A comparisson: AS / AC / CC / LC / T

[Comrade Gwydion]

I see a lot of people asking about these ideologies:

Anarcho Syndicalism // Anarcho Communism // Council Communism // Left-Communism // Trotskyism

These ideologies kinda seem like a gradient of the thin line between authoritarian communism and decentralised anarchism.

These ideologies are said to be quite close to each other (although perhaps Anarcho syndicalism doesn't quite fit in, on second thought), so many newbies are confused about them. Most threads are about one or two of these, and still don't give much clarity about the differences between them.

That's why I wanted this combined in one thread. I would like a clear explaination about what theses friggin 'isms' are, and most importantly, what are their differences. (No, I don't give a fuck about who it's famous founders are or anything along those lines)

Since these threads are many, and everyone can post in them, I don't want many replies to this one. I'd like people who are willing to type a lot, type clearly. Although I like open discussion and ventilation about what people think something means, we've had quite a lot threads about that (with me involved as well), but I'm just curious to something clear.

Man, that sounded authoritarian, but it wasn't meant that way :S

[Jazzratt]

Firstly, what in the blue fuck is trotskyism doing on that list at all? Trotsky and trotskyites are just as inclined toward "authoritarian" politics as any other primarily leninist sects.

Personally I don't know a whole hell of a lot about left communism or council communism, although to get a feel for the former I got a much better understanding by reading the LC group on this page and various stuff by the ICC.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Here is some information on Anarcho-Syndicalism, essentially all Anarcho-Syndicalists believe in an Anarcho-Communist society and Anarcho-Syndicalism is the strategy to move towards this society.




The basic principles of anarcho-syndicalism are workers' solidarity, direct action and self-management. They are the manifestation in daily life of the application to the workers' movement of the libertarian principles of anarchism. The anarchist philosophy which inspires these basic principles also defines their purpose; that is, to be a tool of self-emancipation from wage-slavery, and as a means of working towards Libertarian Communism.

Whilst one or another of the principles can be seen in operation in numerous social and political movements, not all of which are necessarily even libertarian, it is the employment of all three which is uniquely anarcho-syndicalist. Bureaucratic trade unions practise workers' solidarity when it suits, but violate the principle of direct action when supporting supposedly "labour" candidates for political office. Racist social movements practise direct action, but violate the principle of solidarity by directing it against fellow workers of different nationalities. In order to be anarcho-syndicalist the principles must be applied in the right way, in order to strengthen the class and further the primary goal of liberation from wage-slavery.

The purpose of the principles of workers' solidarity, direct action and self-management is to facilitate this process; to provide a means of what was once described in the anarcho-syndicalist movement as "revolutionary gymnastics".

The idea of revolutionary gymnastics is simply that training is required for a revolution, in exactly the same way as it is required for a football match, or in exactly the same way as musicians rehearse in private before playing to a live audience. Workers' solidarity is the team spirit which unites the players, the team spirit which says that a champion team will always defeat a team of champions, direct action the libertarian tactics the team uses to achieve its libertarian goal, self-management the libertarian form of administration through which the players on the Social Revolution United squad learn to function as such. Furthermore, just as a football team has the goal of victory to inspire it, so the anarcho-syndicalist union has the dream of social revolution to keep the fire in the bellies of its militants. This is entirely natural for a methodology which seeks not to create new tyrants and rulers for the mass of humanity under different names, but rather to facilitate their self-liberation.

More information can be found here: http://www.anarchosyndicalism.net/archive/faq

[Искра]

I think that best solution would be that we create good topic for each tendency with explanations what is this and with good critics from other tendencies. After that Admin should stick each topic so that newcomers interested in each tendency don't have to open new threads.

[Искра]

I made one for Anarcho-Syndicalism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarcho-syndicalism-dummies-t121236/index.html) :)

[ArrowLance]

This thread makes us STALINISTS feel left out. . .

[Pogue]

This thread makes us STALINISTS feel left out. . .

no one cares

[ArrowLance]

no one cares

Way to break the heart of a teenage school boy just looking for love.

Meany!

[Comrade Gwydion]

This thread makes us STALINISTS feel left out. . .


no one cares


Way to break the heart of a teenage school boy just looking for love.

Meany!

Lol. Seriously though, it's kinda hard to mistake Stalinism for for example Anarcho-Syndicalism.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

This thread makes us STALINISTS feel left out. . .

99% of the threads on this board not enough for you?

[ArrowLance]

99% of the threads on this board not enough for you?
I can never rest until the last dissident 1% is purged.

[Искра]

Can't admin do its job?

[punisa]

I can never rest until the last dissident 1% is purged.

LOL :laugh:

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I think that the boundaries between the first three, at least, are much more thinner and less important than between the various other tendencies. I'd even go so far as to say that all tendencies from Trotskyism rightwards all support some faction of a ruling class and don't really stand for the total abolition of capital (left communists I'm undecided about) whereas AS/AC/CC are all pure working-class communist currents. The Anarchist Federation is an anarcho-communist group, but we can produce joint texts with anarcho-syndicalist groups like SolFed (see http://www.afed.org.uk/component/content/article/137.html for an example) and reprint stuff by council communist groups like Wildcat and left communist theorists like Dauve without it disagreeing with our politics; it's a lot harder to imagine trot and Stalinist groups producing joint leaflets the way we can work together with Solidarity Federation.
I think Devrim sometimes says that the only really important division isn't between anarchists and Marxists, it's between communists and social democrats. By those standards, AS/AC/CC/LC would all count as sub-types of communism, Trotskyism is the extreme left wing of social democracy.
And then you get platformism, just to make things even more confusing...

[Devrim]

I'd even go so far as to say that all tendencies from Trotskyism rightwards all support some faction of a ruling class and don't really stand for the total abolition of capital (left communists I'm undecided about) whereas AS/AC/CC are all pure working-class communist currents.

Why?

Devrim

[Leo]

Way to break the heart of a teenage school boy just looking for love.

Funny how most western stalinists turn out to be as such nowadays, isn't it?

[ls]

It's true, there should be monolithic massive stickied threads about each ideology with the best contributions in one place on this forum, the admins are probs too busy to get that happening though, so nevermind. One thread will just get too messy (it's already off-topic).

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Why?

Devrim
The usual predictable things. The need for a vanguard party form of organisation, the idea that Leninism/the Soviet Union was alright before it degenerated. Would it be fair to list those among the features distinguishing left communism (at least the ICC's brand)?

[Devrim]

The need for a vanguard party form of organisation,

Left communists believe in a vanguard party, as do most of the Marxists that anarchists quote approvingly. I don't see how that ties in with 'supporting some faction of a ruling class' though.


the idea that Leninism/the Soviet Union was alright before it degenerated.

I don't think we say that it was 'alright'. We say there was a workers' revolution in Russia, but we also say that by 1921 the state and the party were acting of behalf of capital against the working class.

Left communists in Russia at the time refused to support the suppression of the Krondstadt uprising, and in fact were warning against the dangers of Bolshevik policy as early as April 1918:


"It was all very well", Bukharin pointed out, "to say as Lenin had (in State and Revolution) that each cook should learn to manage the State. But what happened when each cook had a commissar appointed to order him about?" The second issue of the paper contained some prophetic comments by Osinsky: "We stand for the construction of the proletarian society by the class creativity of the workers themselves, not by the ukases of the captains of industry. . . if the proletariat itself does not know how to create the necessary prerequisites for the socialist organisation of labour no one can do this for it and no one can compel it to do this. The stick, if raised against the workers, will find itself in the hands of a social force which is either under the influence of another social class or is in the hands of the soviet power; but the soviet power will then be forced to seek support against the proletariat from another class (e.g. the peasantry) and by this it will destroy itself as the dictatorship of the proletariat. Socialism and socialist organisation will be set up by the proletariat itself, or they will not be set up at all - something else will be set up - state capitalism". (46) (http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1918#46)


Devrim

[ls]

I have noted quite a lot of resentment from some left-communists of most kinds of anarchists.

I suppose the only reason would be thanks to ignorance by anarchists of left-communists as "terrible leninists", which let's face it- if you think of it from the perspective of a left-communist, is pretty infuriatingly annoying.

[Jethro Tull]

The divide between "left-communism" and "anarchism' is a pathetic ritual reinactment of the asinine fued between Marxists and Bakuninists within the first international. Marx hated Bakunin because Bakunin was a Slavic queer. Bakunin hated Max because Marx was a Jew. They were both irrational bigots. End of story.

Trotskyism and anarcho-syndicalism, on the other hand, are simly bourgeois. :ohmy:

[Leo]

The divide between "left-communism" and "anarchism' is a pathetic ritual reinactment of the asinine fued between Marxists and Bakuninists within the first international.

I don't think this is true. The difference between marxism and anarchism in general have got little to do with the personalities of Marx and Bakunin and nothing at all to do with the events which happened within the First International. The difference is between a dynamic methodology, one which aims to ever-improve itself with relentless self-criticism and drawing lessons of the past; and an absolutely static lack of methodology whose specific characteristics are determined only by the specific moment and its air.

Left communism is a movement which was born of and which carries the characteristics and continues the tradition of the former; all forms of anarchism have continued its existence as the latter. There has been so-called "Marxists" who betrayed the struggle and interests of the working class, and some who claimed to be "Marxists" while having nothing to do with the marxist revolutionary method, yet the communist left itself is nothing but the continuation of genuine marxism, born out of the dynamic criticism and condemnation of such betrayals and lies.

As for anarchism, it is indeed true that there are some anarchists who are absolutely internationalist revolutionaries, class struggle oriented and so forth, whom the communist left as well as marxism historically has always considered as comrades, despite the confusions they carry exactly because they are anarchists. On the other hand, it is undeniable that the majority of the anarchist current has supported numerous imperialist wars, nationalist movements, bourgeois states and so forth and that even the internationalist and revolutionary anarchists have not been able to draw actual lessons from these things.

[Jethro Tull]

What a load of sectarian gibberish.

Can you tell me what the concrete differences are between so-called "anarchists" and so-called "left-communists"?

[Leo]

Most anarchists support this or that national liberation movement or nationalist ideology, participate in this or that trade-union or support this or that bourgeois-state, take sides in this or that bourgeois-war, supports this or that faction of the ruling class politically etc. Numerous examples of all these can be seen merely from looking at some anarchist posters on this website.

Concrete enough?

Well, lets go on about the internationalist anarchists. Those anarchists who do not do anything stated above do so not out of a methodologically clear basis, but only from their instincts, which makes it harder for them to constantly defend and explain those positions, and this lack of a clear methodological basis makes it possible for these comrades to lapse or retreat on their positions occasionally as well. There of course finally is the drawing lessons thing. Example? Look at how revolutionary marxists of the past and of today regard Kautsky because of his support for WW1 and how the anarchists of the past and of today, even the internationalist ones regard Kropotkin who had the same nationalist approach towards WW1.

Don't get me wrong, as a left communist I regard the anarchists who are internationalists and revolutionaries as comrades and am indeed for joint work between left communists and internationalist anarchists (and the organization I am a militant of indeed does joint work with some anarchist groups), but trying reconcile what is irreconcilable, brushing away actual differences and condemning criticism as sectarianism is nothing but opportunism.

This attitude itself is a part of what I am talking about in regards to the inherent problems of anarchism.

[ls]

That's a bit unfair Leo, Freedom bookshop (which is generally representative of a lot of different anarchist opinions) actually kicked Kropotkin out from writing for them because of his support of WWI http://www.freedompress.org.uk/public/author.oml%3FpersonId=29.html


Boring Old Fart with a Big Beard, Had to be kicked off the Freedom Collective for supporting the First World War. Wrote some important books apparently. :p

I do get your point of course nonetheless and it's true, but to label most anarchists as national collaborationists is a bit off.

But re Kropotkin, does him supporting WWI mean one must reject all of his someone's positions, even if they bear no relation to his later support for WWI?

[Искра]

Trotskyism and anarcho-syndicalism, on the other hand, are simly bourgeois. :ohmy:
Why's anarcho-syndicalism bourgeois?

[Leo]

I do get your point of course nonetheless and it's true, but to label most anarchists as national collaborationists is a bit off.There was a poll here on Revleft not so long ago:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=3245



Anarchists: Would you NEVER support national liberation and secession
View Poll Results: Would you never, under any circumstance support one of these movements?
I would never 27 32.93%
I would under the right circumstances 55 67.07%Some of those who voted for the first option were indeed not anarchists but left communists themselves.

Is it not but a fact that most anarchists are "national collaborationists", at least on Revleft?

This result would be a bit different in a website such as libcom which is arguably one of the few significant strongholds of internationalist anarchism, but what about in general, what about outside the internet, what do you think would the result be?


But re Kropotkin, does him supporting WWI mean one must reject all of his someone's positions, even if they bear no relation to his later support for WWI? The first instinct of marxists against Kautsky was not desperately striving to find something not to reject in Kautsky, but tracing his betrayal to ever single line Kautsky wrote, not only condemning the betrayal but tracing its roots, drawing the lessons.

Anarchists even today, when Kropotkin's betrayal is brought up, still say 'but do we have to reject everything Kropotkin says?'

This is exactly what I am talking about on this issue.

No, of course we don't have to reject Kropotkin's work on evolution or Kautsky's work on christianity because of their position in regards to WW1, but that is an aspect of this issue which is as far from the main point as possible.

[ls]

There was a poll here on Revleft not so long ago:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=3245

Some of those who voted for the first option were indeed not anarchists but left communists themselves.

Is it not but a fact that most anarchists are "national collaborationists", at least on Revleft?

This result would be a bit different in a website such as libcom which is arguably one of the few significant strongholds of internationalist anarchism, but what about in general, what about outside the internet, what do you think would the result be?

It's not a simple question, which is exactly my point in the first place.

Most anarchists aren't "internationalists" in your sense, but most of them don't support most national liberation movements or fighting in any imperialist wars (the exception being WWII for the ones that do, usually), I would say that a lot of them are culturally chauvinist (in all kinds of differing ways) however.


The first instinct of marxists against Kautsky was not desperately striving to find something not to reject in Kautsky, but tracing his betrayal to ever single line Kautsky wrote, not only condemning the betrayal but tracing its roots, drawing the lessons.

Which is fair enough, however Kropotkin's work on mutual aid to me just seems completely and utterly out of step with his ideas of WWI, if you can show me something to the contrary I will happily take a look at it.


Anarchists even today, when Kropotkin's betrayal is brought up, still say 'but do we have to reject everything Kropotkin says?'

No, of course we don't have to reject Kropotkin's work on evolution or Kautsky's work on christianity because of their position in regards to WW1, but that is an aspect of this issue which is as far from the main point as possible.

Then I don't understand your main point. Of course I condemn his betrayal of anarchist principle and entering WWI and perhaps some of his work does reflect this, but I've never noticed it, if you can show me perhaps how you think it did manifest itself in his work then I may just change my opinion yet.

[khad]

Firstly, what in the blue fuck is trotskyism doing on that list at all? Trotsky and trotskyites are just as inclined toward "authoritarian" politics as any other primarily leninist sects.
Refrain from using that insulting label, please.

[Jethro Tull]

There was a poll here on Revleft not so long ago


Numerous examples of all these can be seen merely from looking at some anarchist posters on this website.


at least on Revleft?

With all due respect; degenerate, spoiled, miseducated teenagers on an infantile message board are not representatives of anarchism as a whole. Have you spent so much time on RevLeft that you are no longer able to distinguish it from reality?


this or that national liberation movement


most anarchists are "national collaborationists"

Yes, let's discuss this for a moment....

Analyzing and investigating ethnic subjugation as a specific manifestation of capitalist exploitation and alienation, and prescribing a militant affirming cultural nationalist / anti-imperialist attitude as part of a specific class-conscious social revolutionary program, is not the same thing as tacitly endorsing neo-colonial class-collaborationism under the retense of "national liberation" and "anti-imperialism". But you're a dogmatic ICC bureaucrat, so I doubt you'll consider this at all...


Most anarchists support this or that [...] nationalist ideology, participate in this or that trade-union or support this or that bourgeois-state, take sides in this or that bourgeois-war, supports this or that faction of the ruling class politically etc.

That's like saying "most vegetarians eat meat", though. If you eat meat, you're not a vegetarian, regardless of what you claim to be.

As far as the classical anarchist tradition, it's soaked with hard-line, no-comprimise extremists such as ourselves. Your assessment of anarchists, at least as it pertains to "the heroic years", ignores the entire European individualist school, most hard-line anarcho-communists, (those two categories blend together, mind you) and so forth.


a website such as libcom

The Libcom zeitgeist is a technocratic, androcentric, euro-chauvinist, social-democratic deviation from the authentic spirit of anarchist. (Say that five times fast!)


how the anarchists of the past [...] even the internationalist ones regard Kropotkin

Kropotkin became the laughing-stock of the anarchists, in Russia and across the globe, after he published the Manifesto of the Sixteen. Again, you're conflating 15-year-old potheads who have skimmed the Anarchist FAQ with the over-all character of the classical anarchist tendancy. Big mistake. (I'd actually be a lot like conflating the positions of Rosa Luxemburg with the dogmatists of the ICC, such as yourself)


Those anarchists who do not do anything stated above do so not out of a methodologically clear basis, but only from their instincts

This is a stupid generalization. It's also an overly ethereal and self-righteous complaint. (It's especially self-righteous, considering your last two posts sound like they were written by "instinct", or rather by ICC broiler-plate talking points) Proof of your compulsive sectarianism.


Most anarchists support this or that [...] nationalist ideology, participate in this or that trade-union or support this or that bourgeois-state

That's like saying "most vegetarians eat meat", though. If you eat meat, you're not a vegetarian, regardless of what you claim to be.

As far as the classical anarchist tradition, it's soaked with hard-line no-comprimise extremists such as ourselves.


Those anarchists who do not do anything stated above do so not out of a methodologically clear basis, but only from their instincts

This is a stupid generalization. It's also an overly ethereal and self-righteous complaint. Proof of your compulsive sectarianism.


but trying reconcile what is irreconcilable

You've utterly failed at establishing the "irreconcilable" differences between so-called anarchism and so-called left-communism. All you've done is listed a bunch of utterly petty and irrelelvant grievances you've had with a few self-proclaimed "anarchists" you've argued with over the Internet in the past. (And, as proof, you've used a messasge board poll, from a message board that allows the participation of pro-PRC/pro-Iran social-fascists)


brushing away actual differences and condemning criticism as sectarianism is nothing but opportunism.

I'm not condemning criticism. I criticize Kropotkinism and anarcho-syndicalism all the time. (In this very thread I've referred to anarcho-syndicalism as bourgeois, but you must have overlooked that as you were prepping your ICC broiler-plate talking points) How exactly can I be an "oppertunist" in this situation...what is the "oppertunity", exactly? Or is this just another telling example of compulsive Marxist newspeak?


Concrete enough?

No.

[Jethro Tull]

the exception being WWII

Well, according to mallicious, 21st century "left-communist" slander, any libertarian communists in France who practiced armed self-defense against German during WWII was a "collaborationist" and a "social imperialist", even if they were appropriately hostile towards the Gaullist establishment and the "Communist" party bureaucrats.

[ls]

Well, according to mallicious, 21st century "left-communist" slander, any libertarian communists in France who practiced armed self-defense against German during WWII was a "collaborationist" and a "social imperialist", even if they were appropriately hostile towards the Gaullist establishment and the "Communist" party bureaucrats.

Would you like to source that?

Also, your comments about Kropotkin are hilarious when one takes into account that you believe all Bakunin's vanguardist conspiracy theorist crap, that any decent anarchist rejects. :rolleyes:

[Jethro Tull]

Bakunin's vanguardist conspiracy theorist crap

Again, what the fuck are you talking about?

[ls]

Again, what the fuck are you talking about?

You know what I'm talking about Agrippa. :rolleyes:

Even that site you linked to is a joke, come on.

[Jethro Tull]

You know what I'm talking about

No, I don't. If you're actually interested in discussing this rationally, you could start by explaining
A) what exactly you think it is I mean by "Bakuninist vanguardism", what secific strategies you think I am advocating or endorsing
B) How Bakuninist vanguardism is in any way "conspiracy theorist".


Even that site you linked to is a joke

If you've actually read through Tiqqun, L'Appel, L'insurrection qui vient, etc. and have some thoughts or comments on the text that you'd like to share with the rest of the message board, you can create a thread about it. As it is, stop trying to derail threads with random personal attacks and nonsensical accusations.

[ls]

No, I don't. If you're actually interested in discussing this rationally, you could start by explaining
A) what exactly you think it is I mean by "Bakuninist vanguardism", what secific strategies you think I am advocating or endorsing
B) How Bakuninist vanguardism is in any way "conspiracy theorist".

His ideas of an "invisible vanguard" tie in with his other conspiracy theorist "secret international" ideas. That is what you should abandon by Bakunin, it's what makes anarchists of today think that everything should be underground and secretive. That site you linked to is hilarious, nothing short of it, it doesn't mean every single text on it is useless however, but come on its conspiracy theorist nonsense the site itself; "invisible committee", you take that seriously? Even the coming insurrection itself has some good points, but mostly it's a lot of conspiratorial nonsense, Tiqqun to me is rather pointless.


If you've actually read through Tiqqun, L'Appel, L'insurrection qui vient, etc. and have some thoughts or comments on the text that you'd like to share with the rest of the message board, you can create a thread about it. As it is, stop trying to derail threads with random personal attacks and nonsensical accusations.

If I wanted to launch random and factual personal attacks, I'd say you're a primitivist, western chauvinist left-deviationist (you "back" the uyghurs) and so on, I don't really intend on critiquing Tiqqun as it's pointless to me.

It's pretty unfortunate that a lot of anarchist-communists believe in conspiratorial nonsense just like yourself.

[Leo]

With all due respect; degenerate, spoiled, miseducated teenagers on an infantile message board are not representatives of anarchism as a whole.Most anarchists in real life share that position and defend other bourgeois positions as well.


Analyzing and investigating ethnic subjugation as a specific manifestation of capitalist exploitation and alienation, and prescribing a militant affirming cultural nationalist / anti-imperialist attitude as part of a specific class-conscious social revolutionary program, is not the same thing as tacitly endorsing neo-colonial class-collaborationism under the retense of "national liberation" and "anti-imperialism".No "nationalist / anti-imperialist attitude" can be a part of any class-conscious social revolutionary program, and no flowery words can hide that this position has got no difference from "endorsing neo-colonial class-collaborationism under the retense of "national liberation" and "anti-imperialism"". Your position is not different at all from that of trots or maoists.

This of course has got nothing to do with "analyzing and investigating ethnic subjugation as a specific manifestation of capitalist exploitation and alienation", the only solution to which is proletarian internationalism.


But you're a dogmatic ICC bureaucratYou are an idiot.


That's like saying "most vegetarians eat meat", though. If you eat meat, you're not a vegetarian, regardless of what you claim to be.Are you a vegetarian, by any chance?

:rolleyes:


You've utterly failed at establishing the "irreconcilable" differences between so-called anarchism and so-called left-communism.I think you yourself succeeded in demonstrating the "irreconcilable" differences between anarchism and left-communism.

[bcbm]

That is what you should abandon by Bakunin, it's what makes anarchists of today think that everything should be underground and secretive. That site you linked to is hilarious, nothing short of it, it doesn't mean every single text on it is useless however, but come on its conspiracy theorist nonsense the site itself; "invisible committee", you take that seriously? Even the coming insurrection itself has some good points, but mostly it's a lot of conspiratorial nonsense, Tiqqun to me is rather pointless.i think the positions of the invisible committee are conspiratorial, but certainly not in the sense you mean here.

[ls]

i think the positions of the invisible committee are conspiratorial, but certainly not in the sense you mean here.

Then elaborate on how you think they are so, also what do you think about conspiratorial overly "underground" anarchist movements?

I get the impression that you generally support but distance yourself from them?

[bcbm]

Then elaborate on how you think they are so

i believe their main point is shying away from direct confrontation with the state until we constitute a force capable of such an undertaking, which would require the expansion of "communes," as they say. its not a proposal for a small, conspiratorial dictatorship but a mass conspiracy built around ever-widening circles of communisation and complicity.


also what do you think about conspiratorial overly "underground" anarchist movements?

what, like the autonomen scene in europe? without any connections to class struggle i think they're largely rubbish, which isn't to say i don't see anything positive in them, just that the potential that exists hasn't been realized. i don't think its a particular problem in the american movement; the general non-class nature of many projects is more frustrating but there isn't as much focus on conspiracy, even among the insurrectionists.

[ls]

i believe their main point is shying away from direct confrontation with the state until we constitute a force capable of such an undertaking, which would require the expansion of "communes," as they say. its not a proposal for a small, conspiratorial dictatorship but a mass conspiracy built around ever-widening circles of communisation and complicity.

And do you agree with that approach of building general communes within capitalism?


what, like the autonomen scene in europe? without any connections to class struggle i think they're largely rubbish

Exactly, this is my point mostly. I do believe that a lot of the anarchist movement has a class-struggle perspective, it is however grainy and unclear.

[bcbm]

And do you agree with that approach of building general communes within capitalism?

i don't agree with it as the sole strategy to be undertaken but, yes.


Exactly, this is my point mostly. I do believe that a lot of the anarchist movement has a class-struggle perspective, it is however grainy and unclear.

yes, this is what i mean when i say the potential has not been realized. autonomous spaces as they exist in europe could certainly be opened up to working class struggles in a more concrete way and i think it would be possible from this to build for something more than circular cycles of violence in defense of those spaces by their inhabitants and fighting nazis. i think more interesting are the political squats occupied by older radicals, which seem to be building something more substantial, especially mutual aid in terms of providing access to doctors, dentists, etc for the movement.

[ls]

i don't agree with it as the sole strategy to be undertaken but, yes.

But how do you think communes can be built in Capitalism, don't you think things like communal squats and small areas of 'socialism' (ie the paris commune) get broken up all too easily? Just look at ungdomshuset for modern examples and the constant destroying of squats and small socialist places.

There was even one over here once somewhere in Gloucestershire, I believe Freedom books were based there, even they got broken up IIRC, the tactic doesn't work and does not stand on its own merit imo.


yes, this is what i mean when i say the potential has not been realized. autonomous spaces as they exist in europe could certainly be opened up to working class struggles in a more concrete way and i think it would be possible from this to build for something more than circular cycles of violence in defense of those spaces by their inhabitants and fighting nazis. i think more interesting are the political squats occupied by older radicals, which seem to be building something more substantial, especially mutual aid in terms of providing access to doctors, dentists, etc for the movement.

I don't hate cooperative work like this, but is it fair to say it can detract from the overall struggle to support and defend things such as workers' rights, home repossessions and that kind of thing, in my experience it does divert quite a lot of people away from more important struggles, I'm not saying it's useless in any way but still.

It just seems like they all get broken up or isolated to the point of uselessness, a more general mutual aid culture in our towns and cities within the communities themselves, even the ICC detail the brilliance of mutual aid as practised during the Seattle general strike in the 1910s: http://en.internationalism.org/inter/150/seattle-general-strike-1919.


Milk workers were authorized to deliver milk for the children of the city; each wagon carried a sign that read: "Exempted by Order of the General Strike Committee." Restaurant workers *cooks, waiters and other food industry employees established 21 dining halls and fed 30,000 people per day during the strike. Telephone workers were asked to put themselves at the disposal of the Strike Committee's security force and to maintain communications for the strike. Electrical service was maintained, except for commercial enterprises.

Stuff like that seems a lot more important to me than a "autonomous community", because they just seem to get broken up too often, although it may seem very similar to the other kinds of workers' collectives formed during times of struggle, I don't think it's fair to say they are all one and the same; communes (formed by individuals within capitalism outside the context of a specific struggle) and other kinds of workers' collectives that are similar in character but formed within the context of a larger overall struggle.

[bcbm]

But how do you think communes can be built in Capitalism, don't you think things like communal squats and small areas of 'socialism' (ie the paris commune) get broken up all too easily? Just look at ungdomshuset for modern examples and the constant destroying of squats and small socialist places.

when the invisible committee speaks of building communes, this isn't what they mean; they're not referring to squatted social centers, or some farm off in the woods or anything of this sort. they're referring to the communisation of everyday life, the absolute sharing of our lives with each other and, short of that, the expansion of complicities- a print shop worker gives free copies to comrades, the baker gives bread to community projects, the fast food employee steals money from the drawer and gives it to a prisoner defense fund, etc. or perhaps:

'Milk workers were authorized to deliver milk for the children of the city; each wagon carried a sign that read: "Exempted by Order of the General Strike Committee." Restaurant workers *cooks, waiters and other food industry employees established 21 dining halls and fed 30,000 people per day during the strike. Telephone workers were asked to put themselves at the disposal of the Strike Committee's security force and to maintain communications for the strike. Electrical service was maintained, except for commercial enterprises.'

this sounds certainly like building communes, although they would perhaps suggest building these lines of disruption subtlety outside of a strike action and preparing them for defense. in this example, i would say perhaps the milk workers, restaurant workers, telephone workers and electrical workers would all represent different communes acting in complicity.


I don't hate cooperative work like this, but is it fair to say it can detract from the overall struggle to support and defend things such as workers' rights, home repossessions and that kind of thingi don't think it detracts from them but rather the problem is that the connection is not made to those struggles, when an autonomous space could certainly be a valuable resource to those involved in such struggles. i think this is in large part to most of the autonomous movement in europe being a youth cultural scene and not, in fact, a movement. this is why the examples of some older comrades bridging the various struggles are interesting and i think the younger sections would do well to follow their example. but this is just my impression from a brief time interacting with them.

[ls]

when the invisible committee speaks of building communes, this isn't what they mean; they're not referring to squatted social centers, or some farm off in the woods or anything of this sort. they're referring to the communisation of everyday life, the absolute sharing of our lives with each other and, short of that, the expansion of complicities- a print shop worker gives free copies to comrades, the baker gives bread to community projects, the fast food employee steals money from the drawer and gives it to a prisoner defense fund, etc. or perhaps:

But this is simply done already as much as it can be (well, alright you can tell people to be more giving but that's not 'revolutionary' is it), but outside of a struggle, how can people afford to be doing that? The employers go insane if you give out their stuff for free, if it goes beyond that, it turns into a workers' struggle usually, when things become different.

If that tactic is exercised as some kind of mass direct action, then once again that becomes a struggle of sorts, people can't just somehow easily be able to do that within Capitalism, that's not realistic at all.


this sounds certainly like building communes, although they would perhaps suggest building these lines of disruption subtlety outside of a strike action and preparing them for defense. in this example, i would say perhaps the milk workers, restaurant workers, telephone workers and electrical workers would all represent different communes acting in complicity.

Perhaps, but it's within the context of a specific struggle, the fact it never spread (as noted in the article) is why it failed though, so again this did not work out, had it spread it would not have remained a self-sustaining self-serving autonomous 'commune' if you wanna use that word.


i don't think it detracts from them but rather the problem is that the connection is not made to those struggles, when an autonomous space could certainly be a valuable resource to those involved in such struggles. i think this is in large part to most of the autonomous movement in europe being a youth cultural scene and not, in fact, a movement. this is why the examples of some older comrades bridging the various struggles are interesting and i think the younger sections would do well to follow their example. but this is just my impression from a brief time interacting with them.

I completely agree.

[bcbm]

But this is simply done already as much as it can be (well, alright you can tell people to be more giving but that's not 'revolutionary' is it), but outside of a struggle, how can people afford to be doing that? The employers go insane if you give out their stuff for free, if it goes beyond that, it turns into a workers' struggle usually, when things become different.

well it isn't just about small acts of theft, those were just an example, but building a network of struggle across the social landscape by integrating as many persons/communes as possible and discovering what can be exploited or ignited therein. and yes, i think the point is to absolutely bring it to a struggle, to the point of figuring out how to dispose of the commodity relation in the immediate sense. tci explains it better than i can here, i think:

"On the one hand, a commune can’t bank on the “welfare state” being around forever, and on the other, it can’t count on living for long off shoplifting, nighttime dumpster diving at supermarkets or in the warehouses of the industrial zones, misdirecting government subsidies, ripping off insurance companies and other frauds, in a word: plunder. So it has to consider how to continually increase the level and scope of its self-organization. Nothing would be more logical than using the lathes, milling machines, and photocopiers sold at a discount after a factory closure to support a conspiracy against commodity society."

"Every practice brings a territory into existence – a dealing territory, or a hunting territory; a territory of child’s play, of lovers, of a riot; a territory of farmers, ornithologists, or flaneurs. The rule is simple: the more territories there are superimposed on a given zone, the more circulation there is between them, the harder it will be for power to get a handle on them. Bistros, print shops, sports facilities, wastelands, second-hand book stalls, building rooftops, improvised street markets, kebab shops and garages can all easily be used for purposes other than their official ones if enough complicities come together in them. Local self-organization superimposes its own geography over the state cartography, scrambling and blurring it: it produces its own secession."

i should also point out at this point that while i find much useful in their strategy, i don't share their complete rejection of traditional forms of worker's struggles. if anything, i think these strategies (and others) all form parts of the larger civil war we're engaged in.

[Jethro Tull]

Most anarchists in real life share that position and defend other bourgeois positions as well.

Have you polled them? How do you decide who is or isn't an "anarchist?


No "nationalist / anti-imperialist attitude" can be a part of any class-conscious social revolutionary program

So, for example, a communally-run university/library dedicated to preserving an indigenous language in danger of extinction, and innovating methods of practical appplication of scientific insights gained from such an endeavor, cannot be a part of any class-conscious social revolutionary program?

Imperialism is the cultural manifestation of capitalism, you can't be anti-capitalist without being anti-imperialist. Rosa Luxemburg was anti-imerialist, her definition of "imperialism" was simply different from Lenin's in many crucial ways. The "internationalism" of the ICC is false internationalism which is tacitly apologetic for cultural imerialism.


this position has got no difference from "endorsing neo-colonial class-collaborationism under the retense of "national liberation" and "anti-imperialism"".

The difference is that my position opposes the siezure of political power by counter-revolutionaries, the establishment of revolutionary bureaucracies, etc. If you can't recognize the difference, than you're not my comrade and we can't co-operate, not because you're a "left-communist" but because you're a slave-minded dogmatist.


Your position is not different at all from that of trots or maoists.

Yes it is, I am opposed to all forms of parliamentarism, democratic centralism, "socialism in one country", etc. That's a big difference. The only difference between yourself and myself is that I acknowlege that cultural imperialism is real.


This of course has got nothing to do with "analyzing and investigating ethnic subjugation as a specific manifestation of capitalist exploitation and alienation", the only solution to which is proletarian internationalism.

Obviously, I agree, but "proletarian internationalism" will not be achieved by the obliteration of all ethnic traditions or the assimilation into a "Western" secular humanist cultural homogenity.


You are an idiot.

At least my ad hominems are creative.


Are you a vegetarian, by any chance?

No, meat is wonderful. My diet is also irrelevant to your life or this discussion.


I think you yourself succeeded in demonstrating the "irreconcilable" differences between anarchism and left-communism.

I've demonstrated the difference between dogmatic "ultra-left" bureaucrats and libertarian communists who actually critically analyze society. The sad thing is that you think you speak for "left-communism".

[Jethro Tull]

His ideas of an "invisible vanguard" tie in with his other conspiracy theorist "secret international" ideas.

"Conspiracy theorism", at least colloquially, refers to a brand of right-wing populism which typically eschews class analysis, embraces protectionism, supports the patriarchal family against percieved attacks by cultural "cosmopolitanism", searches for "occult messages" in popular culture, believes in "secret governments" and "small cabals" of "elites" who manipulate finance capital, simultaniously control competing imperialist forces, and also plan and instigate left-wing resistance.

I think what you mean to say, is that adherents of the "invisible vanguard", as you call it, advocate conspiracy. And yes, we do, not for the sake of conspiracy, but because the revolution is in fact a war and sucessfully waging war requires some amounts of conspiracy. To deny this is basically to fall down the slippery slope of utopianism, class-reconciliationism, and Tolstoyite pacifism.


That is what you should abandon by Bakunin

You mean, other than the anti-Semitism, right?


it's what makes anarchists of today think that everything should be underground and secretive.

I can't speak for what "anarchists of today think", other than myself. Obviously not "everything should be underground and secretive", but some things in life must be kept secret from certain parties. I assume you enjoy privacy when you're having sex or taking a shit....


That site you linked to is hilarious, nothing short of it, it doesn't mean every single text on it is useless however, but come on its conspiracy theorist nonsense the site itself; "invisible committee", you take that seriously? Even the coming insurrection itself has some good points, but mostly it's a lot of conspiratorial nonsense, Tiqqun to me is rather pointless.

It's obvious from your comments that you have not researched the subject enough to be qualified to make such a sweeping and conclusive rejection. For example, the phrase "invisible committee" was the nomme de plume used by the authors of The Coming Insurrection, not the managers of the "bloom0101" website, whover they may be. The website I linked to, "bloom0101", was not a collection of random texts compiled at the editor's whim, as you seem to believe, but an archive of texts specifically relevant to the emergent French anarcho-autonomist tendency, likely authored by the same person or group of people. The Coming Insurrection does not suggest that "everything should be underground and secretive." If you read that from The Coming Insurrection, you mis-read, and should read it again with a more open mind. As for Tiqqun being "pointless", again, many texts require more than one reading to fully comprehend. Not everything that can't be understood with a rushed, 15-minute, scrollbar-happy survey is "pointless".


you're a primitivist

Like many classical anarchists, I'm a Luddite who calls for the abolition of industrialization, centralization and mass-society, however that's not the same thing as "primitivism" which is a reactionary, irrationalist ideology.


western chauvinist

This is the second time you've called me a "Western chauvinist" with no proof. Anarchism as I understand it requires the abolition of Western values.


left-deviationist

"Left-deviationist"? Really? Way to confirm Leo's suspicions that anarchists are exactly like Maoists. :lol:


(you "back" the uyghurs)

I've never endorsed the assault of random Han by angry Uyghur proletarians as something that's in any way desirable, however I recognize that such actions emerged within the context of a system of brutal colonialism which degrades the ecology of East Turkestan for the sake of tourism, builds up the surveillance infastructure in East Turkestan, and transforms masses of Han labor aristocrats and petit-bourgeoisie into reactionary settler forces, just as I denounce the tactic of indescriminately shooting missiles into civilian quarters of Israeli-occupied territory, but recognize the material conditions which have driven Palestinians to consider such tactics necessary. I also reject the notion that all Uyghurs who lash out at Han occupation are "fuedal reactionaries" and "Muslim extremists" because it is factually inaccurate.

Also, saying I "back the Uyghurs" is like saying I "back the Swedes". Each Uyghur is an individual.


I don't really intend on critiquing Tiqqun as it's pointless to me.

well, if you don't have anything constructive to say, or any intellectual analysis to contribute, maybe you should lay off the harsh, overly-sectarian denunciations and witch-hunts.


It's pretty unfortunate that a lot of anarchist-communists believe in conspiratorial nonsense just like yourself.

It's pretty unfortunate that a lot of anarchist-communists naively believe we can still have any sort of victory against capitalism whilst remaining entirely "above-ground", making or positions, identities, and plans totally accessible to everyone including our enemies, operating within the perameters of bureaucratized "civil society", and excluding every tactic excet flacid "struggles" which demand this or that absurd reperation or concession from the capitalist regime without ever building any sort of real political, economic, or cultural power. (Oh, I forgot, power is authority and authority is evil)

[StoneFrog]

Just wondering, out of those groups what are their stances on money, do they want to keep a monetary system. I know the AS & AC don't use money, but what about the other groups?

[ls]

well it isn't just about small acts of theft, those were just an example, but building a network of struggle across the social landscape by integrating as many persons/communes as possible and discovering what can be exploited or ignited therein.

So we should unite the petite and bourgeois then? Isn't that a maoist line? 'as many persons as possible' is superbly ambiguous after all, your point is obscured by the fact that yeah, it has to emerge from a struggle, not that it creates a struggle.


and yes, i think the point is to absolutely bring it to a struggle, to the point of figuring out how to dispose of the commodity relation in the immediate sense. tci explains it better than i can here, i think:

But 'in the immediate sense' would be starting a commune with some people in the woods, that's not what we seek to do, we seek to wage a worker-class struggle against the Capitalists. We do not seek to immediately attempt to build communes, not in an urban cityscape and not in rural wilderness.


On the one hand, a commune can’t bank on the “welfare state” being around forever, and on the other, it can’t count on living for long off shoplifting, nighttime dumpster diving at supermarkets or in the warehouses of the industrial zones, misdirecting government subsidies, ripping off insurance companies and other frauds, in a word: plunder. So it has to consider how to continually increase the level and scope of its self-organization. Nothing would be more logical than using the lathes, milling machines, and photocopiers sold at a discount after a factory closure to support a conspiracy against commodity society.

This is laughable, come on, they should be there opposing the factory closure along with the workers if that isn't obvious I don't know what else is! Occupy the factory if necessary; build a proper struggle.


Every practice brings a territory into existence – a dealing territory, or a hunting territory; a territory of child’s play, of lovers, of a riot; a territory of farmers, ornithologists, or flaneurs. The rule is simple: the more territories there are superimposed on a given zone, the more circulation there is between them, the harder it will be for power to get a handle on them. Bistros, print shops, sports facilities, wastelands, second-hand book stalls, building rooftops, improvised street markets, kebab shops and garages can all easily be used for purposes other than their official ones if enough complicities come together in them. Local self-organization superimposes its own geography over the state cartography, scrambling and blurring it: it produces its own secession.

Unless (or perhaps should I say until) it gets crushed, thanks to too many debts to the suppliers of the kebab shop, the garage etc.


i should also point out at this point that while i find much useful in their strategy, i don't share their complete rejection of traditional forms of worker's struggles. if anything, i think these strategies (and others) all form parts of the larger civil war we're engaged in.

That's good to hear, but I think these other tactics are a bit astray of the class-struggle myself, certainly things like that would be fine, but in a way aren't you conspiring with the self-employed with that stuff. If they refuse to pay debts to their suppliers as part of a broader workers' struggle like a strike for some kind, then that is fine however.


Have you polled them? How do you decide who is or isn't an "anarchist?

Other anarchists like yourself seem to have little trouble morally doing that. :rolleyes:


Imperialism is the cultural manifestation of capitalism, you can't be anti-capitalist without being anti-imperialist. Rosa Luxemburg was anti-imerialist, her definition of "imperialism" was simply different from Lenin's in many crucial ways. The "internationalism" of the ICC is false internationalism which is tacitly apologetic for cultural imerialism.

Oh yeah the crushing cultural imperialism of the ICC who have members in practically every country. :rolleyes: Don't come out with this stuff, you're a nasty Western chauvinist yourself with a petite-bourgeoisie mentality.


The difference is that my position opposes the siezure of political power by counter-revolutionaries, the establishment of revolutionary bureaucracies, etc. If you can't recognize the difference, than you're not my comrade and we can't co-operate, not because you're a "left-communist" but because you're a slave-minded dogmatist.

Shouldn't you be restricted? You even admitted you are a Luddite. ;) Not to mention that you are a sockpuppet of the user Agrippa.

Isn't that banworthy?


Obviously, I agree, but "proletarian internationalism" will not be achieved by the obliteration of all ethnic traditions or the assimilation into a "Western" secular humanist cultural homogenity.

I would refer users to this person's posts in that EDL thread, where he displayed typical Western chauvinist views, get lost please thanks.


I've demonstrated the difference between dogmatic "ultra-left" bureaucrats and libertarian communists who actually critically analyze society. The sad thing is that you think you speak for "left-communism".

Refer to my last line.


"Conspiracy theorism", at least colloquially, refers to a brand of right-wing populism which typically eschews class analysis, embraces protectionism, supports the patriarchal family against percieved attacks by cultural "cosmopolitanism", searches for "occult messages" in popular culture, believes in "secret governments" and "small cabals" of "elites" who manipulate finance capital, simultaniously control competing imperialist forces, and also plan and instigate left-wing resistance.

No it doesn't, try to update your dictionary definitions some time soon.


I think what you mean to say, is that adherents of the "invisible vanguard", as you call it, advocate conspiracy. And yes, we do, not for the sake of conspiracy, but because the revolution is in fact a war and sucessfully waging war requires some amounts of conspiracy. To deny this is basically to fall down the slippery slope of utopianism, class-reconciliationism, and Tolstoyite pacifism.

Yeah let's have an invisible dictatorship actually running things, that's so anarchist.


I can't speak for what "anarchists of today think", other than myself. Obviously not "everything should be underground and secretive", but some things in life must be kept secret from certain parties. I assume you enjoy privacy when you're having sex or taking a shit....

An invisible dictatorship is not anarchist, taking a shit is human.


It's obvious from your comments that you have not researched the subject enough to be qualified to make such a sweeping and conclusive rejection.

I read the coming insurrection almost 5 months ago now, what part of it am I not qualified to talk about? Intellectual condescension will get you nowhere, you really don't know as much as you think you do.


For example, the phrase "invisible committee" was the nomme de plume used by the authors of The Coming Insurrection

And it was a stupid thing to use even in that context, your point?


not the managers of the "bloom0101" website, whover they may be. The website I linked to, "bloom0101", was not a collection of random texts compiled at the editor's whim, as you seem to believe, but an archive of texts specifically relevant to the emergent French anarcho-autonomist tendency, likely authored by the same person or group of people.

Well obviously I didn't know that, it's a pretty poor website for the most part though.


The Coming Insurrection does not suggest that "everything should be underground and secretive." If you read that from The Coming Insurrection, you mis-read, and should read it again with a more open mind. As for Tiqqun being "pointless", again, many texts require more than one reading to fully comprehend. Not everything that can't be understood with a rushed, 15-minute, scrollbar-happy survey is "pointless".

I never said the coming insurrection said that shit, if you recall I said it "has some good points", once again intellectual condescension will get you nowhere (hilarious this stuff coming from a primmie).

TCI's talks about organised self-defence, reusing abandoned areas for workers and the destruction of the illusion that there is "nowhere left to go" (but not this talk of starting a commune), some of the stuff on 'getting organised' and there are a couple more points besides, this doesn't mean I have to agree with THE WHOLE BOOK.

Really, people who say stuff like that end up sounding very dogmatic indeed, so I can't agree with someone or something on some things but rejects the others? It's all or nothing?


Like many classical anarchists, I'm a Luddite who calls for the abolition of industrialization, centralization and mass-society, however that's not the same thing as "primitivism" which is a reactionary, irrationalist ideology.

Great, you need restricting/banning.


This is the second time you've called me a "Western chauvinist" with no proof. Anarchism as I understand it requires the abolition of Western values.

Your attacks on Islamic fundamentalists as "Islamofascists" just like the right-wing media is proof enough.


"Left-deviationist"? Really? Way to confirm Leo's suspicions that anarchists are exactly like Maoists. :lol:

Well, [i]you are like a maoist, sure.


well, if you don't have anything constructive to say, or any intellectual analysis to contribute, maybe you should lay off the harsh, overly-sectarian denunciations and witch-hunts.

I will call you out if you talk a load of crap, your comments on the EDL thread were extremely chauvinistic, I think they go hand in hand with your other extremely redundant politics myself.


It's pretty unfortunate that a lot of anarchist-communists naively believe we can still have any sort of victory against capitalism whilst remaining entirely "above-ground", making or positions, identities, and plans totally accessible to everyone including our enemies, operating within the perameters of bureaucratized "civil society", and excluding every tactic excet flacid "struggles" which demand this or that absurd reperation or concession from the capitalist regime without ever building any sort of real political, economic, or cultural power. (Oh, I forgot, power is authority and authority is evil)

Yeah completely oversimplify everyone's positions, let's have secret internationals, invisible dictatorships by a bunch of people, extra-judicial assassinations, "blowing shit up", fake socialist cooperatives with the petite-bourgeoisie in the woods and so on..

Oh wait, that does sound maoist doesn't it. :rolleyes:

[bcbm]

So we should unite the petite and bourgeois then? Isn't that a maoist line? 'as many persons as possible' is superbly ambiguous after all,

by persons i mean anyone who is willing to struggle with us in the desire to topple class society, destroy commodity relations and create communism. i think this will primarily take the form of persons from the underclasses, but those willing to become class traitors to our side of the war can be found a place as well.


your point is obscured by the fact that yeah, it has to emerge from a struggle, not that it creates a struggle.

no, i think the creation of communes is a starting point for struggle, not an end point. certainly communes are created out of struggle, but they can also be created (or expanded) as a base for struggle.


But 'in the immediate sense' would be starting a commune with some people in the woods, that's not what we seek to do, we seek to wage a worker-class struggle against the Capitalists. We do not seek to immediately attempt to build communes, not in an urban cityscape and not in rural wilderness.

again, i think you misunderstand the term commune.
"A commune forms every time a few people, freed of their individual straitjackets, decide to rely only on themselves and measure their strength against reality. Every wildcat strike is a commune; every building occupied collectively and on a clear basis is a commune, the action committees of 1968 were communes, as were the slave maroons in the United States, or Radio Alice in Bologna in 1977. Every commune seeks to be its own base. It seeks to dissolve the question of needs. It seeks to break all economic dependency and all political subjugation; . . . There are all kinds of communes that wait neither for the numbers nor the means to get organized, and even less for the “right moment” – which never arrives."

to go back to the example of the strike committee you mentioned earlier- this was a commune, and you cite it as a positive thing. in your example, the commodity relationship was destroyed in the immediate sense- mutual aid proliferated; all that was asked of everyone was solidarity and support. this is a commune, and outside of the strike, it can take other forms. it can begin in smaller forms- i give food to my friends ("Don’t back away from what is political in friendship") and expect nothing but the idea that they will be there when i need them, perhaps with food next time, perhaps with cigarettes and beer, perhaps with a hammer and a mask. its difficult to speak of these relationships in singular acts because they are relationships, built on levels of support and aid, but the point is to expand them as wide as possible and, beyond that, to spread them and build with other such communes. even with the low level of class consciousness in the united states, there is a network of something resembling communes that i could fall back upon if the need arose, and that is a starting point for an offensive.


This is laughable, come on, they should be there opposing the factory closure along with the workers if that isn't obvious I don't know what else is! Occupy the factory if necessary; build a proper struggle.

i think you missed the point of the statement. yes, obviously this is the case. i doubt they would disagree. the point is to use what tools present themselves for the creation of a self-sustaining movement that needn't rely on capital to make ourselves heard, not to ignore a real struggle. perhaps why there is no mention of struggle but, rather, the materials to be gained from a loss?


Unless (or perhaps should I say until) it gets crushed, thanks to too many debts to the suppliers of the kebab shop, the garage etc.

in this case i don't think they're suggesting theft from these enterprises but appropriating their physical space for the needs of the movement.


That's good to hear, but I think these other tactics are a bit astray of the class-struggle myself, certainly things like that would be fine, but in a way aren't you conspiring with the self-employed with that stuff.

again, i think you're missing the point being made in these statements. its not about allying with the petit-bourgeois, its about reorganizing the terrain to suit our needs instead of the needs of capital.

[Devrim]

There are a lot of interesting points here some of which could be threads in themselves. I will try to address a few of them:

On Kropotkin, Kautsky, and anarcho-trenchism:


But re Kropotkin, does him supporting WWI mean one must reject all of his someone's positions, even if they bear no relation to his later support for WWI?

I think that this attitude is what Leo is talking about when he refers to the anarchist lack of a 'methodologically clear basis'. Before Kautsky took a pro war position, what latter became the communist left in the Second International had been arguing against him for years. They could see this coming. Lenin on the other hand couldn't and at first dismissed the reports as a lie concocted by the German high command. The problem was in his methodology. It wasn't just an isolated political idea that appeared out of nowhere. Of course that doesn't invalidate everything that he wrote. Leo mentioned his 'Foundations of Christianity'. It remains an interesting book.


Which is fair enough, however Kropotkin's work on mutual aid to me just seems completely and utterly out of step with his ideas of WWI, if you can show me something to the contrary I will happily take a look at it.

Similarly with Kropotkin, it doesn't invalidate everything that he wrote. 'Mutual Aid', his book about evolution, does not stop being a classic. However, political positions don't appear out of nowhere. I feel that the anarchists lack of methodology is the problem here. They don't look to the roots to find where this position emerged from, and don't seem to have a solid theoretical grounding.

Incidentally, for all the talk of Kautsky as the greater betrayer, his position was not as 'bad' as Kropotkin's. Kautsky didn't support the vote for war credits and suggested abstaining, and within ten months had started to argue against the war, issuing an appeal against the pro-war party leaders. However, it is right to condemn him even though he only went along with the pro-war line in the name of 'party discipline'.

Kropotkin, on the other hand, was a jingo, who supported his own state in an imperialist war.

On Anarchist's internationalism:


Most anarchists aren't "internationalists" in your sense, but most of them don't support most national liberation movements or fighting in any imperialist wars (the exception being WWII for the ones that do, usually), I would say that a lot of them are culturally chauvinist (in all kinds of differing ways) however.

The question of not supporting your own state in imperialist wars is a crucial one. I don't think that it really let's people off the hook to say that they were internationalists except when the big question was posed in World War II, a sort of "we are internationalists except when it comes to the crunch sort of line".


Well, according to mallicious, 21st century "left-communist" slander, any libertarian communists in France who practiced armed self-defense against German during WWII was a "collaborationist" and a "social imperialist", even if they were appropriately hostile towards the Gaullist establishment and the "Communist" party bureaucrats.

I think that at the start of WWII, the working class was utterly defeated both physical from the years of defeat since 1917 all across Europe, and indeed the world, and ideologically in that just twenty one years after stopping the First World War, they had allowed themselves to be drawn into enthusiastic support of the Second in the name of anti-fascism.

The libertarian communist in France resistance weren't 'appropriately hostile towards the Gaullist establishment and the "Communist" party bureaucrats'. They were a part of the imperialist war effort. The CNT were actually the first of the 'Free French' forces to enter Paris in its Liberation:


It was there that I decided to volunteer for the
French African Corps with whom I did the whole Tunisian campaign. I then joined in the Marching Brigade which later became the Chad Marching Regiment, and which became famous in all the battles against Rommel’s forces in Africa.
At the end of the African war I continued in Free French
Forces. We left Casablanca on 4th April 1944, landing at Swansea on the 22nd. After staying in numerous military camps, we embarked on a ‘liberty
ship’ to Normandy on July 31st. Having been made a sergeant by General Leclerc it was with braids (which meant nothing to me), that I fought across France and Germany before entering Paris, General Leclerc assembled the 9th Company, practically all Spanish and C.N.T., and made the following speech: ‘Soldiers of Free France and foreign fighters for
the freedom of France. Our Division that covered itself in glory in thousands
of actions should be the first to enter Paris. Because I know that you will
not retreat and that you place very highly the honour of the Division I am
giving you the order (Ninth Company of Foreign Volunteers) to be at the head of the Forces and the first to liberate Paris’.
This is what happened. We were the first to enter Paris. The first cannon installed at the Hotel de Ville (Town Hall) square, I was responsible for. We called it 'El-Abuelo' (Grandad). The tanks and armoured cars were 'Ascaso', 'Durruti', 'Casa Viejas', 'Teruel'... and in front we flew the Spanish Republican flag as authorised by the commande]


I don’t think that there was a libertarian communist current opposed to both sides, but I could be wrong. Even if there were I don’t think that setting up armed groups in a period where the working class is utterly defeated has much to do with communist politics.
On Libcom's 'Euro-chauvinism', and other 'deviations':


The Libcom zeitgeist is a technocratic, androcentric, euro-chauvinist, social-democratic deviation from the authentic spirit of anarchist. (Say that five times fast!)

Why do you say this?

On the extinction of languages:


So, for example, a communally-run university/library dedicated to preserving an indigenous language in danger of extinction, and innovating methods of practical appplication of scientific insights gained from such an endeavor, cannot be a part of any class-conscious social revolutionary program?

I don't think that it is necessarily a part of the communist programme to preserve dying languages. Nor do I think that it is necessarily against it.

It is, however, often tied in with nationalism, and the people pushing for the promoting a language are more often than not the same people pushing other aspects of nationalism. I am sure that I don't need to provide examples of this.


The "internationalism" of the ICC is false internationalism which is tacitly apologetic for cultural im[p]erialism.

This seems to imply that we are cheering on the extinction of the dominant culture, and the extinction of minority languages. I don't think that that is really true.

I would just like to give a couple of personal examples about the ICC members posting in this thread, myself and Leo. I realise that these don't prove anything, and are almost akin to the "some of my best friends are black" line, but please indulge me. I want to develop a point from it.

Leo is a Kurd although he barely speaks the language. His mother's understanding of it is limited to. It is to do with migration patterns in Turkey, and people moving to the cities and becoming 'culturally assimilated'. Of course this is also connected to it being illegal to speak Kurdish in Turkey for years.

As for myself, my great grandfather spoke a first language different from my grandfather. My father was bilingual, with one language different from my grandfather, and I grew up nearly bi-lingual picking up the language my father brought into the family as my main one after using my grandfather's until I started school. My daughter's first language was my third, all in all, four first languages in five generations. None of the next generation speaks my grandfather's language.

My point is that the native language that people speak changes. People migrate, move from country to country, town to city, and generally want their children to learn the language that will be most useful for them in their lives. That is the fact of the matter. Today I struggle with the language I spoke as a small child in the 1960s. I also think that it is a language that will die out within the next fifty years. I don't feel any regret about this. Nor do I feel any pleasure. For me it has ceased to be a useful tool, and is something I only use to speak to older relatives, who are nearly all dead nowadays.

We don't cheer on the extinction of languages, which I believe is happening globally at the rate of about one every two weeks. On a personal level, I don't mourn for them either though I can understand people who say that they are part of the rich array of human culture and should be preserved. It is not something that our organisation takes a position on, of course. We are aware, however, of how language revival and preserving movements are often, if not overtly nationalist movements, at least tools of those movements. In theory, we have nothing against people trying to revive or maintain dead or dying languages. It must be recognised though what political implications this can often have.

On left communism and Tiqqun, L'Appel, L'insurrection qui vient:


I've demonstrated the difference between dogmatic "ultra-left" bureaucrats and libertarian communists who actually critically analyze society. The sad thing is that you think you speak for "left-communism".

Leo speaks for the ICC, of which he is a member. He doesn't speak for 'left communism' as a whole and different organisations have differing opinions. However, the basic positions are very similar, and I wouldn't expect to find that much disagreement with the basic positions he argues for, even if others, perhaps within our own organisation, would adopt a different tone, and emphasis.


http://www.bloom0101.org/page1.html

Also, groups like the ICC are alright, but you should get your left-communist theory from the source.

I have not read the documents that you refer to, though I have heard about some of them via the internet. I doubt though that they would be called left communist in the way that the word is used today.

Devrim

[Искра]

Regarding internationalism.
I really think that you can't judge whole tendency by few 'well known' individuals. What about all those anonymous comrades? Anarchism is internationalist in its own core. Yeah, there were some mistakes in history, but those were made by individuals or small groups. It doesn't change the fact that anarchism is internationalist. After all, isn't anarchism against the State? Why would then all anarchists collaborate with state, or not be internationalist? I don't like here this Virgin Mary position of Devrim and Leo (no offence). I think that we anarchists all aware of mistakes which were made in the name of our ideology in the past and in the present. Important thing is that we who are active (in real life, not on internet) know about those mistakes and stuff and we are trying to work in the way that we don't repeat them. I really doubt that Left Communists are only ones without any flaw. You could fucked up some things in past (not that I'm familiar with any of those, but I guess that you understand what I'm talking about) or today and that wouldn't mean that Left Communism is something which is bad etc. We learn from our mistakes, if we don't we'll become extinct.

[Devrim]

Regarding internationalism.
I really think that you can't judge whole tendency by few 'well known' individuals. What about all those anonymous comrades? Anarchism is internationalist in its own core. Yeah, there were some mistakes in history, but those were made by individuals or small groups. It doesn't change the fact that anarchism is internationalist.

I don't condemn anarchism as not being internationalist. I think that those who supported the war betrayed anarchism.

It was not only a 'few 'well known' individuals' though. The biggest anarchist organisation in history, the CNT, joined the government, played its role in the suppression of the May 1937 revolt in Barcelona, and supported the allies in the Second World War.


Important thing is that we who are active (in real life, not on internet) know about those mistakes and stuff and we are trying to work in the way that we don't repeat them.

We too are active in real life. For us the internet is a part of that. We look at it as another way to argue for our politics, just as publishing a paper, or discussing with fellow workers on a picket line.

My criticisms of anarchism though are bound up in the idea of 'mistakes'. They are treated as aberrations, and the methodology or lack of it that led to them is seldom examined.


I really doubt that Left Communists are only ones without any flaw. You could fucked up some things in past (not that I'm familiar with any of those, but I guess that you understand what I'm talking about) or today and that wouldn't mean that Left Communism is something which is bad etc.

No, not really. Left communism is sort of defined as those who didn't betray in the past. That wouldn't though prevent those who call themselves left communists today from betraying in the future.

Devrim

[Искра]

It was not only a 'few 'well known' individuals' though. The biggest anarchist organisation in history, the CNT, joined the government, played its role in the suppression of the May 1937 revolt in Barcelona, and supported the allies in the Second World War.

CNT or few individuals in positions in CNT who forgot what's anarcho-syndicalism? But then, the rest of CNT has it's own share in this, because they didn't stand against this crap, they acted like they can't do anything... which wasn't true.

[Devrim]

CNT or few individuals in positions in CNT who forgot what's anarcho-syndicalism? But then, the rest of CNT has it's own share in this, because they didn't stand against this crap, they acted like they can't do anything... which wasn't true.

Not only did they not stand against joining the government. The organisation ratified the decision. Yes, you can argue that they were presented with a done deal, but the organisation did support it.

Devrim

[Искра]

I know that and I never said that that's good thing (that CNT joined government). I doubt that there's any anarcho-syndicalist who thinks that this is something good.
And yes, problem was in the whole organisation which didn't stood up against bad decisions of their delegates.

[Devrim]

I know that and I never said that that's good thing (that CNT joined government). I doubt that there's any anarcho-syndicalist who thinks that this is something good.
And yes, problem was in the whole organisation which didn't stood up against bad decisions of their delegates.

I think the organisation as a whole agreed to it:



As I write these lines I read a review by my old friend and comrade Abe Bluestein further emphasizing this point:

...and I saw equally strong commitment to anarchist principles in Barcelona. I saw a regional meeting of the CNT with more than 500 representatives affirm the policy of participating in the government of Catalonia. At the same time, they voted to continue financial support to the Libertarian Youth of Catalonia who opposed such government collaboration publicly in their uncensored leaflets and pamphlets distributed throughout the city. [Social Anarchism No. 7, P. 9]

The accusation that there was no control from below is emphatically denied by Gaston Leval in his chapter on libertarian democracy. Leval, after describing in meticulous detail the democratic libertarian procedures embedded in the nature and structure of libertarian organization, declares that libertarian procedures, the fullest people's direct grass-roots democracy, were practiced

...in ALL the syndicates THROUGHOUT SPAIN. In ALL trades and industries. In assemblies which in Barcelona brought together - hundreds of thousands of workers.... In ALL the collectivized villages... which comprised at least 60% of Republican Spain's agriculture. [Collectives in the Spanish Revolution, Freedom Press, p. 206- Leval's emphasis]

In its report to the Extraordinary Congress of the International Workers' Association (IWA-anarchosyndicalist), the National Committee of the CNT refuted charges that the National Committee violated anarchist federalist principles by imposing its own decisions on the rank-and-file local and regional organizations. The decision to join the Catalan government "Generalidad" was ratified by plenums of local, district and regional committees in August 1936 and the decision to join the central government was ratified in a national plenum of regions in Madrid on 28 September 1936 (the CNT actually entered the government on 6 November 1936). From 19 July 1936 to 26 November 1937, seventeen regional plenums and dozens of local plenums and district federations were called as well as various regional congresses of unions.

http://libcom.org/library/controversy-anarchists-spanish-revolution-sam-dolgoff

Devrim

[Dejavu]

Of the above choices I would side with Anarcho-Syndicalism. Why? Noam Chomsky of course. :D
But more importantly , it seems to make the most sense out of the other options. Btw, whoever said AS-s would not use money, that is false. Labor vouchers would function as money with no interest.

[Dejavu]

Not only did they not stand against joining the government. The organisation ratified the decision. Yes, you can argue that they were presented with a done deal, but the organisation did support it.

Devrim

Well good thing Anarcho-Syndicalism isn't only about CNT worship. An argument against some power hungry fools in the CNT and their propagandized supporters does not amount to an argument about AS theory itself.

[Devrim]

Just wondering, out of those groups what are their stances on money, do they want to keep a monetary system. I know the AS & AC don't use money, but what about the other groups?

I am a left communist and I use money. It is necessary to eat. I would like a world without it though.:)

Devrim

[bricolage]

Of the above choices I would side with Anarcho-Syndicalism. Why? Noam Chomsky of course. :D
But more importantly , it seems to make the most sense out of the other options. Btw, whoever said AS-s would not use money, that is false. Labor vouchers would function as money with no interest.

I guess some people would think that yes, however anarcho-syndicalism is really just a tactical difference on how to get to a specific form of anarchism. I'm sure many anarcho-syndicalists see themselves as communists in which there would be the eventual eradication of money.


Well good thing Anarcho-Syndicalism isn't only about CNT worship. An argument against some power hungry fools in the CNT and their propagandized supporters does not amount to an argument about AS theory itself.

Perhaps, but I think this is more about what Devrim has been talking about in regards to not learning from 'mistakes'. The case of the CNT sheds a lot of light on how unions will eventually have to function and become part of capitalism no matter how radical they are. In this respect the Spanish Revolution indicates one of the key problems with anarcho-syndicalist theory.

[Devrim]

Well good thing Anarcho-Syndicalism isn't only about CNT worship. An argument against some power hungry fools in the CNT and their propagandized supporters does not amount to an argument about AS theory itself.

No, it doesn't, the argument is different. I was just ğpointing out that it wasn't all about bad leaders.


Of the above choices I would side with Anarcho-Syndicalism. Why? Noam Chomsky of course. :D

I thought Chomsky was just a liberal academic, not an anarchosyndicalist.


But more importantly , it seems to make the most sense out of the other options. Btw, whoever said AS-s would not use money, that is false. Labor vouchers would function as money with no interest.

The vast majority of anarchosyndicalists I have met advocate a world without money.

Devrim

[bricolage]

I thought Chomsky was just a liberal academic, not an anarchosyndicalist.

He has called himself one and is a member of the IWW. However what he does and says in many other respects contradicts this.

[Искра]

Of the above choices I would side with Anarcho-Syndicalism. Why? Noam Chomsky of course. :D
But more importantly , it seems to make the most sense out of the other options. Btw, whoever said AS-s would not use money, that is false. Labor vouchers would function as money with no interest.
Noam Chomsky has little to do with anarcho-syndicalism. I think that he just supports that as method or idea, but still his just a liberal academics :)


Btw, whoever said AS-s would not use money, that is false. Labor vouchers would function as money with no interest.

That's not true. We are for libertarian communism. No money. ;)
You are from Croatia?



An argument against some power hungry fools in the CNT and their propagandized supporters does not amount to an argument about AS theory itself.
You should read more about CNT and 1936.
I agree (of course) that they were wrong and I don't consider this kind of behaviour anarchistic (cause it's not:rolleyes:), but they were not power hungry fools... they were just fucked up and they didn't know what to do now when we have a revolution.


Originally Posted by Barabbas:
Perhaps, but I think this is more about what Devrim has been talking about in regards to not learning from 'mistakes'. The case of the CNT sheds a lot of light on how unions will eventually have to function and become part of capitalism no matter how radical they are. In this respect the Spanish Revolution indicates one of the key problems with anarcho-syndicalist theory.
Speaking like this we could dismiss whole anarchism and communism.
Vanguard party lead us into Soviet Union and purges, for example. Anarcho-communists in Ukraine also failed. Revolutions in whole world failed.
Anarcho-syndicalism is the only anarchist method which includes working class. Problem with it is when they start to force only economical level and forgot about ideological. Why do you think that all syndicates to that?

[Dejavu]

I guess some people would think that yes, however anarcho-syndicalism is really just a tactical difference on how to get to a specific form of anarchism. I'm sure many anarcho-syndicalists see themselves as communists in which there would be the eventual eradication of money.


It also differs in internal organization. Capital ( for needs) would be controlled and administered by workers syndicates or co-ops in Anarcho-Syndicalism. Only the workers of that co-op get to vote on how to structure the capital. Syndicates would handle microeconomics while trade unions would deal with macro.

In An-Com , everyone in the commune votes on how the resources are disbursed. An-Syns see this as inefficient and for good reason.



Perhaps, but I think this is more about what Devrim has been talking about in regards to not learning from 'mistakes'. The case of the CNT sheds a lot of light on how unions will eventually have to function and become part of capitalism no matter how radical they are. In this respect the Spanish Revolution indicates one of the key problems with anarcho-syndicalist theory.

The CNT joined the communists and republicans , this is true but it was more out of strategic needs. I agree this was a grave error but I don't think this is the inevitable fate of syndicalism. Aside from that , the Catalonian Anarchists existed in peril times , war raging all around them and they still managed to set up something that attempted to become an anarchist society. This is commendable considering the conditions of the time. What makes you think a Syndicate wouldn't have more success in peace time?

Btw , other communists also attempted to form communities during perilous times only to fail miserably and become oppressive states. In comparison, the Catalonian Syndicate wasn't that bad.

[Dejavu]

No, it doesn't, the argument is different. I was just ğpointing out that it wasn't all about bad leaders.



I thought Chomsky was just a liberal academic, not an anarchosyndicalist.



The vast majority of anarchosyndicalists I have met advocate a world without money.

Devrim

Chomsky did a lot in spreading anarchist ideas in general. He may have 'liberal slips' every now and then and his support of the capitalist welfare state is questionable, but no one can deny his contribution in raising general awareness about the merits of anarchism. And , I don't know what An-Syns you talked to but the ones I know recognize the practicality and need for a medium of exchange but they advocate money based strictly on labor , and that , of course , with no interest. Most An-Syns recognize the reality of scarcity so they envision a workers' society , but not divorced from the facts of reality.

[Искра]

And , I don't know what An-Syns you talked to but the ones I know recognize the practicality and need for a medium of exchange but they advocate money based strictly on labor , and that , of course , with no interest. Most An-Syns recognize the reality of scarcity so they envision a workers' society , but not divorced from the facts of reality.
Devrim was in IWA (anarcho-syndicalist international) at least that's what he said to me in one discussion, so he pretty good knows what anarcho-syndicalist thinks about money.
And anarcho-syndicalists, like all anarchists, are against money.

[Dejavu]

Noam Chomsky has little to do with anarcho-syndicalism. I think that he just supports that as method or idea, but still his just a liberal academics :)


That's not true. We are for libertarian communism. No money. ;)
You are from Croatia?


You should read more about CNT and 1936.
I agree (of course) that they were wrong and I don't consider this kind of behaviour anarchistic (cause it's not:rolleyes:), but they were not power hungry fools... they were just fucked up and they didn't know what to do now when we have a revolution.

Speaking like this we could dismiss whole anarchism and communism.
Vanguard party lead us into Soviet Union and purges, for example. Anarcho-communists in Ukraine also failed. Revolutions in whole world failed.
Anarcho-syndicalism is the only anarchist method which includes working class. Problem with it is when they start to force only economical level and forgot about ideological. Why do you think that all syndicates to that?

Read what I wrote above about Chomsky. And the An-Syns I know describe themselves as libertarian socialists. There is a difference. And trust me , I've read about the CNT, I am interested in all historical forms of anarchist society. The leaders took positions of power with the communists instead of simply , and reluctantly , allying with them. They were corrupt and the people we're manipulated into believing them. Its ok to be honest and come to terms with that. Perhaps that was the single biggest weakness with the Catalonian Anarchists. It is that they still had dependence on leaders but this might be understandable considering the war and all. They were never really given a chance to function in peace.

And the only brand of anarchist thought I've heard explicitly and unanamously call for the abolition of money or something like it was An-Com. I would say that makes you more of an An-Com , Jurko.

And yes , I came from Croatia a long time ago.

[Dejavu]

Devrim was in IWA (anarcho-syndicalist international) at least that's what he said to me in one discussion, so he pretty good knows what anarcho-syndicalist thinks about money.
And anarcho-syndicalists, like all anarchists, are against money.

You should really familiarize yourself with all the anarchist schools of thought. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_schools_of_thought)

And no , not all explicitly reject money or all mediums of exchange.

[Искра]

Most of anarcho-syndicalist today are anarcho-communists.
Look here for example: Anarcho-Sydnicalism 101: FAQ (http://www.anarchosyndicalism.net/archive/faq)


Section 5: The Goals of Anarcho-Syndicalism
5a. What is LIbertarian Communism?


Or read this: SolFed: Economics of Freedom (http://www.solfed.org.uk/docs/booklets/the-economics-of-freedom.pdf)

Or Statute of IWA:
http://www.iwa-ait.org/?q=statutes

II THE PRINCIPLES OF REVOLUTIONARY UNIONISM



Revolutionary unionism, basing itself on the class struggle, aims to unite all workers in combative economic organizations, that fight to free themselves from the double yoke of capital and the State. Its goal is the reorganization of social life on the basis of Libertarian Communism via the revolutionary action of the working class. Since only the economic organizations of the proletariat are capable of achieving this objective, revolutionary unionism addresses itself to workers in their capacity as producers, creators of social wealth, to take root and develop amongst them, in opposition to the modern workers’ parties, which it declares are incapable of the economic reorganization of society.


Enough?

[Искра]

You should really familiarize yourself with all the anarchist schools of thought. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_schools_of_thought)

And no , not all explicitly reject money or all mediums of exchange.
I don't consider anarcho-capitalists anarchist and I believe that mutualists are extinct, or at least there's really few them in the world with no influence or revolutionary potential what so ever.

[Dejavu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_voucher

Anarchist technocrats ( who are a kind of communist-usually) similarly advocate energy accounting. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accounting)

[Devrim]

Devrim was in IWA (anarcho-syndicalist international) at least that's what he said to me in one discussion,

Yes, I did. I was in DAM (now SolFed), the UK section, during the mid to late eighties when I worked as a postman in London.

Devrim

[Dejavu]

I don't consider anarcho-capitalists anarchist and I believe that mutualists are extinct, or at least there's really few them in the world.

Thanks for your opinion. There are a whole slew of pro-market anarchists of the individualist and left-libertarian tradition ( this includes agorists, geoanarchists , and many mutualists) I fit into this line of thought. They are not the same as an-caps as they debate them constantly contrary to popular ignorant belief , particularly from our misinformed cousins on the communist side.

Check out http://all-left.net/ (lots of anarcho-syndicalists go through here as well)

[Искра]

It's clearly that anarcho-syndicalism is not pro-market. Majority (and when I say majority I'm talking about few millions of people) who are in IWA - anarcho-syndicalist international - are economically libertarian communists.

In my opinion Proudhon's theory has become socially irrelevant when Marx made his. There to much bourgeoisie why of thinking inside mutualism.

Also, market anarchism is contradictory and to me it looks like radical form of liberalism. Liberals want "free market" with week state so that they can do what they like. Market means hierarchy and competition which is bad, and you can't have anarchistic society while you have those two. Also, private property can't exist in anarchism. Therefore anarchism can only exist if it's economically communist. This is only way for people to be free and equal.

[Devrim]

It's clearly that anarcho-syndicalism is not pro-market. Majority (and when I say majority I'm talking about few millions of people) who are in IWA - anarcho-syndicalist international - are economically libertarian communists.

Do you mean 'have been' in not 'are'?

There certainly aren't millions in the IWA today. I would say less that 10,000 in total.

Devrim

[Dejavu]

or revolutionary potential what so ever.

Maybe but it really depends on what you mean by revolutionary. I personally don't think bomb throwing like Nasi Drugovi (http://www.revleft.com/vb/belgrade-6-charged-t121604/index.html) over here does much and actually works against promoting anarchist values. I mean sure , we all might get pumped up at ' yeah , throw a bomb at those fascists or capitalists' but it only alienates the rest of the world and guess what , the rest of the world is not communist or anarchist. They will never voluntarily join us if we behave like this. Or for every young idealist that might be attracted , 5 more people are repelled and it reinforces the myth that anarchism is chaotic violence.

The battle is over the mind and the ideas.

[Искра]

Do you mean 'have been' in not 'are'?

There certainly aren't millions in the IWA today. I would say less that 10,000 in total.

Devrim
Yeah, wrong tense (?). Although I don't think that there's 10 000 people in IWA. It's more.
At least from what I know, talking to their ex-secretary.

[Искра]

Maybe but it really depends on what you mean by revolutionary. I personally don't think bomb throwing like Nasi Drugovi (http://www.revleft.com/vb/belgrade-6-charged-t121604/index.html) over here does much and actually works against promoting anarchist values. I mean sure , we all might get pumped up at ' yeah , throw a bomb at those fascists or capitalists' but it only alienates the rest of the world and guess what , the rest of the world is not communist or anarchist. They will never voluntarily join us if we behave like this. Or for every young idealist that might be attracted , 5 more people are repelled and it reinforces the myth that anarchism is chaotic violence.

The battle is over the mind and the ideas.
I mean that mutualists can't change society into their vision, because no one will follow them ever.

[Dejavu]

It's clearly that anarcho-syndicalism is not pro-market. Majority (and when I say majority I'm talking about few millions of people) who are in IWA - anarcho-syndicalist international - are economically libertarian communists.

I never claimed it was. That's why I did not add it to the list. But among left-libertarian blogs and forums, there are quite a bit of anarcho-syndicalists. Syndicalists , or at least some , seem open to broadening their horizons and do not stick some rigid ideology. I would argue that some syndicalists are open to ideas of markets.

Take a look here : http://libertarianleft.freeforums.org/political-social-and-economic-theory-f20.html


In my opinion Proudhon's theory has become socially irrelevant when Marx made his. There to much bourgeoisie why of thinking inside mutualism.

And what theory did Proudhon exactly advocate?


Also, market anarchism is contradictory and to me it looks like radical form of liberalism. Liberals want "free market" with week state so that they can do what they like. Market means hierarchy and competition which is bad, and you can't have anarchistic society while you have those two. Also, private property can't exist in anarchism. Therefore anarchism can only exist if it's economically communist. This is only way for people to be free and equal.

You are describing minarchists. But its OK, i understand why you think the way you do. You've been exposed to a rigid way of thinking, lots of people from Croatia are like that to be honest. I won't bother to debunk all you say quite yet , we can do it in private if you'd like. ( I've been over this chopping through semantics on OI forever, I prefer 1v1 talk - plus you can write in Croatian to me if its easier , I can read it just fine) Plus the topic is on classical or collectivist anarchist and other communist theory.

[Dejavu]

I mean that mutualists can't change society into their vision, because no one will follow them ever.

How are you certain? I'm not banking on mutualism being ' the answer' btw. I am more of a pan anarchist. I think an anarchist ( i.e. stateless) society is the perfect home for any and all voluntary societies. Not all of it need be homogeneous or one way.

[Искра]

But you can't have market here and communism there.

If you want to discuss something, you can PM me.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Well good thing Anarcho-Syndicalism isn't only about CNT worship. An argument against some power hungry fools in the CNT and their propagandized supporters does not amount to an argument about AS theory itself.

Very well said, one organisation does not represent our entire ideology. Even though I would be extremely sceptical that the whole organisation of the CNT wanted to join government.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I never claimed it was. That's why I did not add it to the list. But among left-libertarian blogs and forums, there are quite a bit of anarcho-syndicalists. Syndicalists , or at least some , seem open to broadening their horizons and do not stick some rigid ideology. I would argue that some syndicalists are open to ideas of markets.

But not all Syndicalists are revolutionary, and that is where the distinction should be made. Anarcho-Syndicalism is directly opposed to any policy of markets.

[Dejavu]

But you can't have market here and communism there.

If you want to discuss something, you can PM me.

Why not? Both agree not to bother each other and the people decide where they want to be.

[Dejavu]

But not all Syndicalists are revolutionary, and that is where the distinction should be made. Anarcho-Syndicalism is directly opposed to any policy of markets.

I guess its debatable of whether that is a wise course to stay or maybe its time to broaden understanding a little bit? I'd really be curious to see interactions between syndicalists here and on the link I provide. One communist already posts here and there ( Zanathos afaik)

[The Ungovernable Farce]

A few belated points:

Left communists believe in a vanguard party, as do most of the Marxists that anarchists quote approvingly. I don't see how that ties in with 'supporting some faction of a ruling class' though.
Depends whether or not you believe that the vanguard party form of organisation will inevitably lead to the creation of a new ruling class. You may not agree with the anarchist argument that hierarchies and power structures within the revolutionary movement before the revolution will translate to new forms of class domination after the revolution, but I'd think you must at least be able to see where we're coming from.


I don't think we say that it was 'alright'. We say there was a workers' revolution in Russia, but we also say that by 1921 the state and the party were acting of behalf of capital against the working class.

In which case it comes down to a disagreement about what was going on in 1917-20, which is an argument that's been had a thousand times and I'm not particularly keen on going into again. I should also add that I haven't really made my mind up on the subject due to never really encountering left communists IRL - there's one member of the Communist Workers Organisation in my city, but he doesn't seem to do very much. I think my longest real-life interaction with the ICC has been when someone outside the Manchester bookfair asked me if I wanted to buy a copy of World Revolution and I said no, partially assuming they were probably some species of Trot, I was most of the way through the door before I realised my mistake. Lacking real-world experience, I just have to go by your internet presence (which seems decent enough) and what I've heard from comrades who have encountered you (which has been somewhat less favourable).


Trotskyism and anarcho-syndicalism, on the other hand, are simly bourgeois. :ohmy:
What do you mean by anarcho-syndicalism? I agree that the CNT, for instance, failed to act in a revolutionary way, but there are big differences between that and, say, the contemporary practices of SolFed.

I don't think this is true. The difference between marxism and anarchism in general have got little to do with the personalities of Marx and Bakunin and nothing at all to do with the events which happened within the First International. The difference is between a dynamic methodology, one which aims to ever-improve itself with relentless self-criticism and drawing lessons of the past; and an absolutely static lack of methodology whose specific characteristics are determined only by the specific moment and its air.
If you're dynamic and we're static, then why does all your propaganda look like it's arrived in a time capsule from 1919?

There has been so-called "Marxists" who betrayed the struggle and interests of the working class, and some who claimed to be "Marxists" while having nothing to do with the marxist revolutionary method, yet the communist left itself is nothing but the continuation of genuine marxism, born out of the dynamic criticism and condemnation of such betrayals and lies.

As for anarchism, it is indeed true that there are some anarchists who are absolutely internationalist revolutionaries, class struggle oriented and so forth, whom the communist left as well as marxism historically has always considered as comrades, despite the confusions they carry exactly because they are anarchists. On the other hand, it is undeniable that the majority of the anarchist current has supported numerous imperialist wars, nationalist movements, bourgeois states and so forth and that even the internationalist and revolutionary anarchists have not been able to draw actual lessons from these things.
The majority of the Marxist current for most of the 20th century, and probably today, has consisted of various forms of Stalinism, with the different Trots making up most of the rest. You can say that those people have nothing to do with "proper Marxism", and I'd even have some sympathy for you in doing so, but then I could say with equal justification that any anarchist who supports nationalism or war is not a real anarchist. Either we're dealing with everyone who calls themselves a Marxist or anarchist, or we're dealing with people who meet our definitions of genuine Marxism and anarchism; you can't have it both ways.


Well, lets go on about the internationalist anarchists. Those anarchists who do not do anything stated above do so not out of a methodologically clear basis, but only from their instincts, which makes it harder for them to constantly defend and explain those positions, and this lack of a clear methodological basis makes it possible for these comrades to lapse or retreat on their positions occasionally as well.
I believe this is a consistent defence and explanation of the internationalist anarchist perspective coming from a methodologically clear basis (http://libcom.org/library/against-nationalism). No?

[Tjis]

And then you get platformism, just to make things even more confusing...

There's nothing confusing about platformism. It's a way to build an organization with an anarcho-communist ideology. It is a strategy, not an ideology by itself.

A platformist organization is an organization of anarcho-communists with the goal to ensure that on day 1 of the revolution, anarcho-communism is the leading idea among the working class masses, and that the working class masses have a clear idea on how to run society and defend the revolution.

It's also not incompatible with anarcho-syndicalism, in fact they are complementary. A platformist organization is not supposed to become a mass organization that is the main body of the revlutionary working class and/or the backbone of the future society. however platformists do see the formation of anarcho-syndicalist unions (or a similar mass working class organization) for exactly these roles as essential. The two types of organizations have a different but complementary role. The mass organization is the expression of the revolutionary working class as a whole, with all its various conflicting opinions, tactics, etc, while the platformist organization is an organization of anarcho-communists, with a unified line of theory and action, providing a concrete ideology that can become the leading idea of the revolution.

So in short, a platformist organization is ideological, while an anarcho-syndicalist organization (or any other revolutionary mass working class organization) is practical. Complementary, not conlicting.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I guess its debatable of whether that is a wise course to stay or maybe its time to broaden understanding a little bit? I'd really be curious to see interactions between syndicalists here and on the link I provide. One communist already posts here and there ( Zanathos afaik)

I don't know exactly what you mean debatable. Could you elaborate on what you are talking about please.

[Dejavu]

I don't know exactly what you mean debatable. Could you elaborate on what you are talking about please.

I will , I promise , later though.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

There's nothing confusing about platformism. It's a way to build an organization with an anarcho-communist ideology. It is a strategy, not an ideology by itself.

A platformist organization is an organization of anarcho-communists with the goal to ensure that on day 1 of the revolution, anarcho-communism is the leading idea among the working class masses, and that the working class masses have a clear idea on how to run society and defend the revolution.

...

So in short, a platformist organization is ideological, while an anarcho-syndicalist organization (or any other revolutionary mass working class organization) is practical. Complementary, not conlicting.
I was using "platformism" as shorthand for the ideology of the anarkismo.net groups who support national liberation and the project of reclaiming the mainstream trade unions. I think the difference between the anarcho-communism that most of IFA/IAF support and the anarcho-communism of the anarkismo.net platformist groups is at least as big as the difference between those groups and the syndicalism of IWA.

[ls]

by persons i mean anyone who is willing to struggle with us in the desire to topple class society, destroy commodity relations and create communism. i think this will primarily take the form of persons from the underclasses, but those willing to become class traitors to our side of the war can be found a place as well.

But the "underclass" if you're thinking of the lumpenproletariat is not an inherently revolutionary class. This is one of the problems with a lot of anarchist thought, it too easily classifies the lumpenproletariat and different kinds of peasants as immediate class companions. Of course, I agree some of them will come to our sides and certainly poorer peasants/agricultural workers could be considered our comrades in the right period of struggle, obviously the lumpens too can be our comrades if we carefully consider where their material interests lie in struggling with us (and who is struggling with us).


no, i think the creation of communes is a starting point for struggle, not an end point. certainly communes are created out of struggle, but they can also be created (or expanded) as a base for struggle.

I don't think they can be created out of nowhere as a starting point for struggle myself.


again, i think you misunderstand the term commune.
"A commune forms every time a few people, freed of their individual straitjackets, decide to rely only on themselves and measure their strength against reality. Every wildcat strike is a commune

What do you mean "every wildcat strike is a commune", this is completely away from your original point about occupying space by the underclass and turning it into some liveable functioning big commune.

Not every wildcat strike is a commune at all. When word of mouth at work, of what management is doing means everyone suddenly chooses to work out, that is not somehow a workers' council..


every building occupied collectively and on a clear basis is a commune

Depends what you mean by a 'clear basis', very possibly that is true.


the action committees of 1968 were communes, as were the slave maroons in the United States, or Radio Alice in Bologna in 1977. Every commune seeks to be its own base. It seeks to dissolve the question of needs. It seeks to break all economic dependency and all political subjugation; . . . There are all kinds of communes that wait neither for the numbers nor the means to get organized, and even less for the “right moment” – which never arrives.

That lat part is true and of course I agree, if you mean commune in the sense of some kind of strike or otherwise an 'action committee' then yeah.


to go back to the example of the strike committee you mentioned earlier- this was a commune, and you cite it as a positive thing.

Well, you clearly have a different conception of what constitutes a commune from what I do.


in your example, the commodity relationship was destroyed in the immediate sense- mutual aid proliferated; all that was asked of everyone was solidarity and support. this is a commune, and outside of the strike, it can take other forms. it can begin in smaller forms- i give food to my friends ("Don’t back away from what is political in friendship") and expect nothing but the idea that they will be there when i need them, perhaps with food next time, perhaps with cigarettes and beer, perhaps with a hammer and a mask. its difficult to speak of these relationships in singular acts because they are relationships, built on levels of support and aid, but the point is to expand them as wide as possible and, beyond that, to spread them and build with other such communes. even with the low level of class consciousness in the united states, there is a network of something resembling communes that i could fall back upon if the need arose, and that is a starting point for an offensive.



I think I've elaborated my position quite clearly now, the semantics of what constitutes a commune, the important question of how and why it is formed etc I have answered.


i think you missed the point of the statement. yes, obviously this is the case. i doubt they would disagree. the point is to use what tools present themselves for the creation of a self-sustaining movement that needn't rely on capital to make ourselves heard, not to ignore a real struggle. perhaps why there is no mention of struggle but, rather, the materials to be gained from a loss?

I think it depends very closely on the material circumstances that create the struggle, but you cannot just go around and say "we're going to build a commune in [..] and live outside Capitalism".


think you're missing the point being made in these statements. its not about allying with the petit-bourgeois, its about reorganizing the terrain to suit our needs instead of the needs of capital.

But I think that you may well end up allying with the petit-bourgeois or the lumpenproletariat in an anti-worker way if you're not careful.


I think that this attitude is what Leo is talking about when he refers to the anarchist lack of a 'methodologically clear basis'. Before Kautsky took a pro war position, what latter became the communist left in the Second International had been arguing against him for years. They could see this coming.

Alright, could you link me to some material that was written about Kautsky that demonstrated this?


Similarly with Kropotkin, it doesn't invalidate everything that he wrote. 'Mutual Aid', his book about evolution, does not stop being a classic. However, political positions don't appear out of nowhere. I feel that the anarchists lack of methodology is the problem here. They don't look to the roots to find where this position emerged from, and don't seem to have a solid theoretical grounding.

Welp:
Kropotkin’s views on the First World War cannot be ignored. Enemies of anarchism have tried to draw the lesson that this failure to take an internationalist position and to instead side with the Allies must have somehow sprung from his anarchist communism, and hence this body of ideas must be flawed. When one considers that the overwhelming majority of anarchist communists took an internationalist position then this theory is shown to hold no water. Rather it was perhaps Kropotkin’s blinkered views on France as the leading country of radical thought and revolution, which must be defended at all costs, with false comparisons with the Paris Commune of 1871, which may have swayed Kropotkin to adopt this mistaken position, a position disastrous for both his reputation and for the international movement. http://www.afed.org.uk/ace/kropotkin_history_of_anarchism.html

If you feel you could've seen it coming "miles away", then please do elaborate.


Incidentally, for all the talk of Kautsky as the greater betrayer, his position was not as 'bad' as Kropotkin's. Kautsky didn't support the vote for war credits and suggested abstaining, and within ten months had started to argue against the war, issuing an appeal against the pro-war party leaders. However, it is right to condemn him even though he only went along with the pro-war line in the name of 'party discipline'.

Kropotkin, on the other hand, was a jingo, who supported his own state in an imperialist war.

I think this puts that straight: http://www.katesharpleylibrary.net/sf7n16

Yes "Prince Kropotkin" had quite a lot of reactionary ideas, but he also contributed a lot in theory and in practice, then again it's simply a fact that no one is perfect.


The question of not supporting your own state in imperialist wars is a crucial one. I don't think that it really let's people off the hook to say that they were internationalists except when the big question was posed in World War II, a sort of "we are internationalists except when it comes to the crunch sort of line".

I never said it "let's them off the hook", it's just a fact that a lot of anarchists do that.

I too used to think that going into WWII and "fighting the nazis" was the correct thing to do, even as an anarchist, now I see that you would have no control under what circumstances you went in and so on and that basically, you would be used as a pawn to fight an imperialist war.

[Jethro Tull]

I have not read the documents that you refer to, though I have heard about some of them via the internet. I doubt though that they would be called left communist in the way that the word is used today

Ah, just to clarify, when I said one should get left-communism from "the source" rather than groups like the ICC, what I meant by "the source" was Luxemburg, Pannekoek, Korsch, Rühle, et. al. The Invisible Committee stuff was in reference to a seperate request within the same thread for important documents related to the autonomist tendency. (I was giving the IC as a palatable alternative to Negri, if I recall...)

Interesting points, everyone. I might address more later when I have time.

[Devrim]

Yeah, wrong tense (?). Although I don't think that there's 10 000 people in IWA. It's more.
At least from what I know, talking to their ex-secretary.

Yes, I would imagine less than 5,000. It was just a round number.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Ah, just to clarify, when I said one should get left-communism from "the source" rather than groups like the ICC, what I meant by "the source" was Luxemburg, Pannekoek, Korsch, Rühle, et. al. The Invisible Committee stuff was in reference to a seperate request within the same thread for important documents related to the autonomist tendency. (I was giving the IC as a palatable alternative to Negri, if I recall...)

Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you were saying the link was the source.

Devrim

[Jethro Tull]

You even admitted you are a Luddite.

Do you know anything about the Luddites?


I would refer users to this person's posts in that EDL thread, where he displayed typical Western chauvinist views

How so? I merely stated that right-wing Islamists were fascists. Many anti-fascist intellectuals have suggested this in the past, for example, J. Sakai, Butch Lee, and the authors of the threewayfight blog.

I wasn't sure what the EDL was at the time but I know now that it stands for the English Defense League, a third position fascist group that must also be combatted. I support the decision of this message board administration to ban members of that group.

To my knowledge I have yet to make any endorsement of "Western chauvinist views", correct me if I'm wrong.


No it doesn't, try to update your dictionary definitions some time soon.

I submit as my cultural footnote the 1997 Mel Gibson film Conspiracy Theory, which is action-packed fun for the whole family, and has no mention of or relevance to "Bakuninist invisible vanguardism".


Yeah let's have an invisible dictatorship actually running things

Just as I've expected, you have no idea what I actually mean when I say "invisible dictatorship". You just don't like the phrase because it sounds ominous and politically incorrect.


An invisible dictatorship is not anarchist, taking a shit is human.

Wanting to take a shit in private is human, too. Wanting to make plans in private is also human. Was the Underground Railroad also a cruel, oppressive, anti-anarchist dictatorship because they didn't reveal their coordinates to the Confederate government?


I read the coming insurrection almost 5 months ago now, what part of it am I not qualified to talk about?

You've failed to demonstrate basic understanding of the concepts that are being discussed, which is more important than what has or has not been read.


Intellectual condescension will get you nowhere

As opposed to beligerant, off-topic, ad hominem trolling?


And it was a stupid thing to use even in that context

So the word "invisible" is stupid? Or is it the word "committee"?


it's a pretty poor website for the most part though.

WTF? No one asked your opinion on the website, what matters are the texts. The website could have pop-op ads featuring Photoshopped porn of Hillary Clinton for all I care.


not this talk of starting a commune

It's quite fair to say that, by definition, if you don't like the idea of a commune, you are not a communist.


this doesn't mean I have to agree with THE WHOLE BOOK.

You don't have to agree with any of the book, it's the arrogant approach you're taking that dismays me. It's as if you know everything there is to know about the situation when you in fact are not that familiar with the subject at all.


Really, people who say stuff like that end up sounding very dogmatic indeed, so I can't agree with someone or something on some things but rejects the others? It's all or nothing?

Of course not. However, in this specific case, I believe the aspects you reject have been rejected out of half-baked reasoning. (I'm referring specifically to your criticisms of the commune-building tactic)


Great, you need restricting/banning.

OK, so when you meet the people you disagree with in real life, will you just shoot them instead?


Your attacks on Islamic fundamentalists as "Islamofascists"

As someone peripherally sympathetic towards certain Islamic doctrines, I find the term "Islamic fundamentalist" offensive because it implies that clerical fascism is "fundamental" to the creeds of classical Islam. "Islamic fundamentalist" is more insulting to Islam as a whole than "Islamic fascist". It's also fun to piss Social Democrats off by using a phrase coined by Christopher Hitchens, as if it actually fucking mattered.


just like the right-wing media


The "right-wing media" also criticizes gun control, the public education system, etc. Taking a position contrary to your rationale and instincts out of fear of appearing "right-wing" is asinine. Anyone that worried about coming off as "right-wing" probably does have subconscious right-wing tendancies.

[quote]Well, you are like a maoist, sure.

In some ways, maybe. At least I'm not running around accusing folks of "left-deviationism" and ranting about how the Uyghurs are Islamist terrorists. (Oh wait, I thought I was bigoted against Muslims, I'm so confused...)


your comments on the EDL thread were extremely chauvinistic

Yes, I am chauvinistic against right-wing Islam. I am chauvinistic because I don't think social developments within the Islamic community are "irrelevant", (unlike the oh-so relevant sectarian political gossip and banal pop-culture banter of incestuous Euro-American radical left fringe subcultures) because I think the principles of feminism, queer liberation, etc. apply globally, because I don't pretend like white anarchists are more influential or relevant than Islamist right-populists.


Yeah completely oversimplify everyone's positions

You chastize me for "oversimplify everyone's positions", yet you turn around and immediately do the same?

[quote]let's have secret internationals

Let's have internationals that are completely open and transparent and thus totally prone to extensive infiltration by forces of counter-revolution.


invisible dictatorships by a bunch of people

You've never actually told me what you think "invisible dictatorship" means. Are you subconsciosuly beginning to realize it doesn't mean what you think it does?


extra-judicial assassinations

I personally have yet to advocate assassination, and I feel it's an issue that's very complex and not really worth the risk of bullshitting about online.


"blowing shit up"

I'm opposed to the nihilistic glorification of violent struggle [I]for the sake of violent struggle. This is actually a tendancy The Coming Insurrection does a good job of admonishing.


fake socialist cooperatives

A commune is different than a "socialist cooperative".


with the petite-bourgeoisie

Members of any economic class are welcome as long as they commit themselves and their available resources to the struggle. What's really "petit-bourgeois" is confusing economic class with morality.


in the woods

Why not in the fields?

[el_chavista]

Left communists believe in a vanguard party, as do most of the Marxists that anarchists quote approvingly. I don't see how that ties in with 'supporting some faction of a ruling class' though.

Devrim
Are Left communists anti-Leninist at the same time? :confused:

[Jethro Tull]

Are Left communists anti-Leninist at the same time? :confused:



Main Entry: van·guard
Pronunciation: \ˈvan-ˌgärd also ˈvaŋ-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English vauntgard, from Anglo-French vantgarde, avantgarde, from avant- fore- (from avant before, from Late Latin abante) + garde guard — more at advance
Date: 15th century
1 : the troops moving at the head of an army
2 : the forefront of an action or movement

The term "vanguard" in this sense only refers to the minority among the oppressed class who commit themselves to self-liberation and thus agitation against capitalism and the development of communist power. This is different than the Leninist concept of a "vangurd party" which is merely a euphamism for the embryotic foundation of a centralized democratic state.

[ls]

I am really not interested in discussing luddism with a neo-luddite here, please make a thread in opposing ideologies if you wanna continue that discussion, I've snipped off a couple of other inane replies too.


Just as I've expected, you have no idea what I actually mean when I say "invisible dictatorship". You just don't like the phrase because it sounds ominous and politically incorrect.

It is ominous and anarchistically incorrect in the sense that it's anti-anarchist.

If you feel it is instep with anarchist idea, please elaborate as to why you hold this view.


Wanting to take a shit in private is human, too. Wanting to make plans in private is also human. Was the Underground Railroad also a cruel, oppressive, anti-anarchist dictatorship because they didn't reveal their coordinates to the Confederate government?

The underground railroad has no relevance to this discussion whatsoever, making some plans in private =/= an organised secret international of conspiracy theorists who just want control.


You've failed to demonstrate basic understanding of the concepts that are being discussed, which is more important than what has or has not been read.

In your opinion.


So the word "invisible" is stupid? Or is it the word "committee"?

Both in combination.


It's quite fair to say that, by definition, if you don't like the idea of a commune, you are not a communist.

And if you don't know what a commune is, you've got big problems.


You don't have to agree with any of the book, it's the arrogant approach you're taking that dismays me. It's as if you know everything there is to know about the situation when you in fact are not that familiar with the subject at all.

I know all about the subject, your approach is completely wrong and I've even argued with you about it in OI before, it was long, drawn out and neither of us gained much from it.

You know that I know what I'm talking about just as much as I know you know what you're talking about, we simply disagree about how to do things in basically every respect.


Of course not. However, in this specific case, I believe the aspects you reject have been rejected out of half-baked reasoning. (I'm referring specifically to your criticisms of the commune-building tactic)

Then please tell me why you think the commune building tactic is correct, perhaps make a thread in OI.


As someone peripherally sympathetic towards certain Islamic doctrines, I find the term "Islamic fundamentalist" offensive because it implies that clerical fascism is "fundamental" to the creeds of classical Islam. "Islamic fundamentalist" is more insulting to Islam as a whole than "Islamic fascist". It's also fun to piss Social Democrats off by using a phrase coined by Christopher Hitchens, as if it actually fucking mattered.

What about Christian fundamentalists? Is that offensive against Christians?


In some ways, maybe. At least I'm not running around accusing folks of "left-deviationism" and ranting about how the Uyghurs are Islamist terrorists. (Oh wait, I thought I was bigoted against Muslims, I'm so confused...)

Yeah, because I definitely said that. :rolleyes:


Yes, I am chauvinistic against right-wing Islam. I am chauvinistic because I don't think social developments within the Islamic community are "irrelevant", (unlike the oh-so relevant sectarian political gossip and banal pop-culture banter of incestuous Euro-American radical left fringe subcultures) because I think the principles of feminism, queer liberation, etc. apply globally, because I don't pretend like white anarchists are more influential or relevant than Islamist right-populists.

If anyone's a "white anarchist" (in the sense that you are a white chauvinist) it's you, I don't even identify as an anarchist but as a workerist, way to come off even worse, your whole concepts of "oppressed liberation" are stupid and annoying.


Let's have internationals that are completely open and transparent and thus totally prone to extensive infiltration by forces of counter-revolution.

You might as well support every 'socialist' national liberation movement there has been, why not go ahead and just admit you are a hack of a socialist.


Are you subconsciosuly beginning to realize it doesn't mean what you think it does?

I don't even know what you are talking about, I think it's pretty clear what it means, I think it's pretty clearly an advocation of leadership and I completely disagree with it.


A commune is different than a "socialist cooperative".

You are good at conflating the definitions though.


Members of any economic class are welcome as long as they commit themselves and their available resources to the struggle. What's really "petit-bourgeois" is confusing economic class with morality.

Something you keep doing.

[Jethro Tull]

I am really not interested in discussing luddism

In other words, you're not prepared to discuss the historical Luddite because you know nothing about it.


It is ominous and anarchistically incorrect in the sense that it's anti-anarchist.

You still haven't demonstrated that you actually know what it is, though. It's becoming more and more obvious tht your idea of "invisible dictatorship" has nothing to do with a reading of Bakunin's thoughts on the matter.


If you feel it is instep with anarchist idea, please elaborate as to why you hold this view.

Because an informal dictatorship is more libertarian than a formal one.


The underground railroad has no relevance to this discussion whatsoever

Yes it does.


an organised secret international of conspiracy theorists who just want control.

As I explained before, this has nothing to do with "conspiracy theorism", the only control we want is over our own lives. But yes, we must be organized, we must be international, and we must remain secret.


In your opinion.

In my opinion it doesn't seem like you've read the book at all since you believe it's advocating hippie back-to-nature "drop-out" lifestylism, violence-fetishizing nihilism, disengagement from the tactics of propaganda, outreach, agitation, etc. when it actually strongly condemns all these things.


Both in combination.

Care to explain?


And if you don't know what a commune is

Do you?


I know all about the subject

Anyone who says they know "all about" any subject is lying, there's always more to learn.

Do you even speak French, by chance?


your approach is completely wrong

That's a convincing argument.


we simply disagree about how to do things in basically every respect.

No we don't, you're just being overly contrary because you're bored.


Then please tell me why you think the commune building tactic is correct, perhaps make a thread in OI.

No, because the subject at hand is relevant to the important differences between the various tendencies and factions within the left-libertarian camp. And also because communists are not OI.


What about Christian fundamentalists? Is that offensive against Christians?

Yes, Christ was not a right-wing fascist.


Yeah, because I definitely said that.

You implied it by jumping on the Stalinoid bandwagon and denouncing me as a "left-deviationist' for sympathizing with colonized Uyghurs.


If anyone's a "white anarchist"

I didn't mean "white anarchist" to be an insult. Some anarchists are white. I'm just challenging the notion that critical analysis of right-wing Islamism is not relevant whereas myriad anarchist-ghetto in-gossiping and bickering is.

(in the sense that
you are a white chauvinist it's you

You don't know my ethnic identity. Life is about learning that you don't know everything.


I don't even identify as an anarchist but as a workerist

So what does that mean exactly, you support any movement as long as its a movement "of the workers"?


your whole concepts of "oppressed liberation" are stupid and annoying.

That's insightful. I suppose communists should be for oppression and against liberation?


You might as well support every 'socialist' national liberation movement there has been

I'm opposed to all movements that claim to support collective liberation but really suport the establishment of new forms of colonialism, new bureaucratic regimes, new capitalist states.


why not go ahead and just admit you are a hack of a socialist.

Do you even read my posts? All I do is gripe about socialists!


I think it's pretty clearly an advocation of leadership and I completely disagree with it.

How can anything get done unless someone makes a decision? I've seen a wide variety of differing opinions in my short lifetime, regarding the best way for collective decisions to be made, I've never heard it suggested that collective decision-making shouldn't be made at all...


You are good at conflating the definitions though.

Show me once where I've advocated any socialist policy or "co-operative" scheme. You'd be more fun to argue with if you relied less on totally unsubstantiated strawmen.


Something you keep doing.

In other words, the only argument you have is "NO U". How have I conflated socio-economic class with morality? You're the "workerist", I recognize that the majority of workers have been brainwashed to act against their own interests and are, at least for now, not sympathetic to our goals. You accuse everyone you disagree with of being "petit-bourgeois", I recognize that some committed communists will emerge from the ranks of the petit-bourgeois, labor aristocracy, bourgeoisie, and other priviliged classes.

[ls]

In other words, you're not prepared to discuss the historical Luddite because you know nothing about it.

You can start a thread in OI if you want, if not it's because you in fact know nothing about it, I am simply not interested in discussing it here.


You still haven't demonstrated that you actually know what it is, though. It's becoming more and more obvious tht your idea of "invisible dictatorship" has nothing to do with a reading of Bakunin's thoughts on the matter.

It's obviously a form of a vanguard, a small group of people "influencing the masses", do you think that the most basic definition of it in Wikipedia is incorrect too?


Because an informal dictatorship is more libertarian than a formal one.

If I didn't like the word "dictatorship" then I wouldn't advocate a "DOTP" would I, it is not about word semantics but about what you actually advocate.


As I explained before, this has nothing to do with "conspiracy theorism", the only control we want is over our own lives. But yes, we must be organized, we must be international, and we must remain secret.

Alright then, you go and fight in secret, much luck ever achieving anything.


In my opinion it doesn't seem like you've read the book at all since you believe it's advocating hippie back-to-nature "drop-out" lifestylism, violence-fetishizing nihilism, disengagement from the tactics of propaganda, outreach, agitation, etc. when it actually strongly condemns all these things.

I never really said it says any of that, you're purely making that up, way to go.


Anyone who says they know "all about" any subject is lying, there's always more to learn.

Alright, I know enough about the subject to know what you're saying is incorrect. Does that help?


Do you even speak French, by chance?

So do you think that language makes one a better anarchist? Have you ever heard of translations and translation tools?


No we don't, you're just being overly contrary because you're bored.

Yes we do, you are a Luddite and I am not.


No, because the subject at hand is relevant to the important differences between the various tendencies and factions within the left-libertarian camp. And also because communists are not OI.

You are not a communist, you are a primitivist.


You implied it by jumping on the Stalinoid bandwagon and denouncing me as a "left-deviationist' for sympathizing with colonized Uyghurs.

You are a left-deviationist for more reasons than actually being a racialist, that is just one of them, also no one is saying there is no sympathy for the oppression of the uyghurs, you keep making stuff up.


I didn't mean "white anarchist" to be an insult.

I did. "white anarchist" is not a great way of elaborating it so much as a White Western chauvinist petty-bourgeoisie joke, which is what you appear to be.


So what does that mean exactly, you support any movement as long as its a movement "of the workers"?

Yes exactly, an organic movement that seeks the best for the workers.


That's insightful. I suppose communists should be for oppression and against liberation?

Yeah like terrible pro-imperialist left-communists. :rolleyes:


How can anything get done unless someone makes a decision? I've seen a wide variety of differing opinions in my short lifetime, regarding the best way for collective decisions to be made, I've never heard it suggested that collective decision-making shouldn't be made at all...

Then why do you support an invisible dictatorship exactly?


Show me once where I've advocated any socialist policy or "co-operative" scheme. You'd be more fun to argue with if you relied less on totally unsubstantiated strawmen.

So you disagree with starting communes in unoccupied space at random utilising the petite-bourgeois, lumpenproletariat and peasantry too?


In other words, the only argument you have is "NO U". How have I conflated socio-economic class with morality? You're the "workerist", I recognize that the majority of workers have been brainwashed to act against their own interests and are, at least for now, not sympathetic to our goals. You accuse everyone you disagree with of being "petit-bourgeois", I recognize that some committed communists will emerge from the ranks of the petit-bourgeois, labor aristocracy, bourgeoisie, and other priviliged classes.

Great, bear in mind you belong in OI.

To stop this decent topic from going to the shitter, I will not respond to any more of Agrippa (Jethro Tull)'s posts, in fact I may just unsubscribe from this thread, please continue the conversation as you were doing before.

Devrim was probably correct that some posts could be copied from this thread and the post in question edited to point to a new topic, in which the discussion based on the post could continue, if a moderator/admin is reading this then feel free to do so.

[bcbm]

Both in combination.

why?


Then please tell me why you think the commune building tactic is correct, perhaps make a thread in OI.

we've been discussing the topic right here in learning at length, i don't see why jethro should have to discuss it in oi? if anything, the posts pertaining to the invisible committee, etc could perhaps be split off into a new thread in learning, since there seems to be so much confusion and misunderstanding about their ideas.

[Devrim]

Alright, could you link me to some material that was written about Kautsky that demonstrated this?

A good example could be Luxemborg's Theory and Practice (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1910/theory-practice/) which was written in 1910, four years before the war.



Welp: http://www.afed.org.uk/ace/kropotkin_history_of_anarchism.html

If you feel you could've seen it coming "miles away", then please do elaborate.

I am not an expert on anarchism or Kropotkin. I didn't say miles away, but I am surprised that nobody saw any indication that it was coming. I think though that it must have been based in a notion that socialists should support 'progressive' states against 'reactionary' ones, which is what he ended up saying in 1914.


I think this puts that straight: http://www.katesharpleylibrary.net/sf7n16

To quote from your link:


It is commonly accepted that the Anarchist theoretician Peter Kropotkin did support the Allied cause in World War 1. But is it true? Much is made of it by hostile Marxist critics (and was at the time) exaggerating the extent of whatever he said that might be so construed.
...

Yet in no positive sense did Kropotkin ‘support’ the war.

As I said, I am not an expert on anarchism, or Kropotkin, but I know enough to repudiate this.

Let's look at what Kropotkin himself had to say about it in Freedom in 1914:


I consider that the duty of everyone who cherishes the idea of human progress altogether, and especially those that were inscribed by the European proletarians on the banner of the International Workingmen's Association, is to do everything in one's power, according to one's capacities, to crush down the invasion of the Germans into Western Europe.
…
But for the moment we must not lose sight of the main work of the day. The territories of both France and Belgium MUST be freed of the invaders. The German invasion must be repulsed -- no matter how difficult this may be. All efforts must be directed that way.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/kropotkin/steffenletter.html

I think that makes it quite clear. Also I knew Albert and he was a very knowledgeable man. I can't believe he wasn't aware of this.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Depends whether or not you believe that the vanguard party form of organisation will inevitably lead to the creation of a new ruling class. You may not agree with the anarchist argument that hierarchies and power structures within the revolutionary movement before the revolution will translate to new forms of class domination after the revolution, but I'd think you must at least be able to see where we're coming from.

I do understand where you are coming from. I don't think that the idea of a vanguard party is necessarily linked to the creation of a new ruling class though. I think that the substitution of the party for the state was one of the main factors that led to this, not the idea of a vanguard in itself.

Incidentally, would you apply this to Mahkno, and the platformists who also talked about a vanguard organisation?


I think my longest real-life interaction with the ICC has been when someone outside the Manchester bookfair asked me if I wanted to buy a copy of World Revolution and I said no, partially assuming they were probably some species of Trot, I was most of the way through the door before I realised my mistake. Lacking real-world experience, I just have to go by your internet presence (which seems decent enough) and what I've heard from comrades who have encountered you (which has been somewhat less favourable).

Does this refer to me personally or the ICC in general?

If it is talking about me, I am sorry if I have rubbed people in the AF up the wrong way in the past. I think I am on reasonable terms with most of the ones I have met though. last time I saw Nick Heath for example we chatted in a friendly enough manner.

If it is about the ICC, well yes, we had a lot of problems about the way we approached things in the past. We are trying to improve. In my opinion we haven't got over all of them, but are getting better.


If you're dynamic and we're static, then why does all your propaganda look like it's arrived in a time capsule from 1919?

Ha, it doesn't. I saw a publication we did in the Post Office with Communication Worker group the other day from 1988. Oh my God, it looked like something from the Flintstones. Our press isn't that bad. Is there room for improvement? Yes, certainly a lot.


I believe this is a consistent defence and explanation of the internationalist anarchist perspective coming from a methodologically clear basis (http://libcom.org/library/against-nationalism). No?

Yes, I think so. I like a lot of stuff that comes out of the AF these days, particularly from the poster Django on Libcom. There is clarity there, but I don't think it is homogenous through out anarchism


I was using "platformism" as shorthand for the ideology of the anarkismo.net groups who support national liberation and the project of reclaiming the mainstream trade unions. I think the difference between the anarcho-communism that most of IFA/IAF support and the anarcho-communism of the anarkismo.net platformist groups is at least as big as the difference between those groups and the syndicalism of IWA.

I think that it is right to typify 'Platformism' as the anarkismo current. That is what Platformism is today. It doesn't mean that that is the only possible 'Platformism' that could have existed. The document itself is mostly organisational and has little to say about political positions. It is the one that does exist though, and therefore in my opinion a fair assessment.

Devrim

[revolution inaction]

I find it vary strange that people are comparing all of anarchism with left communism. It's like comparing non platformist anarchist communism to all of marxism.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Incidentally, would you apply this to Mahkno, and the platformists who also talked about a vanguard organisation?
I'll have to plead ignorance on this one, since I've not read enough "classical" platformism to judge. Besides, all I said about left communists was that I'd not made my mind up about them, not that they were a bunch of counter-revolutionaries who'd definitely be on the wrong side of the barricades.


Does this refer to me personally or the ICC in general?

If it is about the ICC, well yes, we had a lot of problems about the way we approached things in the past. We are trying to improve. In my opinion we haven't got over all of them, but are getting better.

No, it was a general reference to the ICC, I don't think there are many specific Devrim horror stories going around in the anarchist movement.

Yes, I think so. I like a lot of stuff that comes out of the AF these days, particularly from the poster Django on Libcom. There is clarity there, but I don't think it is homogenous through out anarchism
True. From what I've seen of SolFed, I think their position on nationalism is pretty much the same as ours, it's just less worked out because they're never sure if they're a union or a political group. I dunno how far either group are representative of our internationals, tho. It's true that this clarity isn't homogenous throughout anarchism, but again, you could only claim that all "Marxists" had consistent internationalist politics by defining "Marxism" to exclude Leninists.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

True. From what I've seen of SolFed, I think their position on nationalism is pretty much the same as ours, it's just less worked out because they're never sure if they're a union or a political group. I dunno how far either group are representative of our internationals, tho. It's true that this clarity isn't homogenous throughout anarchism, but again, you could only claim that all "Marxists" had consistent internationalist politics by defining "Marxism" to exclude Leninists.

SolFed is a political group. They outline this in Brigton SolFed's article, Anarcho Syndicalism in the 21st Century.

[bricolage]

SolFed is a political group. They outline this in Brigton SolFed's article, Anarcho Syndicalism in the 21st Century.

I'm not sure if that speaks for the whole of SolFed or just the Brighton branch and I'm also not sure it is the official 'line' so to speak as opposed to just a one off article. In any case the last SolFed person I spoke to said the idea was still for it become a union.

[revolution inaction]

SolFed is a political group. They outline this in Brigton SolFed's article, Anarcho Syndicalism in the 21st Century.

thats just brigton solfed, the article wasn't agreed by the rest of solfed

[Искра]

thats just brigton solfed, the article wasn't agreed by the rest of solfed
That's true.
Article wasn't agreed by the rest of SolFed nor by the rest of IWA.
Still its quite interesting article and I have to say that I quite like it.

[Devrim]

I'll have to plead ignorance on this one, since I've not read enough "classical" platformism to judge. Besides, all I said about left communists was that I'd not made my mind up about them, not that they were a bunch of counter-revolutionaries who'd definitely be on the wrong side of the barricades.

The thing about vanguardism is in the platform itself though I believe it has been translated out of some of the more recent English versions. Georges Fontenis' Manifesto of Libertarian Communism devotes an entire section to 'Relations Between the Masses and the Revolutionary Vanguard'.


True. From what I've seen of SolFed, I think their position on nationalism is pretty much the same as ours, it's just less worked out because they're never sure if they're a union or a political group. I dunno how far either group are representative of our internationals, tho. It's true that this clarity isn't homogenous throughout anarchism,.

True, but then anarchism in Britain has much more influence from left/council communism than in other countries. It would be interesting to know about the rest of your internationals. Anarchists in many countries are very supportive of national liberation.


but again, you could only claim that all "Marxists" had consistent internationalist politics by defining "Marxism" to exclude Leninists

I don't make claims about 'Marxism' as a whole. It is almost meaningless. Maybe you are right and I shouldn't do the same with anarchism. However, in my defence, when I do refer to anarchism as a whole, I don't use it to include the hippy individualists, but the three main international groupings.


That's true.
Article wasn't agreed by the rest of SolFed nor by the rest of IWA.
Still its quite interesting article and I have to say that I quite like it.

It was interesting. We reviewed it here alongside the AF's industrial stratergy doccument: http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2009/07/Solfed-AF-unions-debate

Devrim

[ls]

A good example could be Luxemborg's Theory and Practice (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1910/theory-practice/) which was written in 1910, four years before the war.

Cheers for that, definitely an interesting read. :)


I am not an expert on anarchism or Kropotkin. I didn't say miles away, but I am surprised that nobody saw any indication that it was coming. I think though that it must have been based in a notion that socialists should support 'progressive' states against 'reactionary' ones, which is what he ended up saying in 1914.



To quote from your link:



As I said, I am not an expert on anarchism, or Kropotkin, but I know enough to repudiate this.

Let's look at what Kropotkin himself had to say about it in Freedom in 1914:


This is all silliness imo.

We can both see from the Albert link, despite his glaring bias for downplaying the betrayal, that he points to Kropotkin's role as a man from the bourgeois who was "humbled as a guest" in the country. Kropotkin obviously had a lot of bourgeois bias and I think that it is being pointed to in the article, that does not however take away from the fact that Kropotkin betrayed the anarchist movement.

I think that his betrayal should be understood too and yes, I disagree with Albert's downplaying of it, but nonetheless mostly everything he has written there is true.


http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/kropotkin/steffenletter.html

I think that makes it quite clear. Also I knew Albert and he was a very knowledgeable man. I can't believe he wasn't aware of this.

Devrim

Yes, but knowing someone's exact intentions and their biases is important, it is not the same as realpolitik if you will, instead I think that I could point to the left-communists you point to as your inspiration that denounced the entire Bolshevik revolution as bourgeois.

Do you not in that case, have realtheory, if you will? Based on what you perceive as being the struggles of the class? I think you do and I certainly applaud it.