Response to comments on: Political statement: Smash bij1, participating in the regime elections is a counter-revolutionary action
It was very sad for me to read the comments section here https://www.indymedia.nl/node/49246. How many times history needs to repeat itself so that anarchists will understand that participation in electoral politics is counter-revolutionary and against ours means and ends?
Didn't German Social Democratic party showed it? What about endless SD parties all over the Europe after them? Spanish revolution? What about people from May 68 who went to parlaments to "change the system from the inside"? Where are they now and has system changed? Syriza? Even Groen Links? Aren't all of them from the grassroot political movements with anti-capitalist, anti-racist, etc agendas? So why do people think that it will be different now? What should happened so that western anarchist understand it now, hopefully for the last time?
Let's not even talk about how everyone in the comments was so angry on the phrasing, but didn't put the smallest effort to understand the reasoning behind it. If you don't want to do it yourself, let me clarify:
1. The statement is not against BIJ1 itself. I am sure that The anarchist organization for reconstruction of militant proletariat do not care about it, same as any other anarchist should. We don't care if they will lose or win, nothing will change from it. The statement is about BIJ1 using our platforms to mobilize for their agendas. The statement is about people who call themselfes anarchists but are happy with it and supporting them. For me there is not much choice of how to think about them: they are either naive, wrong, or enemies. And if the history has teached us something, is that there is not much difference between it.
2. Do we really think that anarchist statement from anarchists directed to anarchists on anarchist platform about not building alliances with political parties needs to have political analyses? Like it wasn't there 100 years ago starting from Bakunin to Kropotkin, Emma Goldman and everyone else? You can say that system has changed since then and it became outdated. To that I can only say that yes, it has changed, but only in the worse direction. Now we are further away from the revolution as we have ever been. And it have happened only because libertarians betrayed their ideals and tactics and turned from revolutionaries to reformists and liberals, wearing revolutionary costumes and posting revolutionary stickers.
3. Some say that proletariat is looking at parlaments and we need to use this platform. There are some things to say about that as well. Why did it happened? Isn't it because there is no alternative here in this country? Isn't it because so called anarchists are happy with the status quo and all they do is spending their time in revolutionary role-play games? If there is no movement, real movement, that attacks current system, of course people will look at the only option. But it doesn't mean that we need to spend our time and energy on using it. In contrast, using elections is what destroys the movement. So I repeat again, everyone who are willing to go into electoral politics is an enemy and nothing else.
But even saying that proletariat is interested in parlament is just total lack of any political analyses. Why did Trump and Baudet and other right populists are popular now? Because they say that we are not from politics! We are angry at politicians and we are not like them! That what anarchists need to use and turn it on our side. Not the willing to be elected.
4. Calling people stalinist only because they are more motivated to fight in real struggle, not just role-play games is what destroyed the movement. Looking at form and phrasing and not what behind it is what destroyed the movement. If you are to afraid of losing the comfort of living in your social center on your social benefits, it's your choice. But don't dare to criticize someone for choosing to fight it. And don't dare to call yourself a revolutionary. You say that such critics destroys the movement? But tell me, what movement? Where is this movement? Because in my time in NL and especially in Amsterdam all what I see is a subculture, circle of interest, to say at max.
5. Most of the activities started here by anarchists have nothing to do with the revolution or destroying the status quo. Even if they do the great things and I support their causes, lets speak honestly, they would be way more effective in the form of NGOs. And that the question that all of us need to ask: is it possible that I will get funding for what I do? Will my group be more effective in achieving our ends by dropping "anarchist" from our title? If your answer is yes, then it doesn't mean that what you do is not needed. But just be honest with yourself.
Saying all that I want to say sorry to my comrades in this country, who are actively fighting and are not afraid to pay their price in this fight. This critic is not related to you.
Also I want to advice my comrades who are spending most of their time in supporting anarchist groups which exists only for the sake of existence and don't do anything else - drop it and start all over again. To much time was spent on endless organizing secretariat duties. You can spend your energy in more benefitial ways for you, for the revolution and for the society. If the end goal of your organization is not the revolution - that not an anarchist organization.