Not so long ago in our regional community, it took several discussions about the relationship to the struggle against the retirees of another benefit cuts. The main argument is argument that we should actively support the protesters had already by the presence of the very fact of their protest. In this article I would like to offer some thoughts on the matter.
It is obvious that in the modern world to protest against something can absolutely different groups of people, from employees to entrepreneurs and priests.Banal conclusion from this would be that the mere fact of protest does not mean unconditional support. In order to determine our attitude to what is going to answer the question - Does the achievement of the goals of retirees in this case (and protesters in general):
a) Development of self-addictive use of revolutionary methods in his struggle (ie, denial of legalist rules of existing society) - unsanctioned rallies and wild strikes, overlapping, methods of direct action, etc.;
b) reduce the number performed by the state functions and reducing the role and power of private capital;
c) the establishment of institutions of direct democracy and increase the role of workers in managing their own life (not as a "makeweight" to their employment functions, but together with a simultaneous parallel reduction of working time);
d) the development of class consciousness, etc.etc.
Or at least, the development of the above premises.
In other words if it matches any target protesters with the goals of the anarchists.
We should also note that even when performing some of these demands (and supplies to the conflict to a class of employees) protest movement can not only promote the ideas of anarchists, but to be directly opposite them.
An example of such a situation can serve as periodic statements of employees in public transport.In an effort to increase salaries in their industry (quite decent and obviously an essential requirement), and using radical methods of struggle (overlap, strikes) workers are not acting for the redistribution of profits of the capitalists / owners-carriers in their favor, and for raising fares, which naturally hardly coincides with the objectives of the class of employees as a whole.In this example, the role of anarchists in place to support such claims, but rather should be to campaign workers in the industry to act as per their interests and the interests of his class, rather than trying to achieve by raising prices to increase profits for their owners with minimal increase in s / n (as it is actually).
In the case of pensioners, the very purpose and the struggle to preserve benefits at the current moment is likely to be consistent with only one of paragraphs (a).At the same time, we can say that participation in the fight against seniors is absolutely not justified - the support and active engagement with the protesters may have some positive effects, such as:
Creating a positive image of anarchists in the media. This time not as a marginalchannels, digging in trash, but as fighters for social rights.
Strengthening solidarity and mutual assistance between the protesters and activists on the basis of the principle of "we are all oppressed - I will help thee, and thou me."
In the case of achieving goals, positive example for all those who think in the spirit of "resist / not fight it - nothing has changed."
It is clear that the weight of these advantages varies in different situations and the decision to participate / not to participate will have to take depending on the particular case.But in any similar situation for libertarian activists, there is a danger in the pursuit of secondary goals of losing key. Turn into an anarchist "team of rescuers or support group" for slashing anyone (even target object support exceptionally worthy and noble, as in the case of retirees), and get people not only rely on themselves and fight themselves, and expect help from the outside.
For many activists, a significant argument in favor such motion "is their relative abundance.In provincial towns, tired of pickets by the participants which is in the best case, dozens of people involved in organizing events with hundreds or even thousands of protesters in itself seems a step forward. At the same time, thousands of protesters with vague content and requirements can help the cause to a much lesser degree than neaktsionnaya activities (eg, transfer or releaseiteratury) or work with relatively small groups of people (group of small businesses, struggle against the occupants of the point of building).
In what may be the problem of anarchists in this case? Perhaps not approach to the movement of retirees with an eye to the future establishment of the coordinating council of protest initiatives, based on the principles of direct democracy? You may want to carefully analyze the situation and find other prospects of this movement, meeting our goals, or even abandon its active support? It is hard to say ...
I would like to emphasize the following point: do not misunderstand, I wholeheartedly support the right of pensioners a decent life - helping or not helping them a private matter, but as I strongly believe a primary cause an anarchist - to promote the establishment of anarchy.Point.
Add new comment