Dear Anarchist Organization for the Reconstruction of the Militant Proletariat,
First of all I saddened to hear of the loss of such a your person. I am sorry about the loss of your friend and I hope you find the strength to hold her name high.
Although I think it is very important that you show solidarity with immigrants and oppressed people in general, and the fact that you do try to create a dialogue with the people living in the AZC, I think this statement - and also some other statements of your group - bear a problematic element in them.
The statement does not only criticize the anarchist movement in the Netherlands, it also holds people co-responsible for the misdeeds of the state because of a supposed 'lack of action': "Clearly, the lack of solidarity of most anarchists and leftists in the Netherlands with immigrants means that their hands are also stained with immigrants' blood." The state and its system of (border)policing are very refined in the Netherlands. It does everything to make the borders and the resulting horrors of it, be felt by a minority of the people and try to keep this so by keeping them isolated from the rest of society - therefore people are isolated in AZC's in the woods, in low populated area's and are children kept separate from general society so that they cannot root etc. This is an effective measure the system has taken to make sure it can continue its practices - to keep it away from the public eye.
Like some people have already criticized before, there is being spoken in very broad terms, only to be tampered down at the end a little, which actually doesn't really make up to what is stated before. First of all, I think there needs to be made clear that there are actually quiet a some people doing solidarity work. That their work is a less integral part of our movement could be criticized, but here the question arises how to constructively change that.
Supposed co-responsibility in the end is nothing more then emotional blackmailing and creating an engagement through guilt, which is I think a very unhealthy way of trying to get people to be active. Building a movement on such a foundation will in the end result in people being active for 'the other', 'the poor souls' that we're left on their own. Instead, what I think is needed, is that we work on the understanding that the struggles of the poor, the oppressed, the excluded, are part of our struggle and reality; that it is actually also our struggle, apart of what all the liberal laws might suggest. People need to learn to struggle for themselves, and in that struggle meet and recognize others so that they can fight side by side. This has been called emancipation in the past and I think a struggle through guilt has little to do with that - it is what I would call sacrifice and most people burn up on this after a couple of years of activism. This kind of activism has in the end little to do with the creation of a militant proletariat, since militancy means the integration of the struggle into your every day life.
The battleground in the Netherlands is a very difficult one indeed. There is a very low class consciousness, much cooptation, a lot of repressive tolerance and the state apparatus has tentacles very deep in society. The 'poldermodel' - the model of the social partnership and a dialogue between the working class and the owners class - has destroyed the workers movement. Under such conditions it is tempting to start pointing at each other, to keep each other responsible for this. We however have to accept that we have lost a battle in the revolutionary struggle and therefore are where we are. Next to that we grow up in a system that is binding us hand to feet, which makes it very difficult to stand up again after that defeat.
If we really want to awaken a militant proletariat, it is the connection with society and its struggles that need to be sought, experiences shared. I suggest that example and gaining proof of results might be a good start of convincing others - not guilt. There is already enough guilt being spread in our movement, where critical theory is being weaponized against one and another instead of being used for constructive efforts. I think your rhetoric is showing the same pitfall.
In one of your earlier statements there was being talked about the need for materialist base for the struggle. I think that this is true. I think however that the struggle for liberation needs to be rooted where we are, where we live. Now to give some fair critique back to you, many of the topics you have called demonstrations and protests for last months had a highly symbolic value and have little to do with the materialist reality of most people in this country. That is not an appeal to abandon internationalism. I think internationalism can take many forms and are most effective if they are material (gathering funds, spreading information, strengthening cooperation, creating true accountable bonds, and not just one way). But apart from internationalism, the basis is where we stand. And that asks also for very unspectacular work. Demonstrations are a method but are something different then truly getting organized with people. That takes time and a lot of effort. To go into neighborhoods and talk with the people living and working there, to understand their needs and see how we as revolutionaries can be catalysts for this. I don't know if you do this too, you have not written about this.
I value the attempt to introduce a more revolutionary perspective in the Netherlands. I differ however about the way this needs to be achieved.
Engagement through guilt
Dear Anarchist Organization for the Reconstruction of the Militant Proletariat,
First of all I saddened to hear of the loss of such a your person. I am sorry about the loss of your friend and I hope you find the strength to hold her name high.
Although I think it is very important that you show solidarity with immigrants and oppressed people in general, and the fact that you do try to create a dialogue with the people living in the AZC, I think this statement - and also some other statements of your group - bear a problematic element in them.
The statement does not only criticize the anarchist movement in the Netherlands, it also holds people co-responsible for the misdeeds of the state because of a supposed 'lack of action': "Clearly, the lack of solidarity of most anarchists and leftists in the Netherlands with immigrants means that their hands are also stained with immigrants' blood." The state and its system of (border)policing are very refined in the Netherlands. It does everything to make the borders and the resulting horrors of it, be felt by a minority of the people and try to keep this so by keeping them isolated from the rest of society - therefore people are isolated in AZC's in the woods, in low populated area's and are children kept separate from general society so that they cannot root etc. This is an effective measure the system has taken to make sure it can continue its practices - to keep it away from the public eye.
Like some people have already criticized before, there is being spoken in very broad terms, only to be tampered down at the end a little, which actually doesn't really make up to what is stated before. First of all, I think there needs to be made clear that there are actually quiet a some people doing solidarity work. That their work is a less integral part of our movement could be criticized, but here the question arises how to constructively change that.
Supposed co-responsibility in the end is nothing more then emotional blackmailing and creating an engagement through guilt, which is I think a very unhealthy way of trying to get people to be active. Building a movement on such a foundation will in the end result in people being active for 'the other', 'the poor souls' that we're left on their own. Instead, what I think is needed, is that we work on the understanding that the struggles of the poor, the oppressed, the excluded, are part of our struggle and reality; that it is actually also our struggle, apart of what all the liberal laws might suggest. People need to learn to struggle for themselves, and in that struggle meet and recognize others so that they can fight side by side. This has been called emancipation in the past and I think a struggle through guilt has little to do with that - it is what I would call sacrifice and most people burn up on this after a couple of years of activism. This kind of activism has in the end little to do with the creation of a militant proletariat, since militancy means the integration of the struggle into your every day life.
The battleground in the Netherlands is a very difficult one indeed. There is a very low class consciousness, much cooptation, a lot of repressive tolerance and the state apparatus has tentacles very deep in society. The 'poldermodel' - the model of the social partnership and a dialogue between the working class and the owners class - has destroyed the workers movement. Under such conditions it is tempting to start pointing at each other, to keep each other responsible for this. We however have to accept that we have lost a battle in the revolutionary struggle and therefore are where we are. Next to that we grow up in a system that is binding us hand to feet, which makes it very difficult to stand up again after that defeat.
If we really want to awaken a militant proletariat, it is the connection with society and its struggles that need to be sought, experiences shared. I suggest that example and gaining proof of results might be a good start of convincing others - not guilt. There is already enough guilt being spread in our movement, where critical theory is being weaponized against one and another instead of being used for constructive efforts. I think your rhetoric is showing the same pitfall.
In one of your earlier statements there was being talked about the need for materialist base for the struggle. I think that this is true. I think however that the struggle for liberation needs to be rooted where we are, where we live. Now to give some fair critique back to you, many of the topics you have called demonstrations and protests for last months had a highly symbolic value and have little to do with the materialist reality of most people in this country. That is not an appeal to abandon internationalism. I think internationalism can take many forms and are most effective if they are material (gathering funds, spreading information, strengthening cooperation, creating true accountable bonds, and not just one way). But apart from internationalism, the basis is where we stand. And that asks also for very unspectacular work. Demonstrations are a method but are something different then truly getting organized with people. That takes time and a lot of effort. To go into neighborhoods and talk with the people living and working there, to understand their needs and see how we as revolutionaries can be catalysts for this. I don't know if you do this too, you have not written about this.
I value the attempt to introduce a more revolutionary perspective in the Netherlands. I differ however about the way this needs to be achieved.
Tommy Ryan
1 march 2021