic locus of anarchists
> in the past was the commune
> or municipality, not the factory,
> which was generally conceived as
> only part of a broader communal
> structure, not its decisive compo-
> nent. Syndicalism, to the extent
> that it narrowed this broader
> outlook by singling out the prole-
> tariat and its industrial environ-
> ment as its locus, also crucially
> narrowed the more sweeping
> social and moral landscape that
> traditional anarchism had cre-
> ated. In large part this ideological
> retreat reflected the rise of the
> factory system in the closing years
> of the last century in France and
> Spain, but it also echoed the as-
> cendancy of a particularly vulgar
> form of economistic Marxism
> (Marx, to his credit, did not place
> much stock in trade unionism),
> to which many naive anarchists
> and non-political trade unionists
> succumbed. After the Revolution
> by Abad de Santillan, one of the
> movers and shakers of Spanish
> anarcho-syndicalism, reflects this
> shift toward a pragmatic econo-
> mism in such a way that makes
> his views almost indistinguish-
> able from those of the Spanish
> socialists - and, of course, that
> brought him into collusion with
> the Catalan government, liter-
> ally one of the grave-diggers of
> Spanish anarchism.? (Deep Ecol-
> ogy, Anarcho-Syndicalism and the
> future of Anarchist Thought).
>
> Bookchin goes on to make the
> sweeping and ludicrous state-
> ment that ?Syndicalism - be it
> anarcho-syndicalism or its less
> libertarian variants - has prob-
> ably done more to denature the
> ethical content of anarchism than
> any other single factor in the
> history of the movement, apart
> from anarchism's largely mar-
> ginal and ineffectual individualist
> tendencies.? Bookchin?s lack of
> judgement in conflating the class
> struggle anarchist politics of anar-
> cho-syndicalism with the deeply
> destructive individualist anarchist
> current does him no favours. At
> a time when clarity of thought is
> what was needed in reconstruct-
> ing a serious revolutionary anar-
> chist politics, Bookchin?s powers
> of reason failed. His adventures
> with libertarian municipalism,
> and then his renunciation of
> anarchism and his adoption of
> ?communalism? tells against him
> on this score. Bookchin is cor-
> rect in his understanding of the
> de-emphasising of the idea of the
> Commune, but on much else he is
> off the mark. One of his more lu-
> cid works, The Spanish Anarchists
> 1868-1936, deals with greater
> precision on syndicalism:
>
> ?Syndicalism, to be sure, has
> many shortcomings, but its
> Marxian critics were no position
> to point them out because they
> were shared by Socialist parties
> as well. In modelling themselves
> structurally on the bourgeois
> economy, the syndicalist unions
> tended to become the organisa-
> tional counterparts of the very
> centralized apparatus they pro-
> fessed to oppose. By pleading the
> need to deal effectively with the
> tightly knit bourgeoisie and state
> machinery, reformist leaders in
> syndicalist unions often had little
> difficulty in shifting organisational
> control from the bottom to the
> top. Many older anarchists were
> mindful of these dangers and felt
> uncomfortable with syndicalist
> doctrines. Errico Malatesta, fear-
> ing the emergence of a bureau-
> cracy in the new union move-
> ment, warned that ?the official is
> to the working class a danger only
> comparable to that provided by
> the parliamentarian; both lead to
> corruption and from corruption to
> death is but a short step?. These
> Anarchists saw in syndicalism a
> shift in focus from the commune
> to the trade union, from all of the
> oppressed to the industrial prole-
> tariat alone, from the streets to
> the factories and, in emphasis at
> least, from insurrection to general
> strike.?
>
> So what of the idea of the Com-
> mune in the present period?
> Anarchist Communism was the
> principal current within anar-
> chism between 1880 and 1920,
> and it remained so beyond that
> period in places like Bulgaria and
> Japan. The post-war revival of an-
> archism involved a resurrection of
> anarchist communist ideas, and of
> course it has been an advocate of
> the Idea of the Commune in the
> last few decades.
>
> It seems that over the last year
> or so, the Idea of the Commune
> is being taken up by other groups
> and currents. We can see this
> in the recent statements of The
> Commune group, where they say
> on their Facebook page:
>
> ?The case for local communes:
> The focus shouldn't just be on a
> 'Party' and electoral politics. Vast
> numbers of people instinctively
> know that so-called 'representa-
> tive' democracy is nothing of the
> sort, but most, understandably,
> can't see any alternative. They
> know the system screws them
> every which way. Hence the
> danger of over-focusing on elec-
> toral politics is you come across
> as another group of wannabe's
> wanting power. In this pursuit of
> votes the temptation will be to
> moderate the message because
> of a hostile media, falling into the
> Syriza trap of looking to be a cred-
> ible government presiding over
> a less harsh form of capitalism
> - a bit of nationalisation here &
> there, a bit of redistribution, but
> still capitalism.
>
> ?What is needed is to present an
> alternative system rather than
> an alternative party. That means
> building an alternative system
> now. Not vote for us who believe
> in an alternative system and when
> we get power, then we'll give it
> to you. Building an alternative
> system now is like the Occupy
> movement, or the structure of the
> IOPS website. It is direct democ-
> racy now. Giving people an equal
> say in decision-making now. Not
> another group of politicians, how-
> ever well intentioned, separated
> from the people.
>
> ?We can do this through face-
> book. Already the Commune has
> local Commune groups, not just in
> Britain but also in places like Cai-
> ro. These can be opened up to all
> who want the common ownership
> of the means of production rather
> than the private ownership. The
> embryonic 21st century on-line
> Soviets, or councils, or assemblies,
> or whatever people want to call
> them. We've gone for the name
> communes after the Paris Com-
> mune of 1871. The hope is that
> as they attract enough people
> they meet regularly and become a
> parallel system of power eventu-
> ally challenging and supplanting
> the capitalist political institutions.
> Being facebook, this can be done
> internationally and take on its
> own momentum.?
>
> It can be also seen in the recent
> meetings where Occupy London,
> International Organization for a
> Participatory Society, Anti-Cap-
> italist initiative and various an-
> archists in the London area held
> ?cross-movement? assemblies:
>
> ?The people?s assembly model for
> organising and decision making
> was discussed. Most participants
> felt that the people?s assembly
> model could help to facilitate
> new forms of social relations
> and organising. But it was also
> pointed out that assemblies may
> not always be appropriate, for
> example when working in com-
> munities with already established
> processes of their own. Here,
> some thought, perhaps introduc-
> ing participatory / horizontal
> processes gradually into already
> existing community forums may
> be a more conducive way of en-
> gaging practically and effectively
> in grassroots struggles, without
> fetishising certain methods of
> coming to decisions.
>
> ?This led to participants ques-
> tioning what practical outcomes
> could emerge from the ?Becom-
> ing Catalysts? assemblies? space.
> After several proposals and much
> deliberation, we reached strong
> agreement that the ?Becoming
> Catalysts? assemblies had the
> potential to bring different groups
> together, share information on
> lessons learned and organise sup-
> port for local action, among other
> things.?
>
> Of course all of these develop-
> ments involve consciously po-
> litical groupings and there are
> problems with the politics of
> some of those involved. A num-
> ber of grouplets meeting together
> is of little value unless real social
> movements and struggles can
> be related to. In this respect the
> developments in Barnet over the
> last year are interesting. Here
> locally based people fighting cuts
> built an effective alliance with
> activists from Occupy and others,
> using tactics of direct action. The
> local campaign rightly sees that
> the privatisation being pushed
> through by the Council, the at-
> tack on the NHS, the setting up of
> academies and free schools, and
> the attacks on postal workers and
> fire stations are interlinked.
>
> The opportunity could exist for
> local assemblies, Communes, call
> them what you will, to develop in
> this time of increasing austerity
> and cuts. The danger always exists
> for sabotage or cooption by the
> Labour Party or by various van-
> guardist groups, but the strength
> of a movement can be gauged by
> how strenuously such moves are
> resisted. The much advertised
> Peoples? Assembly, with a leader-
> ship of Labour and Green Party
> MPs, trade union bureaucrats and
> leftist celebrities, backed by the
> likes of vanguardist outfits like the
> Coalition of Resistance etc, which
> holds a rally this summer, is a
> graphic example of what must be
> avoided at all costs.
>
> In this time of greyness and me-
> dia-peddled notions that nothing
> can be done to counter austerity,
> any developments towards direct
> decision making and attempts
> at new forms of organisation on
> the communal model should be
> encouraged. As anarchist com-
> munists we should engage in any
> such processes and not be afraid
> to engage with, cooperate and
> indeed debate with other cur-
> rents and tendencies within what
> could be embryos of new forms
> of social organisation.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten