Mi ddylai bwyd fod yn hawl nid yn fraint! gan Crav Llibertat

Mae Bwyd Nid Bomiau yn fudiad byd eang sy’n ymgyrchu am newid cymdeithasol. Mae eu dull o brotestio yn erbyn rhyfel a thlodi yn un syml ond effeithiol –drwy rannu bwyd am ddim ar y stryd i unrhyw un sydd eu eisiau. Fe ddechreuodd yn yr Unol Daleithiau yn yr 1980au a thyfodd yn gyflym gyda chanoedd o grwpiau yn cael eu sefydlu ar draws pob un cyfandir. Nid elusen yw Bwyd Nid Bomiau – Mae’n ymgyrchu i roi diwedd ar dlodi a newyn ac mae’n cefnogi: gweithredoedd sydd yn sefyll yn erbyn cyfyngu ar symudiadau pobl; atal globaleiddio a dinistr y ddaear. Mae’n fudiad sydd am weld newid, lle mae anghenion pobl yn dod yn gyntaf ac nad ydynt yn cael eu cyfaddawdu er lles busnesau mawr a rhyfeloedd anghyfiawn.

800foodnotbombs

Mae grwpiau Bwyd Nid Bomiau yn annibynnol a’i gwirfoddolwyr yn defnyddio’r broses o gonsensws er mwyn dod i benderfyniadau. Mewn consensws ni ddefnir pleidleisio ond yn hytrach caiff penderfyniadau eu gwneud unwaith fod pawb sy’n cymryd rhan yn hapus a chytûn ar unrhyw gynigion. Nid oes arweinwyr, cadeiryddion ac nid oes prif swyddfa. Nid oes hierarchaeth yn bodoli. Mae pob grŵp yn mynd a bwyd byddai fel arall yn mynd i wastraff ac yn ei defnyddio i baratoi prydau bwyd fegan a llysieuol. Mae hyn yn fodd o dynnu sylw at ba mor wastraffus ydi cyfalafiaeth, system sy’n seiliedig ar drachwant ac anghydraddoldeb. Cred sylfaenol y mudiad ydi petasai llywodraethau a chorfforaethau o gwmpas y byd yn gwario gymaint o amser ac egni ar fwydo pobol ac mae nhw ar ryfeloedd base neb yn llwgu.

Bu grwpiau Bwyd nid Bomiau yn weithredol yng Nghaerdydd a Nghasnewydd yn ystod yr 1990au. Ail-sefydlwyd grŵp Bwyd Nid Bomiau Caerdydd yn haf 2010 ac mi ydw i wedi bod yn gwirfoddoli gyda nhw ers hynnu. Rydym ni yn fel pob un grŵp arall yn dilyn tair egwyddor craidd sef – I weinu bwyd fegan neu lyseiol am ddim i unrhyw un; I wneud penderfyniadau drwy gonsensws; ac i fod yn ymroddedig i’r dull di-drais o weithredu. Ry ni wedi bod yn darparu prydau ar strydoedd y ddinas yn rheolaidd ac ar adegau ochr wrth ochr mewn safiad gydag ymgyrchoedd rhyngwladol fel yr un i ryddhau Bradley Manning yn ogystal â chefnogi achosion lleol fel Ymgyrch Unoliaeth a phobl ddigartref Caerdydd. Pan feddiannodd ymgyrchwyr adeilad ar Stryd Westgate oedd arfer bod yn swyddfeydd i Gyllid y Wlad yn 2011 fe aethon ni tu allan er mwyn rhannu bwyd cynnes i’w cefnogwyr ac i aelodau o’r cyhoedd wrth i’r meddianwyr ollwng baneru anferth allan o ffenestri’r adeilad i ddatgan eu bod yn ei sgwotio.

img_0663

Ar rhai adegau ry ni yn cael ein harrasio gan yr heddlu, sydd fel arfer yn datgan (yn anwir) ein bod ni yn torri’r gyfraith. Does dim byd anghyfreithlon am rannu bwyd am ddim gyda’r cyhoedd ar y stryd ond yn amlwg, mae rhoi bwyd i ffwrdd am ddim yn fygythiad i gyfalafiaeth! Rydym ni hefyd yn cael ein harrasio yn achlysurol gan swyddogion Iechyd Amgylcheddol sy’n chwilio am esgus i’n hatal ni rhag rhoi prydau bwyd fegan i ffwrdd tu allan i McDonalds fel arfer (tybed pwy nath gwyno iddyn nhw?) Ond rhan fwyaf o’r amser ry ni yn cwrdd â phobol glên sy’n falch o dderbyn paned o goffi cynnes a phryd o fwyd iachus, llawn maeth sydd am ddim. Mae gwneud Bwyd Nid Bomiau yn weithred heddychlon sy’n hwyl a dwi yn mwynhau sgwrsio gyda bob mathau o wahanol bobl ar y stryd gan wrando ar eu straeon, eu pryderon a’i safbwyntiau.

Yng ngwanwyn 2012 mi wnes i ac Efa Thomas o Bwyd Nid Bomiau Caerdydd deithio i Ffrainc i ymweld a gwirfoddoli efo grŵp Bwyd Nid Bomiau Paris. Mi oedd y grŵp yn paratoi’r bwyd mewn cegin yn sgwot La Miroiterie yn ardal Menilmontant o’r ddinas. Maen nhw yn gweini prydau bob nos Sul ac mae eu bwyd yn dod o farchnadoedd lleol ar yr un diwrnod – bwyd sydd yn ffres ond fyddai fel arall yn mynd i wastraff. Roedd yn gryn dipyn o ffrwythau wedi dod o’r farchnad felly mi wnaethon ni dorri mefus a pharatoi salad ffrwythau mawr mewn bwcedi. Roedd y prif gwrs yn syml – tatws mash a salad. Ac yn union fel ein grŵp ni, roedd yr holl blatiau a photiau a bwcedi o fwyd yn cael eu cludo mewn trolis archfarchnad. Mae La Miroiterie ar stryd serth, felly roedd rhaid bod yn ofalus wrth i ni afael yn y trolis oedd yn ein tynnu ni lawr y stryd brysur gan osgoi cerddwyr a thraffig! Roedd y bwyd yn cael eu weini tu allan i brif fynediad Metro Menilmontant ac ar ôl gosod bwrdd a chodi baner yn datgan ‘Repas Gratuit por toutes et tous’ (Pryd am ddim i bawb) dechreuodd pobl ddod i fwyta. Cefais i ac Efa ein hysbrydoli gan frwdfrydedd ac angerdd y criw ym Mharis. Ar y pryd, roedd gweithgaredd grŵp Bwyd Nid Bomiau Caerdydd yn achlysurol, ond fe’m hargyhoeddwyd ni y gallen ni gyda chriw ymroddedig gynnal prydau wythnosol nol yng Nghymru.

Bellach mae Bwyd Nid Bomiau Caerdydd yn rhannu bwyd ar strydoedd Caerdydd bob amser cinio dydd Gwener, tu ôl i’r Farchnad Ganolig. Ond er mwyn i ni barhau i gyflawni a chynnal hyn mae angen mwy o wirfoddolwyr i helpu gyda chasglu bwyd, coginio a gweini. Os gallwch chi helpu, cysylltwch â ni.

foodnotbombscardiff@riseup.net
facebook.com/foodnotbombscardiff
twitter.com/FNBCardiff

IWW Caerdydd – Gweithwyr Diwydiannol y Byd

156939_115024725329148_1743081707_n

Yn ddiweddar sefydlwyd cangen o’r IWW yng Nghaerdydd. Dyma eu gwefan facebook. Ar eu gwefan swyddogol fe ddisgrifwyd yr IWW eu hunain fel:

‘a member-run union for all workers, a union dedicated to organizing on the job, in our industries and in our communities. IWW members are organizing to win better conditions today and build a world with economic democracy tomorrow. We want our workplaces run for the benefit of workers and communities rather than for a handful of bosses and executives.’

Bu aelodau o’r IWW yn weithgar yng Nghaerfnarfon am amser felly dydi’r IWW ddim yn undeb newydd yng Nghymru. Pob lwc iddynt yn helpu gweithwyr Caerdydd i uno a threfnu!

Dim Ffiniau! Hafan i Mrs S a’i phlant!

Ffilm o’r teulu yn cael eu herwgipio gan y UKBA

‘I’m scared that I might never be able to see them again, because I might never be able to go back to Egypt. It’s really dangerous – which is why they are seeking asylum. I don’t want them to die,’
Shrouk, merch hynaf Mrs S
Cyrhaeddodd Mrs S a’i dau o blant yn Y DU ym mis Tachwedd 2007 ar ôl ddioddef 15 mlynedd o drais yn yr Aifft. Fe wnaeth eu merch ieuengaf aros ar ôl yn yr Aifft ac fe wnaeth y Swyddfa Gartref ei helpu hi a’i aduno gyda’i theulu yn saff yn y DU. Mae eu hachos a phob hawl i apelio wedi cael ei wrthod, er bod y teulu cyfan o dan fygythiad difrifol o drais neu hyd yn oed marwolaeth gan ‘honour killing’ os caffent eu gyrru yn ôl i’r Aifft.

Mae Mrs S wedi bod yn erchi hafan oddi wrth gwr creulon a treisgar, fe wnaeth ei weithredoedd ef roi bywydau hi a’i phlant mewn perygl dros 15 mlynedd hyd at yr eithafiaeth o farwolaeth a chael eu treisio. Fe wnaeth yr awdurdodau yn yr Aifft anwybyddu’r achos yma o drais yn y cartref gan fod ei gŵr hi gyda chysylltiadau agos gyda’r heddlu, y gyfraith ac awdurdodau eraill.

Dylai Mrs S gael ei hamddiffyn yn ôl cyfraith ryngwladol confensiwn Reffugee yr UN gan fod ei bywyd hi a’i phlant mewn perygl. Yr ydym yn galw ar weinidog y DU ar gyfer Mewnfudo iddo roi caniatâd i Mrs S a’i phlant i aros yn y DU ar y sail yma.
Dyma’r Deisib
Gwefan Dim Ffiniau De Cymnru

Gwefan Facebook

Dyma be ddigwyddodd wedyn ar indymedia

Unoliaeth efo pobl digartref Caerydd 10/10/2012

Heddiw fe wnaeth ‘Ymgyrch Unoliaeth a phobl ddigartref Caerdydd’ a ‘Bwyd nid Bomiau Caerdydd’ ymuno i roi bwyd cynnes, llysieuol am ddim i bobl ac i wrthdystio yn erbyn siop gemydd yng Nghaerdydd. Pam? Oherwydd fe wnaeth perchennog y busnes yma ddweud y dylai pobl ddigartref cael eu carcharu yn y wasg yr haf yma gan ddefnyddio’r ddeddf  cardota o’r flwyddyn 1824.

Yr oedd hyn yn sgil fflam yr olympics dod i’r dref, yr oedd y gemydd yn poeni fod pobl ddigartref am effeithio ei fusnes.

Gwnaeth criw ohonom eistedd o flaen mynedfa ei siop a rhoi taflen i bawb oedd yn mynd i’r siop a oedd yn amlinellu’r problemau mae pobl ddigartref yn ei wynebu yn ein cymdeithas. Mae’r ffaith fod y llywodraeth yma wedi gwneud sgwatio yn anghyfreithlon mewn adeiladau preswyl yn golygu mae pobl ddigartref yn cael eu targedu, nid oes ganddynt hawl i fochel mewn tŷ gwag, yng Nghymru o bob man! Gwlad sy’n adnabyddus o wlyb ac oer! Mae hyn yn hollol chwerthinllyd wrth ystyried cymaint o dai gwag  sydd yng Nghymru, gan gynnwys tai haf ble mae’r adeilad yn wag am ran fwyaf o’r flwyddyn.

Fe wnaeth  dwy Community Suppourt Officers ddod atom a gofyn am ein manylion, dywedodd un wrthym (ar ôl i ni wrthod rhoi unrhyw fanylion)

‘Did you know it is ân offence to not give your details?’

Fe wnaeth yr arsylwraig cyfreithiol a oedd yn monitro’r brotest, chwerthin yn eu hwynebau. Yr oeddynt un ai yn dweud celwydd neu’n dwp oherwydd mae hyn yn rwtsh llwyr, does dim rhaid darparu unrhyw fanylion personol o gwbl yn y sefyllfa yna.

Yr oedd cerddoriaeth gan Jamie Bevan a Jasmine Jackdaw, yr oedd pawb wrth eu boddau gyda veggie burgers blasus bwyd nid bomiau ac fe wnaeth sawl person digartref ymuno a’r brotest.

Mae digartrefedd wedi cynyddu 14% y flwyddyn ddiwethaf ac mae amcangyfrifon fe fydd yn cynyddu bellach fyth.

Gwrthsafiad yn erbyn troi allan Sgwatwyr o Gremlin Alley Caerdydd.

Heddiw oedd y dyddiad rhoddwyd y llys ar gyfer troi allan criw o sgwatwyr o’r adeilad Gremlin Alley  yn y Rhath, Caerdydd.  Mae’r adeilad yn hen Sinema a ali fowlio o’r enw Spin ar Heol y Ddinas a chafodd ei hagor yn wreiddiol fel y Gaiety Cinema and skating rink yn 1912.

Tua 10 o’r gloch yn y bore fe wnaeth y sgwatwyr a oedd yn wynebu cael eu troi allan ollwng banner o’r to yn dweud;

‘SOLIDARITY WITH ALEX HAIG – 3 MONTHS FOR BEING HOMELESS’

mewn brawdoliaeth gyda dyn 21 oedd a chafodd ei garcharu am fyw mewn adeilad a oedd yn wag fel arall, ‘sgwatio’ hynny yw. Mis mawrth diwethaf fe wnaeth y llywodraeth basio deddf a oedd yn gwneud sgwatio i raddau helaeth yn anghyfreithlon, y dyn yma, Alex Haig yw’r cyntaf i’w garcharu gan bwerau’r ddeddf newydd yma.

Fel arwydd o wrthdystiad yn erbyn y gyfraith anghyfiawn hon, penderfynodd y sgwatwyr i wrthsefyll y ‘troi allan’ a wnaeth y llysoedd orchymyn arnynt. I lawer ohonynt a oedd o safiad gwleidyddol Anarchaidd; ‘lladrad yw eiddo’ ac felly mae meddiannu adeiladau a’u defnyddio er lles y gymuned yn rhan o’u credoau gwleidyddol o gymunedau ymreolaethol.

Mae sawl enghraifft o weithgareddau cymunedol gwerth chweil a wnaeth y sgwatwyr yn Gremlin Alley, maent wedi cynnal sawl noson gerddorol/barddonol. O gerddoriaeth acwstig i gerddoriaeth ddawns. Yn ogystal a hyn mae sawl gweithdu wedi cael ei gynnal yn Gremlin Alley,  gan gynnwys gweithdai gweu, gweithdai ffansins, sesiwn bywlunio, sesiwn sglefrfwrddio a Parkur, sesiynau ar gyfer pobol sydd yn gaeth i alcohol neu gyffuriau, gweithdy syrcas a llawer iawn mwy. Yr oedd y criw yma o sgwatwyr yn weithgar iawn yn trio dod a rhywbeth positif i’r gymuned.

Ar ddiwrnod y troi allan fe ddoth yr awdurdodau ar ôl i’r sgwatwyr ollwng y banner o’r to, fe yrasant nhw sawl grŵp o heddweision draw at yr adeilad drwy gydol y dydd, ond nid oedd modd iddynt gael mynediad i’r adeilad. Yr oedd llawer o fobol tu allan wedi casglu i brotestio yn erbyn y troi allan. Fe wnaeth band lleol o’r enw Inconsidorate Parking gwneud perfformiad yn y stryd tŷ allan i’r sgwat fel eu ffordd nhw o ddangos cefnogaeth.

Nid yw sgwatwyr Gremlin Alley yn gwybod be ddigwyddith. Mae’r heddlu wedi gadael  ar hyn o bryd ond ni wyddai’r  sgwatwyr pryd byddynt yn dod nol. Dywedodd un sgwatiwr wrthyf eu bod wedi baricedio’r holl adeilad ac yn barod am y bailiffs a’r heddlu. Amser a ddengys os mi fyddyn nhw yn llwyddo cadw gafael ar yr adeilad.

Datganiad Anarchwyr Caerdydd o’r 1980’au (Saesneg)

Everything you ever wanted to know about anarchism
but were afraid to ask

This classic statement of anarchism was written by a diverse group of anarchists in Cardiff around 1980 and it is an interesting historical record of the optimism of mainstream anarchist thought at that time.Terry Phillips


INTRODUCTION

There is probably more rubbish talked about anarchism than any other political idea. Actually, it has nothing to do with a belief in chaos, death and destruction. Anarchists do not normally carry bombs, nor do they ascribe any virtue to beating up old ladies.

It is no accident that the sinister image of the mad anarchist is so accepted. The State, the press and all the assorted authoritarian types, use every means at their disposal to present anarchy as an unthinkable state of carnage and chaos. We can expect little else from power-mongers who would have no power to monger if we had our way. They have to believe that authority and obedience are essential in order to justify their own crimes to themselves. The TV, press and films all preach obedience, and when anarchy is mentioned at all, it is presented as mindless destruction.

The alleged necessity of authority is so firmly planted in the average mind that anarchy, which means simply ‘no government’ is almost unthinkable to most people. The same people, on the other hand, will admit that rules, regulations, taxes, officiousness and abuse of power (to name but a few) are irritating to say the least. These things are usually thought to be worth suffering in silence because the alternative – no power, no authority, everybody doing what they pleased – would be horrible. It would be anarchy.

Yet there are a limitless range of possible societies without the State. Not all of them would be unpleasant to live in. Quite the contrary! Any kind of anarchist society would at least be spared the horrible distortions the State produces. The ‘negative’ side of anarchism – abolition of the State – has to be balanced against what replaces it – a society of freedom and free co-operation.

Various sorts of anarchists have differing ideas on exactly how society ought to be organised. They all agree that the State must be replaced by a society without classes and without force. It is because of this belief in freedom that we are reluctant to put forward a rigid blueprint. We offer only possible models backed up by evidence drawn from life. Actually, there has already been an anarchist society and it took nothing less than mass murder to stop it.

Another common misunderstanding from those who know slightly more about it, is that anarchism is a nice daydream, a beautiful but impractical idea. In fact, the anarchist movement has a long history and it arose not in the heads of ivory tower philosophers, but directly from the practical struggle for survival of masses of ordinary, downtrodden people. It has always been intensely practical in its concerns and its ways of doing things. The movement has come quite close to success a few times. If it is really so hopelessly impractical, then why is the State so determined to stamp it out?

ELEMENTARY ANARCHISM

Very few people seem to understand anarchism, even though it is a very simple, straightforward idea. It can be expressed basically as running our own lives instead of being pushed around.

There is nothing complicated or threatening about anarchism, except the fearsome arguments it can get you into. Such as the one about the chaos there would be if everyone did just what they wanted. But we have chaos already don’t we? Millions are out of work, whilst others do too much boring, repetitive labour. People starve at the same time as food is being dumped into the sea to keep prices up. Our air is choked by the fumes from cars that contain only one person. The list of crazy, chaotic things that happen is endless.

Even the ‘good’ things that the State does are actually harmful. The Health Service, for example, patches us up just like an industrial repair shop which in a sense it is. It serves to make us dependent on the State and, worst of all, it buys us off cheaply. It prevents us from creating the genuine, self-managed Health Service we need, geared to our needs not theirs.

Authorities by their very nature can only interfere and impose things. Surely, ordinary people can figure out some way of coping, without planners knocking down their houses to build yet more empty office blocks? It is a basic anarchist principle that only people who live in an area have the right to decide what happens there.

All this chaos, we believe, arises from authority and the State. Without the ruling class and its need to keep us in bondage, there would be no State. Without the State we would be in a position to organise freely for our own ends. Surely we couldn’t make a worse mess than we are stuck with already? Free organisation could provide a much greater orderliness than a society that concentrates on the systematic robbery and suppression of the majority of its members.

SOME COMMON ARGUMENTS AGAINST ANARCHISM

We are often asked how an anarchist society would deal with, for instance, murderers. Who would stop them without the police?

Most murders are crimes of passion and therefore unpreventable by police or anyone else. Hopefully, however, in a saner, less frustrating society such ‘crimes’ would be less common.

Our rulers claim to be protecting us from each other. Actually they are more interested in protecting themselves and ‘their’ property from us.

If we, as members of a local community, owned and shared all resources it would become absurd to steal. An important motive for crime would be abolished.

These local communities would need to develop some means of dealing with individuals who harmed others. Instead of a few thousand professional police there would be 51 million in the ‘United Kingdom’ alone. Ultimately, our only protection is each other.

Prisons fail to improve or reform anyone. Local people aware of each others’ circumstances would be able to apply more suitable solutions, in keeping with the needs of the victim and the offender. The present penal system, on the other hand, creates criminal behaviour. Long term prisoners are often rendered incapable of surviving outside an institution that makes all their decisions for them. How is locking people up with others of an anti-social turn of mind (the worst of whom are the screws) supposed to develop responsibility and reasonable behaviour? Of course it does just the opposite. The majority of prisoners re-offend.

Another question anarchists have had thrown at them for years is: “But who would do all the dirty and unpleasant jobs?”. We imagine each community would devise its own rota system. What is so impossible about that?

Then there’s the question: “But what about those who refuse to work?”. Well, social pressure can be applied. People could, for example, be ‘sent to Coventry’, i.e. ignored. In drastic cases they could be expelled from the community.

But people need to work. People have a definite need for creative activity. Notice how many people spend their time working on cars or motor bikes, in gardening, making clothes, creating music. These are all creative activities that can be enjoyable. They are usually thought of as hobbies rather than work, since we’re brought up to think of work as a torment to be endured.

In this society of course, work is a torment. Naturally, we hate it. This does not mean that we are naturally lazy, it means that we resent being treated like machines, compelled to do mostly meaningless work for someone else’s benefit. Work does not have to be like that – and if it were controlled by the people who had to do it, it certainly would not be.

Of course some jobs just have to be done, and there are few methods in sight of making collecting rubbish a fun occupation. Everybody would have to take a share and everybody would have to see to it that nobody got away with shirking their responsibilities.

A further point worth making is that unemployment is only a problem created by capitalism. In a sensible world there would be no unemployment. Everyone would have a shorter working week, because they would only produce things that were needed. If we were to get rid of the parasitic ruling class, we would be free of most of the economic pressure to work.

If you still need to be convinced that an anarchist society could solve the problem of people failing to meet their responsibilities, then imagine yourself being compelled to face a meeting of the whole community you live in and being publicly discussed as a problem. Ugh!

Yet another common objection is: “Well, perhaps it would work on a peasant village scale, but how can you run a complex industrial society without the authority of managers?”. Well, in the first place, we believe that society needs to be broken down to smaller-scale units as much as possible, so as to make them comprehensible to small groups of ordinary people. It is a noticeable fact of organisation, as well as a basic principle of anarchist theory, that small groups of people can work efficiently together, and co-ordinate with other such groups; whereas large formless groups are gullible and easily dominated. Expanding this point it is interesting to note that recently the famous ‘economies of scale’ that justify steel works, for example, covering many square miles, have been increasingly called into question. Beyond a certain point factories, farms, administrative systems and so on, actually get much less efficient as they get larger.

As much as is reasonably possible should be produced and consumed locally. Some facilities, however, would have to be dealt with on a regional or even larger scale. There is no insoluble problem about this, in fact solutions were found by the Spanish working class in the thirties. The Barcelona Bus Company doubled services, made generous contributions to the City Entertainments Collective and produced guns for the front in the bus workshops. All this was achieved with a smaller workforce, as many had left to fight the fascists. This amazing increase in efficiency, despite the war and serious shortages of essential supplies, is not surprising on reflection after all, who can best run a bus company? Obviously bus workers.

All the Barcelona workers were organised into syndicates – groups of workers in the same enterprise, sub-divided into work groups. Each group made its own day-to-day decisions and appointed a delegate to represent their views on wider issues concerning the whole factory, or even the whole region. Each of the delegates was instructed in what to say by their workmates and the task of being a delegate was frequently rotated. Delegates could be changed at short notice if it was felt they were getting out of line (the principle of recallability). These show the basic anarchist principles of free federation in practice. By adding more levels of delegation it is possible to cope with organising activity on any scale, without anyone giving up their freedom to work as they choose. This idea of federalism is illustrated again in a later section called ‘Local action and organisation’.

Let’s move on to another objection – “Wouldn’t a society without a State have no defence from attack by foreign states?”.

Well, it must be said that having a State hasn’t prevented us from being taken over by the US Empire. In fact ‘our own’ armed forces are used against us as an army of occupation. The State does not defend us. It uses us as cannon fodder to defend our rulers, who, if the truth be untangled, are our real enemies.

Returning to the question, a classic anarchist answer is to arm the people. Anarchist militias in Spain very nearly won the civil war despite shortages of weapons, treachery by the Communists and intervention by Germany and Italy. Where they made their mistake was in allowing themselves to be integrated into an army run by statists. An armed population would be difficult to subdue.

But yes, we could be destroyed. We believe that the real nuclear threat is from ‘our side’. The American rulers would probably exterminate us all rather than willingly allow us our freedom.

Against the threat of destruction our best defence is the revolutionary movement in other countries. Put another way, our best defence against the Russian nuclear bomb is the current movement of the Polish workers. This may well spread to the rest of the Soviet Empire. Conversely their best hope of not being vaporised is that we might succeed in abolishing ‘our’ bomb. (CND has not yet realised that banning the megadeath weapons means banning the State!)

It is instructive how the Russian revolution was saved from wholesale British intervention by a series of mutinies and ‘blackings’ by British workers.

True security would be guaranteed if we could develop our international contacts to the point where we can be sure that the workers in each ‘enemy’ country will not allow their rulers to attack us.

The last few pages have been a very brief introduction to the way anarchists think. There are plenty more ideas and details to be found in various books on the subject. But basically you understand anarchism by living it, becoming involved with other anarchists and working on projects, so this is the theme around which the majority of this little book is written – anarchist actions.

ANARCHISM IN ACTION

If you have followed this pamphlet so far, you should have a fairly reasonable idea of what an anarchist society is. The problem is how to get from here to there.

Within anarchism there are many different but related ideas. There are complete systems of anarchist political theory going by names like federalism, mutualism, individualism, syndicalism, anarchist-communism, anarcha-feminism, situationism, and so on.

The arguments between different brands of anarchism have been going on for a long time and are too involved for an introductory pamphlet.

However, if we think in terms of what anarchism says needs to be done now, it turns out that there is considerable agreement between brands. Each strand emphasises the importance of action in a particular area of life.

If you begin to put the ideas of the following pages into practice, you will start to work out your own version of anarchism. By doing this you will be adding a new member to a movement that always needs new members, particularly ones who have thought things through. Try your ideas out on your friends, read more on anarchism, talk with other anarchists!

Be an independent thinker. There is no other sort.

ORGANISING IN THE WORKPLACE

Traditionally, anarchists believe that the main problem with the world is that it is divided into masters and ‘wage slaves’. If we could get rid of the bosses and run industry ourselves, for the benefit of our own needs not theirs, it would clearly make a big improvement and would transform every area of life.

There are, however, some anarchists who believe the working class is so used to being enslaved that some other route to revolution will have to be found.

An anarchist at work, however, will usually at least try to get his or her workmates to organise themselves. We try to spread the simple idea that by sticking together we resist being pushed around. This is best done by talking to workmates, becoming accepted and trusted by them, rather than by high pressure preaching. Solidarity can best be learned through action.

Anarchists try to be ready for strikes when they happen. Usually the most important task in such situations is to undermine the power of the official union line and get people working together directly rather than through the ‘proper channels’. The point of anarchism is to seize control of our own lives, not to hand it over to an official for a sell out. As it happens such direct action is the tried and tested way of winning industrial battles. Unity is strength.

To the anarchist, strikes for more small changes, demarcation disputes, and so on, are not especially revolutionary. To us, the only real point in such actions is that in the course of them people may begin to learn how to organise for themselves and gain confidence in their collective power. Eventually this experience could prove useful and begin to allow workers effectively to challenge the industrial power structure and build towards complete workers’ control of production.

We have a long history to draw on and many useful techniques that have worked elsewhere. There are ideas like slowing down till we reckon we are working at a rate appropriate to the wage. Or ‘good work’ strikes, taking care to do a good job irrespective of the time it takes. Such actions only make sense if taken by a group of people in a united fashion. They are examples of direct action. We don’t ask the bosses, we tell them. By contrast the indirect (so-called democratic) method is to wait five years and put a cross opposite the name of a labour politician, who turns out to be in the same freemason’s lodge as the opposition candidate.

We would hope that self-organisation among workers will once again (as at other times in recent history) reach the point where they are prepared to act together and confront the State in its entirety. If the next time around there is adequate experience, organisation, preparation and awareness, it will be possible to dispose of the State and bosses and move towards an anarchist society and an anarchist world.

There are a variety of ways differing anarchists believe this could come about. Some anarchists support the idea of building giant unions controlled from the bottom up, rather than the usual top down structure. This syndicalism is a clear strategy for revolution which has been shown effective in the past. The union ideally includes all the workers in each place and aims to develop self-organisation to the point where the workers can easily take over the factories. Strikes can, where necessary, be backed up by solidarity action from other workers.

Eventually, enough workers will have joined and become active for a general strike. The State is paralysed and can do nothing if it cannot trust the army to kill its own relatives. The general strike may be a general take-over by the people, or develop into one. At this point the work of building Utopia can begin.

Some anarchists reject aspects of this plan. They doubt the wisdom of forming unions at all, even if decentralised. They worry that a layer of professional leaders will develop. There is also the danger of getting lost in the swamp of everyday compromise over petty issues.

In any case this difference in approach does not prevent working together. In the ‘United Kingdom’ (joke phrase) the existing Labour-mafia controlled unions have already got it all sewn up. The prospects for forming anarchist unions are obviously dismal.

In these circumstances, it seems that the way forward is to try to promote links between workers that by-pass the mafia controlled union HQ’s which try to monopolise information so as to maintain control. Any action such as flying pickets, which puts control in the hands of strikers themselves, should be encouraged.

It would be useful if anarchists working in the same industry were in contact. Where contacts do not already exist, a conference is a good starting-off point.

‘NATIONAL’ ISSUES

Large Scale Campaigns

Anarchists usually make a poor showing in influencing large scale campaigns. This is partly because the christians, liberals, trotskyists, and so on, who generally manage to control them, often make them so lifeless, ineffectual and generally wet that no self-respecting anarchist will go near them.

In fact we see the leaderships of these groups as an important part of the system, whose function is to control protest by steering it harmlessly into ‘proper’ channels.

An example of this process at work was the attempt by ‘Friends of the Earth’ to contest the public inquiry into the Windscale nuclear reprocessing plant. The result was that a good deal of energy and money was directed into an entirely useless argument between rival experts. The illusion was fostered that the government is fair and reasonable and has a right to make this kind of decision. The verdict was of course a foregone conclusion and the go-ahead was given. The net effect was to misdirect and defuse protest about the nuclear power programme.

On the other hand, many anarchists believe that it is a good idea to get involved with campaigns such as CND, the Anti-Nazi League, animal liberation, and so on. This is because there is some prospect that joining one of these campaigns may be the first step for some people in becoming anarchists. An anarchist’s presence might help this process. Also, campaigns which bring important issues to public attention provide opportunities to show how particular evils relate to oppression in general and the need for revolution. In some cases it is worth urging anarchists to join such organisations in order to prevent domination by the more noxious political types. Sometimes it is actually possible to introduce anarchist methods of organising and direct action tactics.

For example, an anarchist involved in CND would try to point out the relationship between nuclear weapons, nuclear power, militarism, the State and class society. We would point out the futility of asking the State to behave nicely and would recommend instead asking the workers who build the bombs and the aircraft, and so on, to do something more useful instead. We would also do our best to prevent our old enemy the Labour Party from taming the anti-missile movement and then quietly burying it, as they did in the early sixties.

We would also try to spread more decentralised methods of organisation, based on small groups federating with each other. This would have the advantages of greater flexibility, giving each member more chance of being fully involved, and of preventing a ruling clique from developing.

Few anarchists would claim that a movement like CND is likely to bring about the revolution, or even to get anywhere near banning nuclear weapons. The best we can reasonably hope for is that it will cause increasing numbers of people to think about how this society really works.

Interpersonal Relationships

As we have said earlier, there is a concern for the rights of the individual running through anarchism. There is no point in all our activities and theorising if it is not eventually going to make life better for individuals like you and me.

Unlike marxists and other fake socialists, we believe in at least trying to live out our principles in everyday life. If you believe in equality you should treat people as equals as far as you can. An anarchist would be less likely to forgive Marx’s ill treatment of his servants and his wife than a marxist would!

The ways people treat each other add up to make society as a whole. In an insane society like this one, people treat each other badly.

Sadly, though, the hippies were wrong. It is not ‘all in your head’. Individual solutions like dropping acid and living in the country turn out to be not solutions at all, but simply escapism. Before the revolution it is not possible simply to choose to live as though you were free. Society will not let you.

Before the revolution it is up to us to behave as if we were reasonable human beings in a reasonable world as far as possible. It is difficult, but not impossible, with a little help from your friends, to grow to something more than the state of infantile dependence this society tries to keep us in.

The Authoritarian Family

A common myth, both in fascism and in everyday anti-humanism, is the ‘sanctity’ of the family and the ‘holy’ institution of motherhood.

Many women today are fighting against being pushed into the role of mothers and nothing else, and against the everyday domination of women and children by men, which is what the family is really all about.

The reality of family life is quite different from the sentimental ideal. Wife battering, rape and child abuse are not accidental or isolated events – they are a result of conditioning in the family and by the media.

Until we have freedom and equality in our daily lives we will have no freedom or equality at all, nor will we want it sincerely.

You have only to look at the ‘master and slave’ content of any porn magazine to see that sexual repression leads to domination and submission. If power is more important than fulfilment in your sexual life, then it will be more important in the rest of your life also.

Support free love. If it’s not free, it’s not love.

Right wing people talk a great deal about sex and what they call ‘sexual morality’ and ‘purity’. Even ‘racial purity’ is a largely sexual idea. It is based on fear of the sexuality of ‘inferior races’, feared because it threatens their own sexual control and power.

Racists ask: “Would you let your daughter marry one of them?”. Who are you to say what ‘your’ daughter should do with her own sex life anyway?

Anarchists generally do not hold with conventional marriage. They do not accept that it is any business of the church or the State what people do with their sexual relationships. True emotional security for both children and adults is less likely to be found in a legally enforceable and artificially ‘permanent’ tie between two people of either sex, than it is in a wider network of relationships that may or may not have a sexual component.

Many anarchists have seen living in communes as an important way in which to change society. But living in the same house as nine other people is not in itself the key to the ideal future. The important thing is to change our attitudes: to become more open and generous and less competitive and afraid of each other. The important thing is to have plenty of real friends rather than hiding in the family nest. We can do this as workmates and neighbours as well as home sharers.

Forming communes now, or trying to, is riddled with problems. Communes at the moment frequently fail either through isolation, or through squabbles within the group, or for a variety of other reasons. People brought up in this society do not easily develop more open, generous and honest relationships. Most anarchists settle for being just a little less isolationist than most. We just do the best we can, and realise there is no such thing as perfection in an oppressive society. There are no anarchist saints.

Changing Everyday Life

Unless we can help people, including ourselves, to become less dominated by fear, anxiety and insecurity, there is little point in expecting them to behave sensibly and to start building a free, creative society. Authoritarian ideas and unreasoning hatred of scapegoats such as blacks and homosexuals are part of a mass mental illness.

Fortunately, there are forces operating in the direction of greater mental health, and anarchists should do what they can to assist these forces and movements.

Of these, the clearest example is the radical psychotherapy movement. Broadly speaking, groups within this movement try to move away from the old idea of the expert psychiatrist who solves the ‘patient’s’ problems, towards an approach in which people, with assistance, help themselves. Unfortunately this has been taken over by the neurotic middle classes. Fees for encounter groups are too much for the likes of you and me, and encounter groups based around the problems of industrial management are hardly the way to a new society.

There are self-help therapy groups, though, which show some promise and may well catch on. The most successful seem to be those with a specific membership, such as depressives, or women’s groups, and so on. We are against people trying to adjust to impossible situations and want them to learn to assert and express themselves.

As much of the psychological mess the human race has got itself into revolves around the unjust relationships between the sexes, anarchists put a lot of hope in the development of the women’s movement. Not that all feminists are revolutionaries. The National Organisation of Women, for example, was delighted to allow women to person nuclear missile control rooms. Nevertheless, there is a strong anarchist strand to the women’s movement, in the emphasis on small leaderless groups, self-help and the importance of women coming to terms with each other’s feelings. Challenging male domination should logically lead on to challenging all domination.

The women’s movement also illustrates another promising development – the tendency to organise in small groups and collectives. Where these work well they provide much needed support and a sense of worth to the individuals involved. Other movements, such as parts of the gay movement, claimants unions, squatters, self-help health groups, and so on, are good for the same reason. This way of organising tends to help the development of sanity.

Anything that encourages people to take responsibility for themselves and examine their relationship with the rest of the world should be encouraged. Eventually we can hope that attitudes will change enough to allow people to have the confidence to take back power over their own lives.

LOCAL ACTION AND ORGANISATION

Direct action can be used to change the conditions of houses, streets, schools, hospitals, and other amenities. Such reforms have, in themselves, little to contribute towards building an anarchist society, but making people aware of the potential of direct action is important. At best such actions foster feelings of community spirit and promote self organisation. They raise political consciousness. At worst they lead to feelings of hopelessness and complete disillusionment with the human race. These feelings may drag you to political suicide. Such ‘has-beens’ are to be seen in many Labour Party gatherings.

What sort of actions are we talking about? Well if you’re short of a house, then consider squatting. It by-passes the authorities in charge of housing and challenges property relations. It effectively demonstrates the disgrace of empty houses side by side with homelessness. Unfortunately, popular prejudice hinders squatting from obtaining the wider support necessary for real change.

The community life of the street can be improved by festivals, street theatre, and so on. Of course this sort of thing can have its drawbacks too, unless you’re the sort of anarchist that’s into Lady Di and her mates!

Anarchists have participated in and often dreamt up all sorts of self-help schemes. These include making better use of land, labour swapping schemes, consumer product sharing schemes. Again these encourage independence and demonstrate that alternative forms of economic exchange are viable. Beware paid community workers wishing to professionalise the idea and destroy its real benefits by making it part of the system.

Another common area of anarchist activity is getting involved in local campaigns. These may be useful in developing organisation and awareness and can have the virtue of making people think about political issues. A campaign against the closure of a local hospital, for instance, raises questions about who controls the hospitals and for whose benefit? Unfortunately, people are often led astray by their illusions about ‘democracy’ and politicians, and wind up getting fobbed off or conned. This can result in disillusionment and apathy. The role of the anarchist is to try and make sure that it results instead in anger at the authorities and promotes direct action.

It is often difficult to find a balance between getting involved in immediate reforms (hence encouraging a false belief in the State as a benevolent force) and examining the long term implications of what you do. If you let your feelings run riot you will end up in reformism, desperate to remove the squalor you discover in society. This is understandable, but works against removing the roots of the squalor.

To improve the system is to strengthen it and thus in the long run increase human misery.

When local conditions become atrocious, riots break out. Chief Constable Oxford of Liverpool recently described local riots in Brixton, Liverpool, and so on, as “organised anarchy”. It seems unlikely, however, that they stemmed from anything but pure frustration. Sporadic rioting is not a particularly revolutionary activity in itself. If it had been organised, it would have been insurrection, which is a different story. How, then, do anarchists organise?

Individuals join small anarchist groups in order to co-ordinate their actions with others not to be told what to do. The entire group discusses a particular action, but only those in favour will perform it. This contrasts completely with trotskyist groups in which each individual member must follow the party line.

Disagreement on an important issue, or lack of shared action, simply means that a new grouping will come into being. In various parts of the country, groups have formed larger federations to co-ordinate the actions of these small groups (in a non-authoritarian way, of course).

This model of organisation has already become common in other strands of political activity, like women’s groups and some community groups. If anarchism grows, one would expect to see an increase in this way of organising.

Groups of people in a street, or perhaps at a particular workplace, can organise in this way to take the decisions that affect them. They can send delegates to larger meetings, taking this task in turn, instructing the delegate what to say, kicking him/her out if s/he gets power hungry. A utopian idea? It is already working now on a small scale (for example in the CND). What’s so difficult about it? All we need is a total revolution in everyday consciousness! In this way, a non-authoritarian system of organising all aspects of our lives from the cradle to the grave could emerge. It would be a federalist type of anarchist society.

Anarchists see it as vital to educate people for a new society. Some would go so far as to say that it is all we can reasonably do. To attempt a revolution as a tiny minority is just not on and with the best of intentions could lead only to a new slavery. A genuine revolution can only be made if the great majority of people want it and actively participate in creating the new world. Naturally, it would stand a much better chance if the people had first organised, prepared and thought about the issues and problems. This means that one of our top priorities is to spread our ideas as far as possible.

Preaching, however, is best avoided. We do not want mere followers. An even worse danger is that we may begin to hand out our ideas as a dogma. Finally, we do not want to talk at people, but with them.

This last point is important. It is probably the surest sign of the degenerate state of modern society that communications are becoming increasingly impersonal, standardised and one way. Millions of people watch the same TV programmes and read the same newspapers. As a result their own conversations are standardised. Communications have become a commodity to be consumed, ‘sounds’ to be bought on plastic tapes. All modern communications media have two things in common: you have to pay for them, and there is no way of participating, you listen or watch, nothing else is required of you.

Our belief in freedom leads us to demand freedom of speech and freedom of the press. This may seem odd, as these were old nineteenth century liberal rallying cries. The liberals now seem fairly satisfied that we have these precious freedoms already.

What they mean, of course, is that they have these freedoms. Ordinary mortals, to say nothing of ‘dangerous extremists’ like ourselves, do not. We can say what we like (almost), but not on prime viewing time; we can write anything we like, but won’t be able to distribute it through W H Smith’s. Unless everyone has a reasonably good chance of actually being heard, then freedom of speech means nothing and they are quite happy to give it to us.

A recent Spanish coup attempt is said to have failed because the fascist officers had an old fashioned view of political power and seized the parliament building. Next time they will know better. They will seize the radio stations.

Journalists, print workers, writers, technicians and actors may have to play a vital part in the struggle for a new society. They have it in their power to tell the truth. The cruddy ‘product’ that they obediently continue to churn out ought to have shamed them all into resigning by now. Agitation within the communications industry, for workers’ control of content, is a matter of urgency.

Because communications are so tightly controlled by a very small clique who know very well the importance of their power, we are hardly likely to stand much chance of getting our views known through the existing set up. We need to find some other way of spreading our ideas until such time as the people get around to seizing control.

We have been forced out on to the fringes of society. We. are obliged to create our own media in order to express ourselves. Naturally, it is all on a small scale and we reach only a few people with each leaflet, magazine or whatever. We can only hope that all the little things we do will add up. After all, a thousand leaflets are not wasted if they convince one new anarchist.

Spreading the word is important, and an impressive range of different approaches have been tried at one time or another. Here we list some of the things anarchists do or can do to get their ideas across.

THE PRINTED WORD — The anarchist movement has produced a constant stream of articles, newspapers, magazines, books and leaflets throughout its history. Some reached impressive numbers. Many were read only by a few and are now forever forgotten.

The effort has not been completely wasted. We always need more and better-written anarchist material. People who are ready for ideas must be given as many chances as possible to find them.

Leaflets, often quickly run off on a duplicator for a special event, are the simplest and cheapest possibility. Wording should be simple and to the point. Good graphics, including photographs, can be done on an electric stencil at a slightly higher cost.

Cheap pamphlets on particular topics are best whipped out of the pocket at an appropriate point in a conversation. This one, for instance, is designed for those who insist on trotting out the old hoary objections to anarchism such as “what about murderers?” (see Some common arguments against anarchism above.)

Magazines and newspapers fall into two categories: those aimed at, or of interest only to, other anarchists, arid those aimed at reaching the uncommitted multitude. We seem to have plenty of magazines for anarchists but a shortage of agitational ones. There are a few, good, local anarchist papers: in addition many anarchists work on ‘community’ papers dealing with local issues.

Book publishing and distribution is also an important part of the movement. Order anarchist books at your local library. There are also plenty of anarchist books yet to be written. We need more works of anarchist theory, more analyses of present society and strategy for change. There is also scope in fiction or poetry. Writing a book is not as daunting as it might first seem. Many of the people who do write books are complete idiots.

STREET THEATRE — This method of communicating is perhaps not used enough by anarchists. Writing and rehearsing plays can be a useful practice in getting a group working together. The proper legal approach is to apply for planning permission (be sure to have a harmless sounding name). On the other hand, the ‘Santa Claus Army’ who invaded the toy departments of Amsterdam stores and gave away toys to the kids were also indulging in street theatre, though of a less legal kind. Some kind of semi-theatrical event to make people think is a good alternative to the usual boring old demo.

PUBLIC MEETINGS — At one time anarchist meetings drew crowds of thirty or forty thousand. Public meetings have declined as mass entertainment has developed. Fifty is a pretty good number these days. Choose a theme, sort out speakers, book a hall and advertise it well. It may be a lot of effort, but it does sometimes produce new members, or at least some interest. People will take you more seriously.

ALTERNATIVE MEDIA — This vague title is meant to cover unorthodox means of communication from badges or spray painting to video. Small messages to the mass consciousness can be written on toilet walls or sprayed in six-foot letters down the sides of motorways. Video is cheap(ish) and everybody by now must know of some way of borrowing or hiring cameras. Anarchists have run successful pirate radio stations and there is no need to rule out dance or mime or a thousand other possible ways of getting a message across. Use your imagination.

Although we are kept out of the mass communications market, we can still find ways of reaching out with our ideas. The struggle to make means of expression available to the people at large is one of the most vital parts of the struggle for freedom. By imaginatively pioneering new means of communication that are easily available, we are not only spreading our views but helping others to express themselves. Finally, the way in which an idea is communicated may be at least as important as the idea itself. If it allows or encourages participation so that people can stop being merely an ‘audience’ and start expressing themselves, it is a direct challenge to the system of power which needs us docile.

MUSIC — Rebellious or revolutionary music has a much longer history than the fashion-conscious youth of today, or even the ageing hippies of yesterday, may realise. Believe it or not many operas turn around essentially revolutionary themes! In the eighteen-thirties, possession of a musical instrument was illegal for the lower orders. This was because wandering musicians were becoming alarmingly successful at stirring up discontent.

Many anarchists choose to get involved in music as a way of communicating with people. It is a useful sort of activity for anarchists to do, and of course it can be fun. Sadly, much current anarchist music is neither anarchist nor music, but some of it is good and some very good. It’s all a matter of personal taste anyway.

Music has the power to appeal to emotions directly. It is possible to communicate in a more basic way. It is also possible to use it to hypnotise and manipulate people, something which we would hope to avoid doing.

Again, what we need to do is make music available to people, encourage them to have a go and bring out their creativity. Some anarchists feel that for this reason, high technology expensive electric music should be avoided. On the other hand, the possibilities of home taping and easily produced cassettes are quite exciting.

We need to create new ways of making and sharing music that by-pass the music industry. Let them howl about loss of copyright when their tapes are illegally copied. They’ve had things their own way too long.

ART — Paintings in galleries have been described as ‘museum art’. What is meant by this is that they are objects to be admired and bought and sold. They separate art from life and from people at large. Art as a saleable item is the best that this system can offer. Art as an activity it could neither understand nor allow.

There is a crying need to release the creative abilities of ‘ordinary’ people. This we can at least attempt to do when talking to people. We can find ways to work for the movement and enjoy ourselves at the same time. By using our own creativity, we can hope to reach the hidden parts of people that other ideas cannot reach.

Spreading the word, or ‘propaganda’, has to be a major part of any anarchist strategy. Above all else an anarchist revolution requires that people know what they are doing and why. Nobody can be forced into freedom: it must be chosen and taken, or it is not really freedom. Our task is harder than that of the door-to-door Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is not enough for us to tell people what to think — they must think for themselves, or they are not really anarchists.

SCHOOLS AND EDUCATION

Although we distrust schools, anarchists place great faith in the power of education. One of the major sources of hope for a better world is that the next generation, given help, might grow up less neurotic than the last. Some would go so far as to say that educating children for freedom is the only real hope of eventually bringing about an anarchist society.

Schools are mainly concerned with sorting and grading children for their future roles in the social hierarchy — and ensuring that they accept the need for competition, hierarchy and respect for authority. Such a system demands that the majority of children – and adults – are made to feel inferior. Anarchists believe that academic examinations are a meaningless measure of a person’s potential for playing a useful role in society. The cult of the professional expert is designed to shatter our confidence in our own abilities and judgement.

Anarchists are opposed to corporal punishment or any form of compulsion in education. Attendance at all classes should be voluntary. Compulsion destroys the natural enthusiasm for knowledge and understanding. Real education is the opposite of compulsory schooling, where the main lessons are fear and respect for authority. We need to equip our children with critical minds to understand the world, to see what changes are necessary to make it a better place for everyone, and to be able to bring about the necessary changes.

Anarchists are opposed to any religious indoctrination in schools. Fear and superstition have no place in an ethical education. Religious ‘education’ should be abolished and replaced by the discussion of moral and philosophical questions based on concern and respect for others.

It is crazy to think that education merely consists of spending eleven years or so of our lives in schools cut off from the real world outside. It would be much healthier for our education to be integrated with the everyday work and life of society. In this way everyone’s particular skills would be properly recognised by society and used for the education of others. We need to break down the divisions between work, play and education. Education should be available throughout our lives, rather than being arbitrarily confined to that part of our lives spent in schools. We are all potential learners and teachers, passing on and acquiring skills and understanding as we go through life.

Anarchists are generally agreed that the complete liberation of education is dependent on the creation of an anarchist society. However, this has not stopped anarchists from trying to create freer environments for children to grow and learn, here and now. Some anarchists have educated their children at home. Others have worked together with other parents and children rather than remain in isolated family units. In the last three decades several free schools have been established based on anarchist principles, and they have performed a valuable service in demonstrating in practical ways that alternatives exist. However, they have faced constant financial problems and all the other problems which come from trying to live freely in an unfree society.

Some anarchists, and others who share their views on education, have concluded that for the foreseeable future most children will be in State schools and, therefore, have tried to change existing State schools as teachers or parents.

Although by the nineteen-sixties the educational establishment had accepted libertarian methods at A S Neill’s Summerhill School for the fee-paying children of wealthy parents, they were horrified at the prospect of similar methods being adopted in State schools for working class children. The most successful attempts, those at Risinghill School and William Tyndale School in London, were eventually stopped by the local education authority and the teachers were thrown out of their jobs.

The lesson for those who try again in the future is that it is essential to break down the isolation of schools from the community, so that parents will understand and actively support what anarchists are trying to do in schools.

CONCLUSION

For more detailed consideration of anarchist theory, we have provided a booklist for further reading. We have listed areas of activity and outlined the anarchist approach. We have made no attempt to indicate which types of activity are most likely to lead to a non-authoritarian future. This kind of judgement requires careful consideration of the nature of society and strategy for change. We hope that you will eventually form your own conclusions. Anarchists make up their own minds.

If you are interested, read more, talk to your local anarchists, think things through. There is a lot to be getting on with.

Can you think of a good excuse for not being an anarchist? Right, then get on with it!


FURTHER READING

This booklist is reproduced from the original pamphlet. Some books may now be available in new editions by other publishers.

Introductions to Anarchism

ABC OF ANARCHISM, Alexander Berkman, Freedom Press.

ANARCHISM AND ANARCHIST-COMMUNISM, Peter Kropotkin, Freedom Press.

ANARCHIST READER, THE, George Woodcock, Fontana.

ANARCHY, Malatesta, Freedom Press.

ANARCHY IN ACTION, Colin Ward, Freedom Press.

FLOODGATES OF ANARCHY, Stuart Christie and Albert Meltzer, Kahn & Averill.

Classics of Anarchism

Bakunin:

CRITIQUE OF STATE SOCIALISM, A, B Books.(comic strip version)

GOD AND THE STATE, B Books.

PARIS COMMUNE AND THE IDEA OF THE STATE, THE, B Books.

Godwin:

ANARCHIST WRITINGS OF WILLIAM GODWIN, Freedom Press.

ENQUIRY CONCERNING POLITICAL JUSTICE, AN, Penguin.

Kropotkin:

CONQUEST OF BREAD, THE, Elephant Editions.

FIELDS, FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS TOMORROW, Freedom Press.

GREAT FRENCH REVOLUTION, THE, VOLS I & 2, Elephant Editions.

MUTUAL AID, Freedom Press.

STATE, THE, Freedom Press.

See also books by Proudhon, Malatesta, Goldman and Berkman.

Anarchist ‘-isms’

Anarcha-feminism:

QUIET RUMOURS, various authors, Dark Star/Rebel Press.

UNTYING THE KNOT, Freeman and Levine, Dark Star/Rebel Press.

WOMEN IN THE SPANISH REVOLUTION, Solidarity.

Anarcho-syndicalism:

ANARCHO-SYNDICALISM, Rudolf Rocker, Phoenix Press.

Anti-militarism/self-defence:

PROTEST WITHOUT ILLUSIONS, Vernon Richards, Freedom Press.

STRANGE VICTORIES, Elephant Editions.

TOWARDS A CITIZENS’ MILITIA, Cienfuegos Press.

Federalism:

KROPOTKIN’S FEDERALIST IDEAS, B Books.

Individualism:

EGO AND ITS OWN, THE, Max Stirner, Rebel Press.

Mutualism:

See the writings of P-J Proudhon

Situationism:

AND YET IT MOVES, Boy Igor, Zamisdat (critique of science.)

BOOK OF PLEASURES, Raoul Vaneigem, Pending Press.

ON THE POVERTY OF STUDENT LIFE, Rebel Press.

PARIS: MAY ’68, Dark Star/Rebel Press.

REVOLUTION OF EVERYDAY LIFE, Raoul Vaneigem, to be reprinted in 1988.

SOCIETY OF THE SPECTACLE, THE, Guy Debord.

See also the Spectacular Times pocketbooks.

Anarchist Issues

Animal Liberation:

AGAINST ALL ODDS, Arc Print.

KILL OR CURE?, Arc Print.

UP AGAINST THE LAW, Arc Print.

Ecology:

POST-SCARCITY ANARCHISM, Murray Bookchin

EARTH FIRST READER, THE, ed. Dave Foreman

Education:

LIB ED, quarterly magazine.

SUMMERHILL, AS Neill, Pelican.

Housing:

HOUSING: AN ANARCHIST APPROACH, Colin Ward, Freedom Press.

IDEAL HOME, Hooligan Press.

SQUATTING IN WEST BERLIN, Hooligan Press.

Abuses of the Media:

MANUFACTURING CONSENT, Noam Chomsky

Riots/insurrection:

FROM RIOTS TO INSURRECTION, Alfredo M Bonnano, Elephant Editions.

LIKE A SUMMER WITH A THOUSAND JULYS, BM Blob.

Anarchist History

Britain:

THE SLOW BURNING FUSE : The Lost History Of The British Anarchists, John Quail, Paladin Books (Granada.) Highly recommended and text now available online here .

Russian Revolution:

GUILLOTINE AT WORK, Maximoff, Cienfuegos Press.

INTRO TO MY DISILLUSIONMENT IN RUSSIA, Emma Goldman, Phoenix Press.

RUSSIAN TRAGEDY, THE, Alexander Berkman, Phoenix Press.

Spanish Revolution:

BARCELONA MAY DAYS 1937, various authors, Freedom Press.

COLLECTIVES IN THE SPANISH REVOLUTION, Gaston Leval, Freedom Press.

LESSONS OF THE SPANISH REVOLUTION, Vernon Richards, Freedom Press.

Revolutionaries/Rebels:

ANARCHISM AND VIOLENCE, Osvaldo Bayer, Elephant Editions (about Severino de Giovanni.)

ANGRY BRIGADE 1967-84, THE, Elephant Editions.

BONNOT GANG, THE, Richard Parry, Rebel Press.

BLACK FLAG, THE, Jackson, RKP,(about Sacco and Vanzetti.)

HAYMARKET SPEECHES, THE, Voltairine de Cleyre, Cienfuegos Press.(as above)

MALATESTA: HIS LIFE AND IDEAS, Vernon Richards, Freedom Press.

RED VIRGIN, THE, University of Alabama Press (memoirs of Louise Michel)

SABATE: GUERILLA EXTRAORDINARY, Tellez, Elephant Editions.

Anarchist Fiction

FREE, THE, M Gilliland, Hooligan Press.

FROM BENEATH THE KEYBOARD, Hooligan Press (short stories/poetry.)

See also writings of the mysterious B Traven (author of THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE.)

Anarchist Fiction : Sci-Fi

DISPOSSESSED, THE, Ursula K leGuin, Granada.

ILLUMINATUS TRILOGY, THE, Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson, Sphere.

See also other libertarian influenced SF writers, e.g. Michael Moorcock, Doris Lessing, Marge Piercy and Kate Wilhelm.


Look for the above books in your public library (and request them if they are not displayed!) and in your local alternative bookshop. Many can also be obtained from Freedom Press Bookshop, Angel Alley, 84b Whitechapel High Street, London E1 7QX. Telephone 020 7247 9249. You can order books online or by post.

Radicaleiddio’r SRG gan Cai O’Marah

Radicaleiddio’r SRG

Ers imi gyfarfod Rhys Bowen Harries (ar y bas) yn Gŵyl Kaya dechrau’r mis Mehefin 2012, mae ein band (hefyd gyda aelod gwreiddiol, sef Antony Roberts – gitâr, a fy mrawd bach, Callum O’Marah – dryms) wedi mynd o nerth i nerth, efo’r uchafbwynt hyd yn hyn yn cynnwys cefnogi brenin cerddoriaeth reggae a roc a rôl Cymraeg, Geraint Jarman. Yn ogystal, gig yn Y Tap, Blaenau Ffestiniog gydag un o fandiau mwyaf cyffrous a dadleuol y sin ar hyn o bryd, sef Twmffat, ac ennill Brwydr y Bandiau Pesda Roc yn fraint anhygoel. Ond, wrth gofio’n ôl, er bod ein breuddwydion a dyheadau o newid y byd drwy ein cerddoriaeth yn enfawr, doeddwn i ddim yn credu bysa ein cerddoriaeth yn lledaenu yn llawer pellach na’r ‘stafell fyw. Ac i ddweud y gwir, roeddwn i yn darogan bod ein cerddoriaeth yn rhy ddadleuol i glustiau’r Gymru fach sydd wedi hen arfer efo synau swynol a cherddoriaeth pop sy’n canu am ddim byd o bwysigrwydd bellach.

Ond i ein syndod, mae pawb ym mhob gig danni wedi chware hyd yn hyn wedi bod yn gefnogol ofnadwy, ac mae ein llwyddiant diweddar yn destun bod pobl Cymru yn barod am fudiad radical unwaith eto. Ond, i ddweud hynny, hyd yn hyn mae Radio Rhydd wedi chware o flaen cynulleidfaoedd dosbarth gweithiol Merthyr, Bethesda a Ffestiniog sy’n cael rhyddhad am noson, ac efallai fod y bobl  yma yn llawer mwy tuned in i’r anghyfiawnderau mae’r system gyfalafol yn creu, er gwaethaf yr holl ddifrawder ymysg y dosbarth gweithiol. Beth bynnag, mae’r sialens fwyaf eto i ddod – chware o flaen y dosbarth canol mewn trefi mwy ffynadwy fatha Aberystwyth. Ydyn nhw’n barod, neu awydd chwyldro? Ydi pobl Cymru yn barod i radicaleiddio’r SRG unwaith eto?

Radio Rhydd yn Pesda Roc

Y Sin Roc Gymraeg (SRG)

Ers bron i ddeg ‘mlynedd bellach, mae’r sin cerddorol yng Nghymru wedi bod mewn rhyw groundhog day time loop, a’r sin byth ‘di symud ymlaen o’r ‘post-Super Furry Animals/cool Cymru’ cyfnod. Er bod bandiau gwych gyda negeseuon a rhywbeth pwysig i ddweud wedi mynd a dod yn y cyfnod hwn (Pep Le Pew, Tystion, Pen-Ta-Gram,  Anweledig) tydi’r mwyafrif ddim yn cynnig rhywbeth newydd, rhywbeth peryglus, rhywbeth chwyldroadwy, rhywbeth radical a rhywbeth all pobl ifanc sy’n ceisio dal gafael ar hunaniaeth ac annibyniaeth wirioneddol uniaethu gyda. Yn ogystal, ‘does fawr ddim negeseuon a cherddoriaeth all pobl ifanc wirioneddol uniaethu gydag yn bodoli yn y sin roc Cymraeg ar hyn o bryd. Fel canlyniad, yn fy marn i, mae ieuenctid Cymru wedi suddo mewn i fod yn genhedlaeth di-wleidyddol, difraw a diflas. Yn ogystal, mae’r sin roc Cymraeg yn llusgo yn ei flaen heb ddim cyfeiriad, tra bod bandiau dosbarth canol o gefndir  fel Glanaethwy (a sefydliadau pathetic dosbarth canol tebyg sy’n lladd unrhyw  siawns am unrhyw beth gwerth chweil i ddod o’r sin) yn gwneud yr headlines yn y cyfryngau Cymraeg.

Os yw Cymru am symud yn ei blaen fel cenedl ddewr, mae rhaid moderneiddio’r sin, mae rhaid radicaleiddio’r SRG, mae rhaid radicaleiddio a moderneiddio diwylliant Cymraeg yn gyfan gwbl. Hefyd mae’n rhaid llacio gafael y dosbarth canol ar ein diwylliant ni, ar ein cyfryngau ni, ac ar ein llywodraeth ni. Fel dywedodd y Twmffat -‘Mae aelodau Plaid Cymru yn gwisgo trôns Tori,’ ac mae hynny’n wir; Torïaid mewn cuddwisg genedlaethol yw’r mwyafrif.

Radio Rhydd yn Llosgi Jac yr Undeb mewn perfformiad yn Tynal Tywyll

Uchelgais i rôl Radio Rhydd mewn sin newydd

 Cyn inni ddechrau’r band, ein bwriad oedd creu rhyw fath o sianel radio peirat, neu anghyfreithlon (heb drwydded) lle fedrith unrhyw berson dros y wlad, neu hyd  yn oed y byd, gyfrannu tuag ato mewn termau cerddorol, neu farddonol, neu jest er mwyn pregethu, rantio a thrafod gwleidyddiaeth. Dim ond hwyrach ymlaen y trawsffurfiodd y syniad yma mewn i fand, a’r syniad o greu sianel radio yn disgyn lawr y pan, am y tro. Nawr, wrth feddwl am ein rôl ni mewn sin newydd o fewn ffiniau Cymru, mae’n rhaid cyfaddef fod ganom ni syniadau enfawr, gan gynnwys ceisio ysbrydoli mwy o fandiau yng Nghymru i gymryd llwybr syml mewn termau o ganu efo angerdd ac am rywbeth sy’n bwysig, rhywbeth all pobl dros y wlad, a hyd yn oed y byd cyfan uniaethu gyda.

I mi, mae’n anodd ofnadwy gwahaniaethu rhwng y celfyddydau a gwleidyddiaeth, wrth fod gan y celfyddydau’r potensial o gael rôl mor fawr i chware mewn  mudiadau gwrthwynebol. A nawr, ella’n bwysicach na byth, mae angen bandiau radical i ganu’n wleidyddol oherwydd mae’r craciau o du fewn i’r system gyfalafol yn dangos yn gliriach nac erioed o’r blaen. Mae rŵan yn amser perffaith i ymosod ar y system, ac mae’r celfyddydau, gan gynnwys cerddoriaeth, yn offeryn cryf ofnadwy i’w ddefnyddio er mwyn gwneud hynny. Felly, dwi’n meddwl mai’n rôl ni o fewn sin newydd ydi i geisio cicio petha’i  ffwrdd unwaith eto, ar draws Cymru, swydd debyg i’r hyn wnaeth Y Tystion, ond bron i bymtheg ‘mlynedd yn ddiweddarach. Ac wrth fod y system gyfalafol yn creu gymaint o anghyfartaledd, yn atal pobl rhag byw bywydau boddhaol, yn ffafrio cystadleuaeth dros undod a ffyniant i bawb, rhyfel dros heddwch, casineb dros gariad, monopoleiddio dros hunan-gynaladwyo, elw dros bobl a buddion unigol dros gymunedau, mae’n amlwg fod newid yn y ffyrdd mae cymdeithas yn cael ei rhedeg angen digwydd; ac mae hi fyny  i’n cenhedlaeth ni i hybu’r newid cymdeithasol a gwleidyddol yma drwy brotest mewn ffyrdd cerddorol, celfyddydol a phrotestio. Mae dyfodol Cymru yn ein dwylo ni; beth am o leiaf wneud rhywbath positif hefo fo, neu beth am o leiaf greu cerddoriaeth sy’n herio’r  status quo yn hytrach na cherddoriaeth sy’n ei atgyfnerthu!

Radio Rhydd yn Pesda Roc

Radicaleiddio’r SRG: Ydio’n digwydd?

Mae sawl band anhygoel, gwrthryfelgar a pheryg wedi grasau’r sin roc Cymraeg yn y gorffennol; ella’n fwyfwy amlwg yw bandiau pync yr 80’au, fel Yr Anhrefn a bandiau hip hop y 90’au a’r 00’au cynnar. Felly, ar ôl bron i ddeg ‘mlynedd o dawelwch a diffyg cyffro, ydi’n amser i fand peryglus a gwrthryfelgar arall daro’r sin fatha bom yn ffrwydro? Y cwestiwn mwyaf ydi: A yw pobl Cymru  yn gyffredinol hyd yn oed awydd diwygio’r sin cerddorol? Ydy ieuenctid Cymru hyd yn oed yn hiraethu am fand sy’n dweud fuck off  i bob awdurdod, band all pobl ifanc wirioneddol uniaethu gydag ef ar bob lefel, band all wneud i bobl ifanc unwaith eto deimlo fel eu pont yn rhan o fudiad pwysig mewn hanes. Ydi pobl Cymru awydd y math yma o fand ar hyn o bryd? Yn fy marn i, mae’r sin yn llwgu am y math yma o fand, am fersiwn Cymraeg o’r Clash, Sex Pistols, King Blues, Anti-Flag, Ramones, Rage Against the Machine, ac mae’r rhestr yn mynd yn ei flaen. Mae’n amser diwygio, mae’n amser newid, mae’n amser am welliant, mae’n amser i’r ieuenctid ddeffro unwaith eto, mae’n amser i roi sin cerddorol yng Nghymru lle all pobl ifanc deimlo’n rhan o fudiad, rhan o amser, teimlo’n fyw, a dweud fuck off heb i neb sbïo’n hurt. Felly, ydi newid yn digwydd o fewn y sin? Ar hyn o bryd, nac ydi, ond mae’r gefnogaeth mae Radio Rhydd wedi derbyn hyd yn hyn mewn gigs efallai’n dystiolaeth fod pobl yng Nghymru awydd diwygio’r sin, neu o leiaf yn hiraethu am fand mwy cyffrous, fwy peryglus, fwy gwrthryfelgar; Band hefo neges a rhywbath pwysig i’w ddweud!

‘Dadansoddiad Marcsaidd o ‘Caersint’ Angharad Price.’ gan Heledd Williams

Ysgrifenwyd y traethawd yma ar gyfer cwrs Prifysgol felly maddeuwch y ffurfioldeb, oedd hi’n berthnasol fel critique gwrth gyfalafol o’r Gymru sydd ohoni, dyna pam dwi di sticio fo fynnu fama!

Clawr Caersaint gan Angharad Price

Yn y traethawd hwn dadansoddaf ‘Caersaint’ gan Angharad Price. Nofel a bortreadai cymdeithas gyfoes Caernarfon ydyw. Credaf fod beirniadaeth Farcsaidd o’r nofel hon yn hynod weddus gan fod Marcsiaeth a’i theorïau llenyddol yn datgan yn sylfaenol mai:
‘Hierto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and opressed classes.’ Marx et al (2002, t. 232)
Golygir hyn yn y bôn mai gwrthdrawiadau rhwng dosbarthau cymdeithasol a yrrai hanes yn ei flaen (proses a elwir yn dilechdid faterol) ac yn ‘Caersaint’ gwelir y rhain yn dra amlwg. Gwelwn ar lefel arwynebol y tyndra rhwng sawl carfan o gymdeithas, sef y cyfalafwyr Cymraeg, y dosbarth canol apathetic, y dosbarth canol asgell chwith, y dosbarth gweithiol apathetic. Grym arall amlwg yn y nofel yw grym y cwmnïau cyfalafol rhyngwladol. Mae’r nofel wedi ei fritho a brandiau cwmnïau mawrion. Mae’n deg dweud felly ceir tyndra rhwng effaith anorfod cyfalafiaeth ddatblygedig (globleiddio) a’r gymuned a’i diwylliant cynhenid yn Nghaersaint.
Mae gwrthdrawiad amlwg rhwng Jaman o gefndir dosbarth gweithiol a Med y dyn busnes ond mae yno hefyd wrthdrawiadau dosbarth ar lefel fwy chymhleth a gant eu hamlygu yn iaith a diwylliant pobol Caersaint. Mae cwmnïau rhyngwladol Seisnig yn rhan o’u bywydau pob dydd a gwelwn fod hyn yn cael effaith ar yr iaith. Mae’r cyfalafwyr a’u cwmnïau rhyngwladol yn cael llawn gymaint o effaith ar y gymdeithas ag y mae Med y cyfalafwr bach lleol. Maent yn effeithio ar y gymuned mewn gwahanol ffyrdd. Wrth i Fed gymeryd mantais o grantiau’r cynulliad a hybu twristiaeth fel prif ddiwydiant (a’i fusnesau megis y Shamleek ) ni ddaw gwaith o safon na chyson trwy’r flwyddyn i’r ardal. Dywed Babs Inc yn y nofel;
‘Be nei di efo dy hun yn Caersaint? Mynd i labro yn y doc? Llnau toilets pobol dŵad?’ (Price 2010, t. 72)
Yn ogystal â hyn mae Med yn cefnogi menter o adeiladu fflatiau na all pobol leol eu fforddio;
‘Saeson wedi talu hanner miliwn am luxury apartments Phase 1’(Price 2010, t. 87)
Mae’r cynlluniau economaidd hyn yn ysgogi pobol ifanc i allfudo o’r gymuned Gymraeg yma i le mae gwaith ar gael ac mae cartrefi fforddiadwy. Buasai gweithgareddau Med yn debygol o gael effaith ar y nifer o siaradwyr Cymraeg yng Nhaersaint a dyma crux y nofel. Am hyn credaf y mae Angharad Pice yn ei bryderu. Mae’r cyfalafwyr rhyngwladol trwy’r busnesau di Gymraeg a.y.b. yr un mor gyfrifol am achosi tranc yr iaith mewn modd dra gwahanol. Yn hytrach na effeithio ar y nifer o siaradwyr yn y gymuned yn uniongyrchol maent yn debygol o effeithio ar gystrawen a geirfa Gymraeg a chaiff ei siarad ar lafar gan y pobl leol. Enghraifft yw hyn yw’r person yng Nghaffi Besanti. Gan iddo arfer a bwydlenni a bwyd yn uniaeth Saesneg, nid yw’n dealt y fwydlen Gymraeg yn y caffi ac mae’n ei weld yn abswrd a chwerthinllyd.
‘‘Mi fasa’r hogyn yn debycach o’u trio nhw tasa fo’n dallt be ydyn nhw,’ meddai un cwsmer eto. ‘Llyfnyn Ffrwythog Anllaethog, myn cythral!’’(Price 2010, t. 60)
Daw uchafbwynt y nofel mewn gwrthdrawiad dosbarth a gwleidyddol uniongyrchol. Mae’r modd nad yw Trefor (yn y dechrau) yn cefnogi cais Jaman (er iddo fod yn ddrwgdybus o Med) yn enghraifft o eidioleg, greddf nad yw mewn gwirionedd o fudd iddo ef na’i gymuned.
Y mae hyn yn fy arwain at fodd arall o ddadansoddi testun yn Farcsaidd, sef tynnu sylw at ragfarnau afresymegol fel hyn a’u datgelu fel eidiolegau ffals a atgyfnerthai hegemoni’r dosbarth llywodraethol; y bwrgais. Nid oedd Trefor eisiau Jaman herio Med nac yn credu buasai’n llwyddo. Bu Trefor yn ei ddychanu hyd yn oed;
‘Tynnu godfather Caersaint yn dy ben’
‘I fod yn lord mayor o Caersaint’
‘Chwara plant, gwisgo fynnu, actio’r ffŵl’(Price 2010 tt. 284/5)
Y syniad tu ôl hwn yw bod uwchstrwythur a gynhwysai’r ‘eidiolegau’ yma yn codi o’r sylfaen economaidd. Mae’r sylfaen economaidd (cyfalafiaeth yng nghyd-destun y nofel) yn llywio natur yr eidiolegau ffals a fodolai fel ‘synwyr cyffredin’ yn yr uwchstwythyr (diwylliant, y cyfryngau a.y.b.). Atgyfnerthai’r eidiolegau hyn y fydolwg fwrgeisiol a geisiai gyfiawnhau neu gefnogi eu statws dyrchafedig afresymegol. Dywed ‘The Comunist Maniffesto’
‘The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of the ruleing class’ Marx et al (2002, t. 241)
Mae’r eidialogau hyn a’r bydolwg sydd yn gwneud y system gyfalafol ymddangos fel peth ‘naturiol’ yn hollbwysig i’r dosbarth llywodraethol gadw ei grym. Yr oedd Gramsci yn feddyliwr Marcsaidd o’r farn;
‘Gall cyfalafiaeth barhau os oes elfennau eraill ohoni yn gryf mewn argyfwng’(Williams 2009, t. 510)
Felly os yr yw eidiolegau ‘synnwyr cyffredin’ ffals yn llechu yn ein cymdeithas heb eu herio, gall hyn yn ol Gramsci atal chwyldro’r proletariat a fyddai fel arall wedi adwaithio’n naturiol i’w sefyllfa economaidd druenus. Dilechdid faterol yw’r theori hon fod gwrthdrawiadau rhwng dosbarthiadau cymdeithasol sydd yn symud hanes yn ei flaen ac yn golygu bod system newydd yn disodli hen system wrth i groes- ddyweudiadau sylfaenol o fewn y system ddod i’r amlwg. Dyma agwedd ymarferol dadansoddiad Marcsaidd o destun, soniodd Gramsci am ‘ryfel eidiolegol’, golygai hyn i Farcswyr fod y frwydr yn erbyn system orthrymus gyfalafol angen cael ei ymladd ar sawl ffrynt, yn eidiolegol yn ogystal a ymgyrchu’n uniongyrchol.
Dyma un enghraifft o’r eidiolegau hyn ar waith. Roedd bod yn berchen ar dŷ roi hwb seicolegol i Jaman yn y nofel. Mae hyn yn ‘synnwyr cyffredin’ yng nghyd-destun ein cymdeithas gyfoes ac yn y nofel ond nid yw hyn yn taro deuddeg yn rhesymegol. Paham bod enw ar ddarn o bapur rhoi’r fath hyder i unigolyn? Yr eidioleg cyfalafol bod perchnogaeth yn arwydd o safle cymdeithasol dyrchafedig yw hyn. Pa wahaniaeth yw os yr ydych yn rhentu yntau prynu eich cartref mewn gwirionedd? Fel dywedir Williams;
‘dadleuai fod nodweddion y drefn , sef….cystadlu dros eiddo preifat … rhyw fath o resymeg naturiol … sydd yn caethiwo dyn.’ (2009, t. 503)
Ymddengys yr elfen gystadleuol, afresymegol ei fod yn berchen ar dŷ ym meddylfryd Jaman yn y nofel.
‘‘Cartrefi ar werth .’ Gwenais yn hunanfodlon. Roedd gan rai ohonom gartref yn barod.’ Price (2010 t. 50)
Enghraifft arall yw pryd mi wnaeth Babs Inc newid ei edrychiad gan dalu iddo gael ei eillio a phrynu siwt iddo. Yr ydym yn cymryd yn ganiataol bod hyn yn gwneud synnwyr wrth fod hyn yn gwneud Jaman edrych yn fwy ‘proffesiynol’ ac yn sgil hynny yn fwy gweddus i fod yn faer.
Ond ydi’r ymateb yma’n dal dŵr yn rhesymegol? Be gyd-berthynasai edrychiad Jaman i’w allu i wneud swydd Maer? Dydi hyn ddim yn taro deuddeg felly gellir dehongli ‘r rhagfarn yma fel ‘eidioeg’. Buasai Marcsydd yn credu bod y consensws afresymegol fod pobol a edrychai’n smart fwy tebygol o wneud swydd uchel ei statws yn well o fudd i’r bwrgeisiwr ac am y rheswm hwn dyma pam mae’n bodoli fel eidioleg. Gan eu bod nhw (Bwrgeiswyr) ag arian i dalu am siwtiau ac am nwyddau harddwch wrth reswm mae’r bwrgeisiwr yn elwa o’e eidioleg ffals yma.
Gwn fod Angharad Price yn ddarlithydd ym Mhrifysgol Bangor , wrth ystyried geiriau Raymond Williams;
‘Social being determines conciousness’ Williams (1980, t. 31)
Buaswn yn disgwyl i’w safle dosbarth canol beri iddi beidio a cwestiynu eidiolegau trechaf yr oes fel person sydd yn aelod o garfan freintiedig o’r gymdeithas. Er hyn fe ymddengosai Price i fod ag agwedd iach o gwestynu’r drefn yn ei nofel. Atgyfnerthai hyn syniadau’r meddyliwr Marcsaidd Gramsici bod modd ymwrthod a’r eidiolegau a fuasai yn atgyfnerthu buddianu dosbarth eich hunain (yn wahanol i Farx a gredai mai eich sefyllfa faterol sydd yn penderfynu’n derfynol eich ‘ymwybyddiaeth’).
Mae Angharad Price yn wedi llwyddo (yn ôl Marcswyr) i weld realiti rhesymegol tu hwnt i’r eidiolegau ffals ac fe welir hyn yn ei nofel. Med y cyfalafwr yw’r ddrwgweithredwr ystrydebol a Gwyn yw’r ysglyfaeth diniwed ei amgylchiadau anlwcus. Diddorol yw ei llysenwau, ‘Gwyn’ a ‘Jaman’. Credaf mai adlewyrchu meddylfryd Price ydynt, bod llawer o’r proletariat yn ysglyfaeth anlwcus (Jaman) ddiniwed (ystyr Gwyn) y gyfundrefn gyfalafol.
Er ar yr wyneb fe ymddengys ei bod yn cydymdeimlo tuag at y proletariat, ceir ysbaid (yn debygol yn ddiarwybod iddi) a ddengys rhagfarn ‘synnwyr cyffredin’ eidioleg trechaf yr oes.
Un enghraifft o hyn yw’r modd nad oes portread proletariat fel cymeriad cyflawn yn ei nofel. Mae Jaman yn dod o gefndir dosbarth gweithiol ond yr oedd dim ond ‘o werth’ ysgrifennu amdano tan iddo etifeddu tŷ Arfonia Bugbird. Gwn fod etifeddu’r tŷ yn ganolig i’r plot ond mae eithaf cyfleus mai yr unig ran o fywyd Jaman y cawn bortread cyflawn ohono yw wedi iddo etifeddu tŷ ac ar y ffordd i fod yn ‘ddosbarth canol’.
Nid yw cymeriadau megis Jaman, Almut, y Spicters, Tonwen yn byw mewn tai cyngor a gorfod byw ar nawdd y wladwriaeth neu’n gweithio mewn swydd isel ei statws (mae Almut yn bwriadu agor caffi gydag arian ei mam). Nid yw cymeriadau ‘Y Mona’ ond yn ystradebau a’i hatgyfnerthir gan eu llysenwau. Maent yno i dywallt arlliw o hiwmor ar y nofel ac yno er mwyn i Jaman adweithio a hwy. Dydyn ni ddim yn dod i adnabod cymhlethdodau seicolegol Pen Menyn na Heulwen Hŵr. Er bod Jaman yn ddi-waith mae ganddo arian Arfonia ac mae yn treulio ei ddyddiau yn hamddenol. Does dim darlun cyflawn o gynni economaidd y proletariat.
Mae darn arall o’r nofel yn chwarae ar y myth dosbarth canol bod merched ifanc o gefndiroedd dosbarth gweithiol yn beichiogi er mwyn cael tŷ gan y cyngor. Mae’n amwys os yw Angharad Price yn dychanu y myth tabloidaidd yma yntau yn ei blethu yn ‘realiti’ ei nofel gan awgrymu ei wirionedd. Price (2010 t. 276)
Un peth annelwig arall yn y nofel yw’r modd y mae Jaman yn piciad bob hyn a hyn i Woolworths. Woolworths oedd un o’r cwmnïau mawr a fethdaliodd yn ystod yr argyfwng economaidd y blynyddoedd diwethaf yma. Paham felly, os mai portread o Gaernarfon cyfoes yw hwn, gyda phob dim arall a ddisgrifir yn y dre wedi ei hadlewyrchu- bod Woolworths dal agored pan mae’r darllenydd yn gwybod ei bod wedi cau? Ydi Angharad Price yn ceisio anwybyddu’r argyfwng economaidd? Nid oes son amdano, mae ambell gyfeiriad at ddiweithdra fel problem onid yw yn broblem gyffredinol yng ngogledd Cymru? Ydi Angharad Price yn anwybyddu ffaeleddau economaidd cyfalafiaeth drwy bortreadu Caersaint fel lle na ddigwyddodd y fath argyfwng? Mae’n bosib yr oedd hyn yn fwriadol, ac yn ddyfais a ysgogai’r darllenydd i gwestiynu. Onid yw’r holl nofel ynglŷn â’r Jaman yn newid o fod yn ddyn ifanc apathetic i un a heriai’r drefn? Wrth gymell enw Woolworths fe gofiwn y cwmni mawr ddaeth yn ysglyfaeth i argyfwng y banciau. Cwyd argyfwng y banciau gwestiynau ynglŷn â chyfalafiaeth, nid yw’n hollol gadarn na heb ffaeleddau.
I Farcswyr nid yn unig er mwyn cael dealltwriaeth ddwysach o destun yn unig mae dadansoddiad Marcsaidd yn gallu bod yn ddefnyddiol. Pwrpas ymarferol dadansoddiad Marcsaidd buasai i ddatgelu eidiolegau ffals a gefnogai’r gyfundrefn gyfalafol. Fel dywed Natalie Williams
‘Dadleuai Marx fod datgelu’r byd materol fel y prif ddylanwad ar berthynas dyn a’r byd yn rhoi’r arf cryfaf iddo i wireddu ei ryddfreiniad’ (2009, t. 502)
Mae dadansoddi’n Farcsaidd yn un modd o wneud hyn, datgelai eidiolegau ffals yn ymwybyddiaeth pobol y cyfnod. Datgelai hegemoni’r dosbarth llywodraethol, yr hyn a gynhaliai eu safle breintiedig ar draul y mwyafrif. Felly er bod dadansoddiad Marcsaidd o destun yn hynod ddifyr mae mwy iddo na hyn. Mae gan ddiwylliant effaith ar ymwybyddiaeth yr unigolyn sy’n rhan o’r diwylliant hwnnw fel dywed Peter Barry;
‘..literature is shown to be of crucial importance in its own right, not just a helpless and passive reflector of the economic base whare the real busness of society goes on’ (2002 t. 165)

Llyfryddiaeth
Barry, Peter. 2002. Beginning Theory. Manchester: Manchester University Press
Willimas, Natalie. 2009. Marcsiaeth a Rhyddfreiniad. Yn:
Daniel, J. a Gealy, W. Gol. Hanes Athroniaeth y Gorllewin. Caerdydd: Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru
Marx, K. a Engels, F. 2002. The Communist Maniffesto. London: Penguin Books
Price, A. 2010. Caersaint. Talybont: Y Lolfa
Roberts, W.O. 1992. Nes Na’r Hannesydd neu Y Nofel Hanes. Yn:
Rowlands, J. Gol. Sglefrio ar eririau. Llandysul: Gwasg Gomer
Williams, Raymond. 2005. Culture and Materialism. London: Verso

 

Plan-B o Barcelona gan Ken Vegan

Gwersi anarchaidd ymarferol i helpu trechu’r credit crunch.

Er i bawb meddwl “Na – gallai fath beth fyth digwydd go iawn”  –  ar ddiwedd mis Hydref 2008, ddaeth economi’r byd yn ofnadwy o agos at fethu’n llwyr. Mae llywodraethau bellach wedi gwario biliynau i geisio achub y system ariannol ac rydan ni i gyd wedi gwneud ein gorau glas i anghofio sut roedden ni o fewn trwch blewyn i weld pob banc, busnes a llywodraeth yn dymchwel. Mewn cyflwr meddwl o wadu’r gwirionedd ydan ni  –  Ond pwy a wyr pa mor hir nes fydd y marchnadoedd rhyngwladol i gyd mewn panig o fynd yn fethdalwyr unwaith eto?

Er i holl arbenigwyr yn y papurau ac ar y teledu cytuno bod y system yn wallgofrwydd llwyr wnaeth y cyfryngau ddim rhoi sylw i unrhyw leffitis smyg i hyd yn oed ddweud ‘told you so’ heb sôn am cael y cyfle i gynnig unrhyw Plan-B.

Roeddwn wybod bod cyfalafiaeth mewn trafferth go iawn pan wnaeth y Daily Telegraph cyhoeddi ‘Handy Guide to Bartering” yn cynghori ei ddarllenwyr i ddefnyddio gwefannau fel “u-exchange.com” i gyfnewid nwyddau a gwasanaethau yn lle gorfod dibynnu ar arian.

Oedd hwn yn Plan-B y Daily Telegraph yn achos meltdown economaidd llwyr? Trefn yn seiliedig ar rannu, cytuno ac yn gwneud heb forgeisi, cyfraddau llog, cyfranddaliadau ac elw? Y Daily Telegraph… y papur mwya Prydainig, ceidwadol a sefydliadol ohonynt i gyd yn crybwyll system anarchaidd? Beth ydan nhw’n gwybod eu bod heb ddweud wrthyn ni?

Am wn i, dim ond unwaith cafodd system anarchaidd ei brofi ar raddfa gweddol fawr – yn Catalunya yn y 1930au. Ac yn ôl pob tebyg gyda chryn dipyn o lwyddiant, am gyfnod byr o leiaf.

Yn ei lyfr ‘Homage to Catalonia’ disgrifiodd  y bonheddwr Saesneg George Orwell sut oedd yn credu oedd wedi cyrraedd nefoedd egalitaraidd wrth weld Barcelona ym 1936:

“In the barbers’ shops were Anarchist notices (the barbers were mostly Anarchists) solemnly explaining that barbers were no longer slaves… Every shop and cafe had an inscription saying that it had been collectivized… Waiters and shop-walkers looked you in the face and treated you as an equal.

I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites…Many of the normal motives of civilised life – snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc. – had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is amost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master”

Datblygodd athroniaeth anarchiaeth yn y 19fed ganrif fel ateb i’r tlodi a gormes a dioddefodd miliynau o bobl mewn yn nwyrain Ewrop. Roedd yr anarchwyr cynnar yn credu doedd dim modd i’r tsar, yr eglwysi a llond llaw o feistri diwydiannol dal eu gafael ar holl rym a chyfoeth am byth – roedd pobl gyffredin yn sicr o ddisodli eu gormeswyr yn hwyr neu’n hwyrach. Bwriad anarchwyr oedd creu cymdeithas heb feistri yn seiliedig ar gyd-weithio a rhannu yn hytrach nag ecsploetio.

Ychydig dros gan mlynedd yn ôl ddaeth mudiadau anarchiaeth i fodolaeth o amgylch y byd, llawer ohonynt yn heddychlon ond rhai eraill yn defnyddio tactegau chwyldroadol i drio cael gwared ac ambell i frenin neu unben. Ym Mhrydain a’r Unol Daleithiau, yn y cyfnod Fictorianaeth, manteisiodd wleidyddion a’r wasg ar y ‘bygythiad anarchaidd’ i ddychryn y poblogaeth.

Cyn hir bu hysteria llwyr am anarchwyr, oedd yn ôl papurau fel y Daily Telegraph, yn benderfynol o ladd canoedd o bobl diniwed gyda bomiau mewn theatrau neu o dan drenau.  Yn ôl y wasg boblogaidd roedd yr anarchwyr yn hawdd i’w hadnabod gyda’u barfau hirion a llygaid cochion. ‘Ffanatics’, ‘estronwyr’, ‘Iddewon’, ‘mewnfudwyr o’r dwyrain’. Swnio’n gyfarwydd? Ie, fel y ‘bygythiad Mwslemiaid’ yn ein hoes ni, roedd pleidleisiau i’w hennill a phapurau newydd i’w gwerthu trwy ddychryn a pharanoia.

Felly inni heddiw mae gair ‘anarchydd’ yn dal i daflu fyny’r ddelwedd i’n meddyliau o rywun peryglus sydd ar fin gwneud rhywbeth ofnadwy. Ond  ar ddechrau’r 20fed ganrif, llwyddodd undebau llafur ‘Anarcho-Sindicalaidd’ (Syndicale yw’r gair Ffrangeg am undeb), denu miloedd o aelodau yn yr Unol Dalaethiau ac fe lwyddwyd ennill llawer o welliannau yn safonau byw yn cynnwys y diwrnod gweithio 8 awr gyntaf. Mae’n debyg roedd Anarcho-Sindicalwyr yn ne Cymru, yn ardal Castell Nedd yn arbennig a chafodd y term ‘Anarcho-Sindicaliaeth’ ei fathu gan Gymro o’r enw Sam Mainwaring (Penrhiwtyn, 1841-1907).

Ond yn Rwsia a Sbaen, a nid Castell Nedd, ble bu uchelwyr ag eglwysi holl-rymus gyda bywydau pobl cefn gwlad heb eu newid llawer am ers dyddiau’r taeogion – gwelwyd y brwdfrydedd mwyaf am well ddyfodol yn seiliedig ar syniadaeth anarchaidd.

Er i anarchwyr Rwsia brwydro ochr ac ochr a’r comiwnyddion yn chrwydro 1917 cawsant bron i gyd eu lladd neu gyrru i Siberia yn fuan wedi’r Bolsiefics ennill. Roedd gwrthwynebiad llwyr yr anarchwyr i syniadau o lywodraeth canolog a gorfod dilyn ordars o uwchben yn fygythiad mawr i Stalin.

Felly dim ond am gyfnod byr, yn Sbaen yn y 1930au, gwelwyd mudiad anarchaidd digon cryf i allu cymryd grym, cyn hwythau cael eu trechu yn 1939 gan luoedd ffasgaidd yn rhyfel sifil y wlad. Yn ein hoes ni mae’n anodd credu roedd poblogaeth gyfan yn dewis ffurfio cymdeithas yn seiliedig ar rannu, ac yn ceisio gwneud i ffwrdd ag arweinwyr ac elw. Ond mae’n werth cadw esiampl Barcelona 1936 mewn cof fel Plan-B, rhag ofn, un diwrnod bydd Huw Edwards yn cyhoeddi bod pob banc yn y byd wedi methu a bod arian, masnach a threfn llywodraethau bellach wedi darfod. Cofia edrych os bydd gan y Daily Telegraph ragor o gyngor anarchaidd handi yn y cyfamser!

Ysgrifennwyd yr Erthygl yma i ‘Tu Chwith’ yn 2008 gan Ken Vegan.

Anarchiaeth Copenhagenaidd gan Cai O’Marah

O Gymru fach teithiais i ddinas enfawr, a brif ddinas Denmarc, Copenhagen, lle rwyf wedi aros a’u hymweld ers bron i fis bellach. Mae’r ddinas hon, a’r wlad gynt yn drefedigaeth i’r Almaen Natsïaeth, wedi cael rhith-garwriaeth efo gwleidyddiaeth radical yr adain chwith, a falle’r digwyddiadau mwyaf amlwg yw sefydliad tref rydd Christiannia yn yr ardal Christianshavn o’r ddinas. Yn y dechrau dim ond un mewn mor o sgwats wedi eu seilio ar egwyddorion anarchiaeth oedd Christiannia, ond bellach mae wedi datblygu i fod yn dref gwbl ymreoliaethol a hunan gynaladwy. Mae llawer o bethe all anarchwyr ym Mhrydain a Chymru ddysgu o’r hyn digwyddodd yn Christiannia, er enghraifft defnyddio agwedd a ethic DIY er mwyn addysgu’r sgiliau angenrheidiol sydd eu hangen er mwyn allu bod yn hunan gynaladwy, ac adeiladu tai ei’n hunain drwy ddefnyddio adnoddau wedi eu hailgylchu drwy freeganiaeth e.e. Cael hyd i adnoddau fatha pren, metal, teclynnau pren a metal ac yn y blaen.

Tai, a chychod hunan gynaladwy a gafodd ei adeiladu drwy ddefnyddio sgiliau DIY, a agwedd freeganiaeth.

Mae llawer o feddylwyr adain chwith wedi gwneud hyn, ac yn dal i’w wneud drwy adeiladu cychod, tai a’n tyfu bwyd, llysiau ayyb nid dim ond yn Christiannia, ond hefyd mewn canolfannau cymdeithasol ar hyd a lled y ddinas, fatha’r ‘Youth House’ yn ardal Nørrebro, a’r ‘South Harbour,’ lle mae cymdeithas o bobl a oedd methu fforddio talu rhent yn y ddinas, a’n seilio ar   wleidyddiaeth radical adain chwith, wedi adeiladu tai cwbl hunan gynaladwy eu hunain, a llawer o’r tai yn gychod sydd wedi eu hadeiladu gan bobl heb sgiliau proffesiynol, ond sydd wedi addysgu eu hunain mewn sgiliau DIY. Hefyd, mae’n bwysig i nodi bod ym mis Mawrth 2007 cafodd canolfan, neu sgwat, yr ‘Youth House,’ ei dadfeddiannu gan yr heddlu, a chafodd cefnogaeth gan hofrennydd militaraidd.

Yn dilyn hyn disgynnodd ardal Nørrebro i ddwylo 2,500 o brotestwyr yn llosgi’r strydoedd. Er bod dulliau di-drais yn gallu bod yn effeithiol er mwyn datgelu a chyhoeddi tactegau milain yr heddlu, mae hwyrach angen fwy o hwb a dewder gwleidyddol yng Nghymru, ac yn bendant, yn fy marn i mae angen rhyddhau ei’n meddyliau o’r cysyniad cenedlaethol sy’n ei’n twyllo ni i gefnogi’n llywodraeth sydd yn dal i reoli ei’n bywydau a’n poeni dim am ei’n safonau byw ni, a’n ceisio, heb ddim rhwystr i’w ei’n atal ni rhag byw bywydau hunan gynaladwy.

Wrth grwydro o amgylch y ddinas, mae’n dod yn fwyfwy amlwg bod cysyniad gwleidyddol cryf iawn yn bodoli o fewn meddyliau pobl ifanc Copenhagen, a sin tanddaearol yn defnyddio canolfannau cymdeithasol fatha’r ‘Youth House’ er mwyn cynnal nosweithiau cerddorol ac yn y blaen. Fel esiampl, ymwelais i a pharti cerddoriaeth reggae yn yr ‘Youth House.’ Wrth imi gyrraedd yr safle sylweddolais ar y faner enfawr a’r arysgrif ‘the police has lost control of this part of the city’ yn chwifio o flaen yr mynedfa, a wrth cerdded mewn i’r feniue llawn graffitti radical, a bas uchel yn crynu’r llawr, a’r arogyl melys marijuana yn peillio’r awyr, dwi’n sylwi bod teimlad undod cryf yn bresennol yn yr ‘stafell. Yn ogystal, mae’r celfyddydau’n offeryn gryf i’w ddefnyddio er mwyn rhoi neges wleidyddol allan, a mae sawl wal graffiti oamgylch yr ddinas yn rhoi lwyfan i bobl mynegi ei barn personol fel arall fysynt heb cael yr cyfle i’w wneud. Mae un engheraifft o slogan radical gwleidyddol welais yn ystod yr trip o danodd.

Graffitti ‘your money is worth shit to us’ Copenhagen.

Mae hefyd cymdeithas o bobl sydd wedi adeiladu ei tai eu hynain, a’n byw yn hollol hunan gynaladwy yn bodoli yn ardal Vesterbro o’r ddinas. Mae’r rhain yn defnyddio nwyddau cynaladwy fatha pŵer solar i greu trydan, a’r rhan fwyaf o dai efo gerddi llysiau i dyfu bwyd.

Tai hunain gynaladwy.

Egni pwer solar a gerddi llysau.

Er bod anarchiaeth wedi hybu a ffynnu i raddau yn Copenhagen, mae dal o bell ffordd yn ddinas berffaith, a rhyddfrydol. Er enghraifft mae agwedd ceidwadol iawn yn dal tir gyda llawer o bobl y ddinas, a hyn i raddau oherwydd yr agwedd bod system lles cryf yn bodoli yn y wlad felly all bobl ddim cwyno am bolisïau’r llywodraeth ayyb. Hefyd, er bod llawer o dwristiaid sydd yn ymweld â Christiannia ar yr rhan amlaf yn meddwl bod hon yn system berffaith, sy’n gweithio’n grêt, mae dal yn gweithredu ar system hierarchaidd, gyda phobl ar y top yn gwneud penderfyniadau fatha pwy sy’n cael yr hawl i fyw yn y dref, polisïau a ‘gyfreithiau’r dref. Yn ogystal, ymatebodd pennaeth y dref yn hurt ofnadwy tuag at ddefnyddwyr cyffuriau cryfach na marijuana, wrth daflu nhw allan a dechrau ymgyrch propaganda gwrthgyffuriau o fewn ffiniau Christiannia. Yn fy marn i mae’r gwrthodiad o ffyrdd bobl eraill o fyw fel hyn ddim yn seilio ar egwyddorion anarchiaeth. Hefyd, does ddim system o ddemocratiaeth uniongyrchol yn bodoli yn Christiannia, felly dim ond y biwrocratiaid ar y top sydd yn gwneud penderfyniadau yn y dref.

Yn debyg, ers mis bellach rwyf wedi bod yn aros, cyfrannu a gweithio i brosiect cymdeithasol sydd â nod o greu byd fwy hunan gynaladwy drwy ddulliau ac ethos DIY, a’n gweithio’n galed ofnadwy er mwyn ceisio llwyddo yn y nod hwn. Enw’r prosiect yw Flydendeby. (Floating City)

Er bod y grŵp yn seilio ar egwyddorion anarchiaeth, mae dal strwythurau awdurdod a phŵer yn bodoli. Fel esiampl, mae grŵp o bedwar pobl yn gwneud penderfyniadau annemocrataidd a’n gysgodus iawn, a’r penderfyniadau yma’n effeithio gweithgareddau’r gwirfoddolwyr, neu polisiau i’w ymwneud efo’r prosiect. Tydi’r penderfyniadau yma ddim yn cael ei thrafod efo’r grŵp cyfan, a rhan amlaf ddim yn cael eu datgelu’n glir i weddill y grŵp. Mae teimlad o ofn ac amheuaeth gyda’r grŵp yma tuag at fewnfudwyr i raddau, a hyn yn bennaf oherwydd ofn colli rheolaeth o’i phrosiect nhw, a’u hawydd i reoli’r prosiect. Mae’r hyn y bod gemau pŵer yn cael eu chwarae mewn sgwats anarchaidd yn codi cwestiynau mawr, a’n bennaf, y cwestiwn mwyaf pwysig efallai; Ydy strwythurau pŵer yn anochel mewn cymdeithas? Neu os modd gwthio’r system pŵer ac awdurdod o’m cymdeithas?!