Author assaulted by cayenne pepper laced pie at Anarchist Bookfair [Archive]

Cooler Reds Will Prevail

14th March 2010, 22:54

I think this is super fucked up, but this was the main article I found for the incident.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/03/14/18640886.php

--------------------------

Bound Together Books and PM Press continue to try to prop up and foist veg*n antagonist Lierre Keith onto the radical community in the Bay Area. Today, at the 15th Annual San Francisco Anarchist Bookfair, where she was scheduled to be a featured speaker, Keith was served her just deserts for her obnoxious attacks on veg*ns in The Vegetarian Myth. She was pied in the middle of her speech in the main auditorium at the SF County Fair Building in Golden Gate Park.

The myriad logical fallacies and other personal, logical, and factual problems with Lierre Keith's misanthropic book need not be reiterated here. A thorough debunking of her attack on veg*ns was posted on Indybay last June when Bound Together Books first invited her to speak about her book.

Lierre Keith's Elaborate, Self-Congratulatory Excuse for Abandoning Veganism
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/12/18601536.php

If her book had been written as a good faith effort to start a discussion about the topics of vegetarianism and industrial agriculture, it certainly would not have evoked such a visceral reaction from veg*ns. But that's not how Keith addressed the subject. She instead chose to rebuke her own former vegan self by verbally assaulting all veg*ns, calling them ignorant and child-like, sometimes based on nothing more than dishonest accounts of anonymous online comment threads or her own self-loathing.

Phony environmentalist omnivores like her buddy Derrick Jensen -- who farcically claimed the "book saved my life” -- might find the gratuitous attacks on veg*ns self-satisfying or validating, but the insults and invective directed against veg*ns have been taken, not surprisingly, quite personally by veg*ns everywhere who are aware of the book, sometimes by having had it thrown in their faces by those who mistakenly believe the book to be the last word on vegetarianism. And surely it was a reaction to these attacks that led the culprits of the pieing to feel compelled to take symbolic action against Lierre Keith at the very moment she was being held up as a paragon of radical thought by Bound Together Books at this year's Anarchist Bookfair, normally a vegetarian-friendly venue.

Some will condemn the pieing as a useless symbolic action. Others will object to the breaking of decorum at the bookfair. Many of those who might condemn the action would not think twice about praising other symbolic direct actions, pieing or otherwise. It is doubtful if her book were "the anarchist myth" or "prison activist myth" that anyone present would do anything but cheer the action.

Some will undoubtedly argue that the pieing was an attack on free speech, but Keith has been afforded more speech than most people on the planet will ever be, courtesy of PM Press. In fact, she is profiting from the soap box she has been given to pretend she is a radical environmentalist who just happens to jet around the country to and from her home in rural Massachusetts. In a world where vegans and vegetarians are a definite minority, face constant bombardment with pro-meat messages our American cattle culture, and frequently have to deal with direct attacks from government, law enforcement, and multinational corporations that profit from the sale of factory-farmed meat and dairy, Ramsey Kanaan of PM Press, himself a long-time vegan, strangely chose to pile on with yet another attack on veg*ns, this time being especially traumatic in that it comes from the inside of the supposed radical environmental movement. (Was the book printed in part to curry favor with Derrick Jensen who now publishes through PM Press?) Through the Bound Together collective, of which Ramsey Kanaan is a member, Lierre Keith has been asked to speak in the Bay Area repeatedly. The mean-spirited book and these speaking engagements are largely one-way conversations with Keith dominating the dialogue.

But today, anonymous masked peoples stood up and refused to allow PM Press and Bound Together to yet again try to cram Lierre Keith down our throats. They stood up for many who have suffered silently, without a voice, since the publication of her book. We don't want what you are serving.

Jimmie Higgins

14th March 2010, 22:59

I call for a jihad on lifestylists.

Wanted Man

14th March 2010, 23:00

Veg*ns? Are you sure it's not "vegyns"?

Still, this is pretty funny. Why can't we have anarchists who pie other anarchists for not being nice enough to vegans?

Die Rote Fahne

14th March 2010, 23:12

It's nice to know that there are idiots who think shoving a vegan lifestyle down our throats think it's more important than the general anarchist cause.

Whatever, I quote Mac Lethal when it comes to Veganism:

"Fuck veganism, give me some general Tso's chicken".

Jimmie Higgins

14th March 2010, 23:15

I've tabled at the anarchist book fair for the last few years and my zine-collaborator and I were debating going again this year and decided against it. I really got sick of all the non-political lifestylists and this confirms my worst feeling about some of the attendees at this event. It's really too bad, I had some good experiences there and met some great syndicalists and radicals from up and down the coast, but after the RCP got attacked last year and now this, I am really convinced that a sizable portion of people there are totally diconnected from the politcal and social realities going on right now and don't have a clue who their real fucking enemies are.

The myriad logical fallacies and other personal, logical, and factual problems with Lierre Keith's misanthropic book need not be reiterated here.Maybe because you don't have a fucking political leg to stand on.

Many of those who might condemn the action would not think twice about praising other symbolic direct actions, pieing or otherwise.Yes against our REAL enemies not against people who are supposed to be in the same fucking movement who have different opinions!

Some will undoubtedly argue that the pieing was an attack on free speech, but Keith has been afforded more speech than most people on the planet will ever be, courtesy of PM Press.Holy fucking shit you are in a bubble - totally disconnected from reality - most people in the BAY AREA don't even know what PM press is let alone this fucking book by a semi-online semi-print small press!!!! I'd never even heard of this book before.

They stood up for many who have suffered silently, without a voice, since the publication of her book.:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

face constant bombardment with pro-meat messages:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

OMG, you poor opressed babies! Immigrants, LGBT people, forclosed homeowners, be damned, your choice of diet makes you the most opressed people in the world!

It is doubtful if her book were "the anarchist myth" or "prison activist myth" that anyone present would do anything but cheer the action. Your diet is the same as peope who have dedicated their lives to making the world better for others? Give me a fucking break.

Saorsa

14th March 2010, 23:15

Not all anarchists are like this, thankfully...

bcbm

14th March 2010, 23:16

god i hate vegans

Jimmie Higgins

14th March 2010, 23:20

Veg*nsWhat's up with this spelling? Do they hate the letter "A"? Are they doing that to distance themselves from anarchists? Does "a" connote A-1 steak sauce to them? Grade A beef?

coda

14th March 2010, 23:24

veganism has no relevence at all to revolutionary anarchism. I wish the lines would stop blurring. I mean, there is a whole vegan/animal rights movement that could care less about communism.

Jimmie Higgins

14th March 2010, 23:24

Actually, now I want to read her book - this could be the best advertising ever for it in left-circles in the bay area.

RadioRaheem84

14th March 2010, 23:25

I hate these mini-movements that have grafted themselves to the overall leftist movements. Who gives a shit if someone wants to be a vegan or not or thinks it's a stupid lifestyle choice? Meat is not murder.

This is one of the reasons why I refused to move to Austin,TX and chose to stay in more conservative Houston, because the level of lifestylism in that city is too much. Am I wrong for not wanting to deal with them? They act as though being vegan is connected to the social justice movement.

Some of these movements can be rather anti-human though.

khad

14th March 2010, 23:26

What's up with this spelling? Do they hate the letter "A"? Are they doing that to distance themselves from anarchists? Does "a" connote A-1 steak sauce to them? Grade A beef?
It's a wildcard, if you've worked with a command line. The * can be replaced with whatever you want. In this case, it's just a shorter way of saying "veg(etaria)n and veg(a)n."

Wanted Man

14th March 2010, 23:29

What's up with this spelling? Do they hate the letter "A"? Are they doing that to distance themselves from anarchists? Does "a" connote A-1 steak sauce to them? Grade A beef?

I made a poor joke about it, but I think it's to denote everyone who doesn't eat meat, i.e. vegetarians, vegans, freegans, etc. It basically implies that they're all part of the same movement.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Elfcat

15th March 2010, 02:40

1. What I have heard from "The Vegetarian Myth" on KPFA suggests that the entire system of agriculture should abandon monocropped annuals in favor of polycropped perennials, and that all livestock should graze openly and and not be confined or fed grain. Hardly any ally of the current agricultural regime.

2. After PETA's "Save the Whales" billboard, every fat person by this logic should pin every PETA member up against a wall with their bellies! :thumbup1:

gorillafuck

15th March 2010, 03:00

and frequently have to deal with direct attacks from government, law enforcement, and multinational corporations that profit from the sale of factory-farmed meat and dairy
Haha, what? Vegetarians/vegans are frequently attacked by cops and the government? That's one of the most ridiculous claims I ever heard.

The Douche

15th March 2010, 04:03

but after the RCP got attacked last year

Yeah, why won't the anarchists be friendly to cultish maoists?

This seems dumb, but I see no reason why anarchists should provide a space for the RCP.

*begin rants about my connection to RAAN/RAAN's assaults on the RCP, fuck you, fuck the RCP, no...care...ever.

The Red Next Door

15th March 2010, 04:51

I didn't know that meat eating is causing problems for the poor working people.

Jimmie Higgins

15th March 2010, 05:53

Yeah, why won't the anarchists be friendly to cultish maoists?

This seems dumb, but I see no reason why anarchists should provide a space for the RCP.

I'm not an RCP fan, but I was there that year and the RCP set up a booth outside of the outside free section. No space was provided for them, and considering some of the lifestyle bullshit in the free area, I think it's hypocritical to single them out. Also the Bay Area National Anarchist were walking around there that weekend (probably trying to recruit some mixed up lifestylists)... good job in attacking radicals you disagree with and not even noticing the fascist bigots walking around.

I have to deal with he RCP and at one time the Sparts all the time while organizing events - it's pretty easy to deal with them - either ignore them or if they are disruptive then organize people to escort other atendees past them or have people come to their booth and counter their bullshit.

The people that threw water at the RCP were also talking about how the New School occupation of that year in NYU wasn't radical enough so that should clue you into their immature political outlook: they don't have any clue how to organize or work with other people in the process of radicalizing to help build a movement.

Mindtoaster

15th March 2010, 06:03

Militant vegans can fuck off. Get your petite-bourgeois, life stylist, liberal shit out of our movements

Someone should maul the pie-thrower with a t-bone.

Radicalized, self-glorified, dietary deviancy ftw :rolleyes:

NiccolÃ² Rossi

15th March 2010, 06:18

I have to deal with he RCP and at one time the Sparts all the time while organizing events - it's pretty easy to deal with them - either ignore them or if they are disruptive then organize people to escort other atendees past them or have people come to their booth and counter their bullshit.

I think this is pretty pathetic. A group of comrades including myself attended a Socialist Alternative (one of the Australian cliffite groups, which like the ISO in the US is not affiliated with the IST) conference in Sydney last year where we attempted to distribute left communist literature outside*.

When we got there we were greeted immediately with hostility, being told 'This is our conference' and to 'Go make your own'. When we said that we were going to set up outside either way, we were sworn at and abused. After approaching several people coming into the conference, SAlt cadres quickly came out and escorted people away from us, including grabbing people by the arm and pulling them away from us telling them, "Come this way", "Just ignore them", etc. Eventually a couple of the young cadre we posted out the front to escort people in away from us and block any attempt at discussing with conference-goers.

It appears now this is standard practice. This type of activity is perfectly justified for you if we are accused of being 'disruptive', which can be used to mean what ever is convenient at the time including presenting any sort of political challenge, attempting to discuss with people or threatening your retruitment.

*In retrospect I think this was a horrible idea.

The Vegan Marxist

15th March 2010, 06:52

god i hate vegans

Well, I'm a vegan, & yet don't act like this. Never have I ever tried shoving my beliefs down other people's throats. There's a difference between choosing a revolutionary lifestyle & choosing a dietary lifestyle. I'm a vegan for health. Others have their own reasons.

Jimmie Higgins

15th March 2010, 07:52

*In retrospect I think this was a horrible idea.
Like the RCP setting up outside the anarchist bookfair, this is sort of an uncomradely way to intervene at another groups event. I don't think your comrades should have been physically assaulted in any way, that's crossing a line in my opinion. They probably should have just been left alone if all you and your comrades were doing was passing out your own lit that has nothing to do with the other group. Like I said, unless someone (other radicals that is) is being disruptive I think the best thing is to ignore them and let them be.

But I don't speak for people in Australia and I don't know what the situation was, but in my experience, when Sparts stand outside and tell people coming to an ISO event that the ISO are bourgeois and reformists, they are not there to engage in honest debate or mearly publicize their own events, they are there to plant suspicion among the general left about the other radical groups. They typically hand out fliers claiming that the ISO supports cops or the Democrats and all sorts of other bullshit.

Otherwise, if people are just handing out fliers publicizing their own events I don't really care and there was pleanty of this outside the bay area Socialist conference last summer. Additionally, people from the fourth international affiliated groups paid $5 to come to a big session and made their announcement and their argument for why they think they have a better political understanding and that's fine - they did it in a political and reasonable way (i.e. not coming in and denouncing people). Other groups and left-wing book publishers contacted the local ISO organizers and set up booths and sold their literature inside the San Francisco Women's building right next to the main entrance to the big conference room.

The only people who were removed to my knowledge were a handful of unidentified (as in they didn't identify themselves as part of any organization or political tradition) people who tried to run past the main entrance and enter the Mike Davis talk without a ticket. Then they stood at the main entrance saying that the ISO were bourgeois and racists and saying they could kick the asses of people there. So yes, we had some members out there telling people to ignore the impotent clowns.

I think the organizers of the anarchist book-fair should have taken similar steps if they thought the RCP was antagonizing people or conversely if anti-RCP people were getting in shouting matches with the RCP (as both were the case in this instance).

NiccolÃ² Rossi

15th March 2010, 09:46

Like the RCP setting up outside the anarchist bookfair, this is sort of an uncomradely way to intervene at another groups event.

To be honest I think this kind of intervention is actually perfectly legitimate and appropriate. It was after all an anarchist bookfair and not the political conference of a particular organisation. The ICC do the same at the London Anarchist Bookfair and have for some years now. Every year they request a table inside but they are declined on account of being 'Leninists' etc. so they stand outside and from my understanding they get a good response. I don't think there is anything necessarily uncomradely about it (not speaking for the RCP here of course).

But I don't speak for people in Australia and I don't know what the situation was, but in my experience, when Sparts stand outside and tell people coming to an ISO event that the ISO are bourgeois and reformists, they are not there to engage in honest debate or mearly publicize their own events, they are there to plant suspicion among the general left about the other radical groups. They typically hand out fliers claiming that the ISO supports cops or the Democrats and all sorts of other bullshit.

I don't think the Sparts call the ISO bourgeois, 'middle class' maybe but not bourgeois. This kind of label wouldn't fit with their analysis of for example the social-democratic parties which they see as 'workers parties' with a 'pro-capitalist leadership'.

Anyway, to be honest I think the Sparts polemics against other Trotskyist groups are usually pretty good. Not that I agree with them politically, though they sometimes get things right, but they seem to me to be internally consistent.

The only people who were removed to my knowledge were a handful of unidentified (as in they didn't identify themselves as part of any organization or political tradition) people who tried to run past the main entrance and enter the Mike Davis talk without a ticket.

God forbid people don't pay to attend a public meeting!

Jimmie Higgins

15th March 2010, 10:42

To be honest I think this kind of intervention is actually perfectly legitimate and appropriate. It was after all an anarchist bookfair and not the political conference of a particular organisation. The ICC do the same at the London Anarchist Bookfair and have for some years now. Every year they request a table inside but they are declined on account of being 'Leninists' etc. so they stand outside and from my understanding they get a good response. I don't think there is anything necessarily uncomradely about it (not speaking for the RCP here of course).You're right, I don't know if the RCP asked for a booth and I don't know how the organizers would have responded. But from what I saw the RCP, setting up a table right in front of the entrance but away from the free section where other people set-up seemed kind of a hostile. But this is besides the point - the main thing is that there is no excuse for people trashing their stuff and we both agree on that. I was mearly saying that if people had a problem they should have just ignored them or if the organizers thought they were being disruptive, they should have had some people out there.

God forbid people don't pay to attend a public meeting!Now you are just being silly comrade. It was an annual conference - not a free and open weekly branch meeting. Furthermore, 4 people rushing the door at an event is just asking to be kicked out - they could have been fascists, LaRouche people, who knows. If they are not willing to shell out $5 then they aren't really all that interested in the meeting itself, probably just disrupting it. I could have gone to the anarchist bookfair and set up a table outside in the free section, but since I've been involved in organizing events and renting rooms and so on I realize that it takes money to set these things up and so I have gladly paid the booth fee because I wanted to see more gatherings of the general radical left. It's the same when I've been to other groups conferences. And these fees aren't nothing to me - I don't make that much money and don't spend loosely.

Listen, I think I've stated my perspective on this and I don't want to derail the thread from further lifesylist bashing:lol:. I think it was wrong for thoes induviudals to destroy the RCP table and lit, and I don't think organizations should try and use scare-tactics against other organizations at their events. And conversely I don't think if people, like you and your comrades, are simply handing out fliers for your own events should be chased way if that's all you are doing.

We need to learn how to take up our political differences politically otherwise we aren't doing ourselves or other groups any good. There are a lot of people who are angry and potentially radicalizing against capitalism right now and so trying to smear other groups, attacking them, etc is not the way to go and will just drive people away. We should be taking up political differences politically.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

15th March 2010, 11:50

Now you are just being silly comrade. It was an annual conference - not a free and open weekly branch meeting. Furthermore, 4 people rushing the door at an event is just asking to be kicked out - they could have been fascists, LaRouche people, who knows. If they are not willing to shell out $5 then they aren't really all that interested in the meeting itself, probably just disrupting it.

I think the circumstances in which they entered the meeting were another thing, but this kind of indignation at people not paying the entrance fee is pretty off. Yes, these things cost money. Yes, these things cost time. But you have to come down to earth and realise that paying $5 to get lectured for x hours is pretty outrageous. $5 times how many people attending (the big meetings that is) is a lot of money (not to forget the money made of the sales of magazines and the publishing houses attached to alot of these groups)! A hell of a lot more than it costs to organise in alot of cases. If an organisation wants to raise funds, it can do it the honest way and appeal to members and sympathisers to donate. Putting the blame on workers and students on the outside for not being interested enough to pay the enterance fee is really shitty. I think getting people in to discuss is alot more important, whether or not it is done at a loss.

I've attended these sort of the things before and the only reason being that I could get in at a discounted rate for being a student/low-income. In some cases where these things cost in the triple digits (over 3 days or whatever), they can stick it up their arse.

Jimmie Higgins

15th March 2010, 12:27

I think the circumstances in which they entered the meeting were another thing, but this kind of indignation at people not paying the entrance fee is pretty off. Yes, these things cost money. Yes, these things cost time. But you have to come down to earth and realise that paying $5 to get lectured for x hours is pretty outrageous. $5 times how many people attending (the big meetings that is) is a lot of money (not to forget the money made of the sales of magazines and the publishing houses attached to alot of these groups)! A hell of a lot more than it costs to organise in alot of cases. If an organisation wants to raise funds, it can do it the honest way and appeal to members and sympathisers to donate.

Again I am not talking about just regular weekly meeting which are almost always free or a donation in most groups. Comrade, if you think the anarchist bookfair or the ISO conference or LaborNotes and Labor-fest are running a profit on ticket sales, I don't know what to say. ANSWER puts out donation buckets for anti-war rallies and yet all of our organizations run on a shoe-string.

Business people pay hundreds and hundreds of dollars for tickets to their conferences that are just as long and in similar locations. Petit-bourgois nuts paid $400 dollars to go to the tea-party convention. I work at a hotel, I know how expensive these things are because we have conferences here all the time. I think a $75 booth fee for 3 day conference ticket is cheap compared to comparable things by non-activists. The anarchist book-fair is the cheapest zine-fest type thing I have tabled at.

Putting the blame on workers and students on the outside for not being interested enough to pay the enterance fee is really shitty. I think getting people in to discuss is alot more important, whether or not it is done at a loss.

I've attended these sort of the things before and the only reason being that I could get in at a discounted rate for being a student/low-income. In some cases where these things cost in the triple digits (over 3 days or whatever), they can stick it up their arse.Your concerns are definitely valid, and I agree that the important thing is getting people together and having the discussion. But in the particular case I was speaking of, these individuals clearly came to pick a fight. If it wasn't the $5 fee, then it would have been something else that was proof of the ISO's malevolence in their eyes. I'm pretty sure that a ticket the price equal to a starbuck's coffee or a subway ride wasn't the underlying issue for them.

I think much of the (radical) left goes out of their way to make things reasonable affordable for people. But we live in capitalism and we can't just wish these expenses away. Maybe one-day bandits will rob banks on our behalf and communists can take Lenin's advice and marry rich heirs and heiresses to get funds, but until then it's going to be passing the hat, taxing ourselves to raise money, communist car-washes and bake sales... and yes, fees at the door for some big events at rented halls.

bcbm

15th March 2010, 14:28

Well, I'm a vegan, & yet don't act like this. Never have I ever tried shoving my beliefs down other people's throats. There's a difference between choosing a revolutionary lifestyle & choosing a dietary lifestyle. I'm a vegan for health. Others have their own reasons.

yeah, sorry. the last place i lived was full of vegan supremacist wingnuts, so i've got a bit of a sour taste in my mouth about them. obviously not all vegans are assholes, just a lot of them.;)

Dimentio

15th March 2010, 15:03

Sendo

15th March 2010, 15:33

The Vegan Marxist

15th March 2010, 15:45

I hate militant veganism, and people should eat what is available.
But c'mon, Westerners eat way too much meat, especially cow meat. In addition to the fertilizer problems for growing their feed, the caloric inefficency of cattle meat especially, metabolic rift, deforestation, factory farming pollution, and massive CO2 output of modern farming, it is not feasible for everyone on Earth to have the lifestyle.

I hate the methods of these people, and I hate the moralism. But c'mon, Westerners' lifestyles are completely incompatible with the real world and the sustainability of the world for developing countries. I'd hate to see the developing countries squander their gains on an American-style agriculture and end up fucked when oil prices go up.

I know the sentiment, but don't champion the glory of overeating or meat. The beef and agrobusiness lobbies are not my company either.

Well, I would prefer that people not eat meat, but I know I can't achieve such wish because, 1) everyone has their opinions, & 2) some people have to eat meat due to eating disorders. But, I would prefer for people, if they have to or truly want to eat meat, to get their meat from family farm suppliers & not from factory farms. I'd rather want healthy meat eaters rather than unhealthy meat eaters that consume products that went through violent deaths.

RadioRaheem84

15th March 2010, 15:52

Well, I would prefer that people not eat meat, but I know I can't achieve such wish because, 1) everyone has their opinions, & 2) some people have to eat meat due to eating disorders. But, I would prefer for people, if they have to or truly want to eat meat, to get their meat from family farm suppliers & not from factory farms. I'd rather want healthy meat eaters rather than unhealthy meat eaters that consume products that went through violent deaths.

Are you against hunting for food?

Sasha

15th March 2010, 16:00

reminds me of my english friend who told me that during thatcher times the bigest topic in the anachist scene was wheter or not milk was rape....

The Vegan Marxist

15th March 2010, 16:09

Are you against hunting for food?

I would like for people not to do it, but how exactly would I stop them from doing so? To me, I see it like this. It's unnecessary for us to eat meat. Our natives didn't have a choice really, & so, they had to eat meat to survive. That's how it went. But now, we've advanced so far that we now have the choice of what foods we digest & what is healthier for our body. Meat has become this unnecessary element in our lives that it's quite useless to consume these days, & has only continued to being consumed because of personal choices. Me, personally, I'd rather not kill any living being without a good reason in doing so, because, despite what your personal opinions are, fact is that every living creature on this planet has feelings & has the right to live. How we go about it is our choice. Sure, you can counter-attack my argument by telling me that plants have life too, yet I eat it constantly, but it only helps prove my point on how we've advanced from our native ancestors. We are to plants as the natives were to meat.

Revy

15th March 2010, 16:18

some people have to eat meat due to eating disorders.

This is ridiculous. Nobody has to eat meat because of an eating disorder. Veganism doesn't make you rail thin.

The Vegan Marxist

15th March 2010, 16:23

This is ridiculous. Nobody has to eat meat because of an eating disorder. Veganism doesn't make you rail thin.

True, but it depends also on your career as well. I remember seeing this football player that went vegan, & stayed vegan. But then it wasn't helping him get in the shape he needed & had to go back to eating some meat.

RadioRaheem84

15th March 2010, 17:39

Don't vegans have to take b vitamin supplements to make up for their meatless diet or is this a myth?

RadioRaheem84

15th March 2010, 17:41

I would like for people not to do it, but how exactly would I stop them from doing so? To me, I see it like this. It's unnecessary for us to eat meat. Our natives didn't have a choice really, & so, they had to eat meat to survive. That's how it went. But now, we've advanced so far that we now have the choice of what foods we digest & what is healthier for our body. Meat has become this unnecessary element in our lives that it's quite useless to consume these days, & has only continued to being consumed because of personal choices. Me, personally, I'd rather not kill any living being without a good reason in doing so, because, despite what your personal opinions are, fact is that every living creature on this planet has feelings & has the right to live. How we go about it is our choice. Sure, you can counter-attack my argument by telling me that plants have life too, yet I eat it constantly, but it only helps prove my point on how we've advanced from our native ancestors. We are to plants as the natives were to meat.

No worries, mate. I am not reactionary anti-vegan. I just believe that there is nothing wrong with hunting for food and processing the meat yourself rather than relying on major corporations to do so. It's much healthier. I respect your views and agree with you on a lot of points you've made.

The Douche

15th March 2010, 17:59

I'm not an RCP fan, but I was there that year and the RCP set up a booth outside of the outside free section. No space was provided for them, and considering some of the lifestyle bullshit in the free area, I think it's hypocritical to single them out. Also the Bay Area National Anarchist were walking around there that weekend (probably trying to recruit some mixed up lifestylists)... good job in attacking radicals you disagree with and not even noticing the fascist bigots walking around.

I have to deal with he RCP and at one time the Sparts all the time while organizing events - it's pretty easy to deal with them - either ignore them or if they are disruptive then organize people to escort other atendees past them or have people come to their booth and counter their bullshit.

The people that threw water at the RCP were also talking about how the New School occupation of that year in NYU wasn't radical enough so that should clue you into their immature political outlook: they don't have any clue how to organize or work with other people in the process of radicalizing to help build a movement.

Sorry I feel the RCP represents a threat to the working class, and should not be permitted to propagate their ideas in the space created by legitimate working class radicals.

The people who removed the RCP were comrades and personal friends of mine and I stand by their actions 100%.

chegitz guevara

15th March 2010, 18:20

Now that we know that vegans are effectively pepper spraying other leftists with whom they disagree, we should start carrying arms, and shoot them if they come near us with food.

Seriously, why is everyone ignoring the fact that this pie was laced with cayenne pepper. Sure, I love the stuff ... in my mouth. If you try to put it in my eyes, I will kick your ass, hard. This was assault and battery, pure and simple. Would y'all be so blasé about it if a man had simply walked up and punched this woman?

Meridian

15th March 2010, 18:25

Whatever happened to just generally promoting class struggle?

What the fuck is this veg*n bullshit?

And what is up with all this sectarian bullshit? Unless we get over it our movement, the radical left in general, will become a thing of the past... Most working people in the west don't even know they are workers. Most working people have heard of fascism and knows basically what it is about, though few have any clue about radical, revolutionary politics besides Stalinism!

chegitz guevara

15th March 2010, 18:28

Perhaps comrades should consider reading what she wrote?
http://www.lierrekeith.com/vegmyth.htm

Glenn Beck

15th March 2010, 18:32

Sorry I feel the RCP represents a threat to the working class, and should not be permitted to propagate their ideas in the space created by legitimate working class radicals.

The people who removed the RCP were comrades and personal friends of mine and I stand by their actions 100%.

I said it last year when this happened and now I'll say it again:

This is why Kronstadt happened.

Salyut

15th March 2010, 18:32

Keith argues that if we are to save this planet, our food must be an act of profound and abiding repair: it must come from inside living communities, not be imposed across them.

So wait, its just a book about urban farming?

chegitz guevara

15th March 2010, 18:50

So wait, its just a book about urban farming?

She asserts that because of industrial farming, veganism and vegetarianism are no more moral than meat eating. The process of mono-cropping is just as destructive to animals and the ecosystem as the farming of animals, and that many vegan/vegetarian "facts" are completely false. She cites the comment that an acre of land can only support two chickens, when the figure is closer to 250, or that raising cattle uses 16 pounds of grain, when grass fed beef actually eat no grain, etc.

Nor does she seem to be a primitivist, as she's advocating sustainable agriculture, at least in the page to which I liked above.

This attack by masked anarchists is just further proof of anarchist intolerance.

The Douche

15th March 2010, 18:56

few have any clue about radical, revolutionary politics besides Stalinism!

Which is why we should oppose those anti-working class ideologies. Which is why I am standing by the actions the anarchists took against the RCP.

This is why Kronstadt happened.

Yeah, those pesky communist workers keep trying to threaten to rule of the party...assholes.

chegitz guevara

15th March 2010, 18:59

In My Experience if you treat comrades with respect, you will be treated with respect. If you treat others with respect, and they disrespect you in return, you come out of it looking better.

That said, I'm still human and I still get pissy at times. I'm not perfect, but I do try.

The Douche

15th March 2010, 19:09

chegitz guevara

15th March 2010, 19:22

Both groups want to overthrow capitalism.

The Douche

15th March 2010, 19:23

Both groups want to overthrow capitalism.

I am not convinced that the RCP (as an insitution) wants communism.

chegitz guevara

15th March 2010, 19:26

Fair enough. I just think we have enough to deal with as far as the capitalists are concerned to bother with fighting each other.

The Vegan Marxist

15th March 2010, 19:53

Don't vegans have to take b vitamin supplements to make up for their meatless diet or is this a myth?

Actually, studies have shown that even towards long-term vegans, a vitamin b deficiency is a rare occurrence. Though, that's not saying we shouldn't find ways of getting such. But it's also important to know that, if before a vegan you were a long-term meat eater, in which I was (steaks were the shit! :thumbup1:), then you would have built up around 20-30 years of vitamin b in your system, in which through that time period as a vegan, you wouldn't have to worry about it.

Edit: You should also check this out. It'll help you push away a lot of the myths made against veganism: http://www.pamrotella.com/health/b12.html

StalinFanboy

15th March 2010, 19:58

I'm not an RCP fan, but I was there that year and the RCP set up a booth outside of the outside free section. No space was provided for them, and considering some of the lifestyle bullshit in the free area, I think it's hypocritical to single them out. Also the Bay Area National Anarchist were walking around there that weekend (probably trying to recruit some mixed up lifestylists)... good job in attacking radicals you disagree with and not even noticing the fascist bigots walking around.

I have to deal with he RCP and at one time the Sparts all the time while organizing events - it's pretty easy to deal with them - either ignore them or if they are disruptive then organize people to escort other atendees past them or have people come to their booth and counter their bullshit.

The people that threw water at the RCP were also talking about how the New School occupation of that year in NYU wasn't radical enough so that should clue you into their immature political outlook: they don't have any clue how to organize or work with other people in the process of radicalizing to help build a movement.

...the fuck?

First of all, the people from BANA that were there were not making their presence known. Or else they would have been attacked too.

Second, even though they were outside of the free-area, they were distracting potential comrades with their statist, reformist filth. Anarchists have nothing in common with statists, especially the RCP. And we certainly have no interest in dialogue with these people.

Third, you clearly have no fucking clue about the kind of people that attacked the RCP. I am pretty sure Modesto Anarcho as a whole is more involved in our community than most groups. Your last paragraph is fucking laughable. Moron.

gorillafuck

15th March 2010, 20:07

And why should anarchists consider the RCP comrades?
I don't think you have to consider them comrades, but I don't see why you would try to fight against them. What's the point of that?

And I'm not too familiar with the situation but were they asked to leave before they had water dumped on them?

StalinFanboy

15th March 2010, 20:09

I don't think you have to consider them comrades, but I don't see why you would try to fight against them. What's the point of that?

Organizations like the RCP some of the most counter-revolutionary people in history. People who seek to manage, organize, or represent the working class should be attacked everytime they present themselves anywhere.

The Douche

15th March 2010, 20:12

I don't think you have to consider them comrades, but I don't see why you would try to fight against them. What's the point of that?

And I'm not too familiar with the situation but were they asked to leave before they had water dumped on them?

I think the RCP and organizations like that are the enemies of the working class. That's why should fight against them.

MarkP

15th March 2010, 21:08

Sorry I feel the RCP represents a threat to the working class,

Which is evidence only that you have no capacity to assess a threat. The RCP are complete irrelevance and the only issue worth debating about their future is whether they will (a) remain a complete irrelevance or will (b) fall apart entirely. If you seriously think that they represent a "threat", you must have difficulty crossing roads for fear that a speeding bus driven by Keanu Reeves will come hurtling by and kill you, or going outside in case a cartoon anvil falls on you.

and should not be permitted to propagate their ideas in the space created by legitimate working class radicals.

The Bay Area Anarchist Bookfair has nothing much to do with working class radicalism. It's the home of diet-obsessed nutcases and workshops on using saline solution to inflate your ballsack.

MarkP

15th March 2010, 21:18

People who seek to manage, organize, or represent the working class should be attacked everytime they present themselves anywhere.

You have a peculiar sense of priorities. The RCP has precisely zero influence over the working class, and close to zero capacity to manage, organise or represent it. That will never change.

If you were serious about the above, you'd be out physically attacking union locals. But you aren't serious about it. The kind of moronic posturing you engage in above is reserved strictly for the left ghetto, one group of completely irrelevant nutcases throwing water at another group of completely irrelevant nutcases and justifying it on the hilariously stupid grounds that the other group represents a threat to a working class which hasn't even heard of either group.

Dimentio

15th March 2010, 21:38

chegitz guevara

15th March 2010, 21:39

Actually, studies have shown that even towards long-term vegans, a vitamin b deficiency is a rare occurrence. Though, that's not saying we shouldn't find ways of getting such. But it's also important to know that, if before a vegan you were a long-term meat eater, in which I was (steaks were the shit! :thumbup1:), then you would have built up around 20-30 years of vitamin b in your system, in which through that time period as a vegan, you wouldn't have to worry about it.

B vitamins are water soluble. What you don't use immediately you piss out. You cannot build up a longer term supply (especially not decades long) of B vitamins. Vitamins B1 and B3 can kill you if you take to much, however, you have to really over do it. Too much B9 will hide the fact you don't have enough B12, the lack of which will cause neurological damage (and other nasty things)

StalinFanboy

15th March 2010, 21:45

You have a peculiar sense of priorities. The RCP has precisely zero influence over the working class, and close to zero capacity to manage, organise or represent it. That will never change.

If you were serious about the above, you'd be out physically attacking union locals. But you aren't serious about it. The kind of moronic posturing you engage in above is reserved strictly for the left ghetto, one group of completely irrelevant nutcases throwing water at another group of completely irrelevant nutcases and justifying it on the hilariously stupid grounds that the other group represents a threat to a working class which hasn't even heard of either group.
Wow dude, you're pretty sick.

The Red Next Door

15th March 2010, 22:05

I think the RCP and organizations like that are the enemies of the working class. That's why should fight against them.

How are they anti working class?

manic expression

15th March 2010, 22:20

People who seek to manage, organize, or represent the working class should be attacked everytime they present themselves anywhere.
So in other words, workers should be attacked "everytime they present themselves"? Interesting stance.

Invincible Summer

15th March 2010, 22:22

Organizations like the RCP some of the most counter-revolutionary people in history. People who seek to manage, organize, or represent the working class should be attacked everytime they present themselves anywhere.

I think the RCP and organizations like that are the enemies of the working class. That's why should fight against them.

And people call ML(M)s sectarian?

Wanted Man

15th March 2010, 22:44

Wow dude, you're pretty sick.

Truth hurts? I thought it was a good post, only the one just above it was better. :lol:

And people call ML(M)s sectarian?

I think the current line is: "We have nothing in common with them, because they are statists who need to be smashed, so that makes it okay." Of course, if the tables were turned, it would be more along the lines of "Help, help! We're being repressed!"

Omi

16th March 2010, 00:05

As an anarchist, I do not agree with or support assault on other left groups, however much you don't agree with them and call them anti-working class.

That sort of behaviour is unacceptable.

It must have been quite the sight, for any passers by, just interested in what those anarchists at the book fair where up to... Very mature indeed.

Revy

16th March 2010, 01:07

True, but it depends also on your career as well. I remember seeing this football player that went vegan, & stayed vegan. But then it wasn't helping him get in the shape he needed & had to go back to eating some meat.

Meat is basically flesh (fat and muscle). "Lean meat" is mostly muscle. When you think about it that way, (eating muscle to gain muscle) it doesn't seem so cool, no? Vegans can get plenty of protein.

Don't vegans have to take b vitamin supplements to make up for their meatless diet or is this a myth?Vegans don't "have" to take supplements at all. that canard about supplementation is just something to make veganism seem unnatural.

Revy

16th March 2010, 01:18

Anyway, I think the pieing has more to do with their anarchism than their veganism. This "bash the vegans " party we seem to having here seems fun and all, but it's inane.

The truth is, that veganism is the only way to reconcile the illogical contradictions that modern society has about animals, the dichotomy of pets and meat. You wouldn't know it, but a pig is smarter than your dog. Yet because the dog is far more cute, cuddly and furry, and we socially put it on a pedestal, that is why we are horrified at the killing and eating of canines. Someone might torture a cat, and get death threats, but brutally slaughter a chicken, and that's dinner, yum!

StalinFanboy

16th March 2010, 01:25

Meat is basically flesh (fat and muscle). "Lean meat" is mostly muscle. When you think about it that way, (eating muscle to gain muscle) it doesn't seem so cool, no? Vegans can get plenty of protein.

Sounds cool to me. And makes a lot of sense, too.

StalinFanboy

16th March 2010, 01:26

Revy

16th March 2010, 01:48

I actually like dogs more than pigs because dogs are loyal.
it's irrelevant whether they are loyal or not. anyway, plenty of humans have been mauled and even killed by ferocious dogs.

Jimmie Higgins

16th March 2010, 01:59

To the folks defending the trashing of the RCP's shit... if Modesto Anarcho can't easily take on the RCP's crazy ideas and political stances POLITICALLY, especially in from of a sympathetic crowd of mostly anarchists, then they aren't worth shit as radicals and have no business in politics.

I mean the RCP's bookstore has fucking pictures of Stalin in it... they make themselves marginal to anarchists and like-minded people without being physically attacked. Ironically "anti-authoritarians" like this act just like the worst and most idiotic Moaist sects from the 1970s. These so-called anti-authoritarians are doing harm to REAL anarchists who actually organize in the working class, are political, and have a clue about what is really going on.

In the midst of of the recession and the biggest attack on California workers ever (Meg Whitman is campagning on a platform of eliminating 40,000 jobs and eliminating pentions... Liberal mayor Gavin Newsom is planning on breaking public worker's unions in San Francisco) and pouring water on a maoist group (of what... 60 people in the bay area?) is the most notable thing they've accomplished!?

Grow the fuck up. We're under attack and you are playing sectarian little games. Worst of all you are making me defend the RCP and I fucking hate that. Bad politics will out - that goes for the RCP which seems to get smaller and smaller each year and these anti-authritarians... I refuse to call them anarchists out of respect for the working class anarchist traddition in the US.

The Douche

16th March 2010, 05:55

And people call ML(M)s sectarian?

Its not about secterianism, I think your ideology is anti-working class. You may be well intentioned, but then again, so are the fascists. RAAN has always been accused of secterianism anyways.

So in other words, workers should be attacked "everytime they present themselves"? Interesting stance.

Hahahahaha yeah, the RCP is totally synonomous with the working class.

How are they anti working class?

See:
China
USSR
DPRK
Vietnam
Cuba
Albania
etc

To the folks defending the trashing of the RCP's shit... if Modesto Anarcho can't easily take on the RCP's crazy ideas and political stances POLITICALLY, especially in from of a sympathetic crowd of mostly anarchists, then they aren't worth shit as radicals and have no business in politics.

Fuck you, fight me. Should we politically engage the enemies of the working class? Not in my opinion.

Jimmie Higgins

16th March 2010, 06:16

Fuck you, fight me.This really is a game to you isn't it.

Should we politically engage the enemies of the working class? Not in my opinion.Like I said, they should have ignored them then. Do you really think the RCP is capable of recruiting people at an anarchist bookfair?

They potentially endangered everyone and the bookfair itself with actions like this. What if it had started a fight and there was an undercover cop around when people do shit like this? Then what? What happens when the Anarchist bookfair can't get a location because rental spaces don't want people throwing pies and getting into fights on the location?

khad

16th March 2010, 06:25

General warning to everyone in the thread: COOL IT

We don't need leftists challenging each other to fistfights, even if it is just blowing off steam.

KlÃ©ber

16th March 2010, 06:28

Should we politically engage the enemies of the working class? Not in my opinion.
A political struggle would do way more to inform people of your superiority than drenching their entire central committee. If you are in the right, they should be the ones who have to resort to a physical struggle to shut you up. As MarkP said, the RCP is a joke, fucking with them is like, too easy. I'll admit that I LOLed when I heard about it, but actually, it's kind of cruel. The last I saw of RCP was at a hip hop concert, they were wearing overalls or something and nobody was approaching within 10 feet of their tent. They were hungrily staring out in all directions for the hope of human contact. I couldn't even imagine them defending themselves if they came under attack. Not that age should matter, the best organization might have the oldest members, but in this case, not one of them looked under 60, and no one attending the concert looked over 25. The revelers had like zero interest in Avakian's works, I doubt the RCP could have done much better at the ABF.

The Douche

16th March 2010, 06:38

This really is a gang to you isn't it.

Fixed that for you. You insulted not just my political comrades, but personal friends of mine. I have read your posts, I see where you're from, you don't strike me as a middle class college leftist (even though you are an ISOer), so I'm sure you're familiar with the way people feel when their friends are insulted.

Like I said, they should have ignored them then. Do you really think the RCP is capable of recruiting people at an anarchist bookfair?

Are fascists capable of recruiting at an anarchist bookfair? So should we tolerate their presence?

They potentially endangered everyone and the bookfair itself with actions like this. What if it had started a fight and there was an undercover cop around when people do shit like this? Then what? What happens when the Anarchist bookfair can't get a location because rental spaces don't want people throwing pies and getting into fights on the location?

Sorry, I tend to be a somewhat violent person, and I have gotten community spaces shut down because of fighting (not political spaces, but music venues), I'm not proud of it, but it happens, and I'm not especially scared of it. Not necessarily a positive trait, but, well, real talk.

A political struggle would do way more to inform people of your superiority than drenching their entire central committee. If you are in the right, they should be the ones who have to resort to a physical struggle to shut you up. As MarkP said, the RCP is a joke, fucking with them is like, too easy. I'll admit that I LOLed when I heard about it, but actually, it's kind of cruel. The last I saw of RCP was at a hip hop concert, they were wearing overalls or something and nobody was approaching within 10 feet of their tent. They were hungrily staring out in all directions for the hope of human contact. I couldn't even imagine them defending themselves if they came under attack. Not that age should matter, the best organization might have the oldest members, but in this case, not one of them looked under 60, and no one attending the concert looked over 25. The revelers had like zero interest in Avakian's works, I doubt the RCP could have done much better at the ABF.

Nonetheless, I don't think anarchists need to/should tolerate anti-working class organizations in their organizing/networking spaces. I think those concert goers should have run the patronizing RCPers off as well.

Wanted Man

16th March 2010, 08:00

god i hate vegans

Anyway, I think the pieing has more to do with their anarchism than their veganism. This "bash the vegans " party we seem to having here seems fun and all, but it's inane.

:lol: It is pretty embarrassing, fair enough.

Devrim

16th March 2010, 08:20

reminds me of my english friend who told me that during thatcher times the bigest topic in the anachist scene was wheter or not milk was rape....

Funnily enough I lived in England during the Thatcher period, and was a member of an anarchist organisation (DAM-IWA, now SolFed) for part of the time.

I remember many topics being important, Wapping, the Miners' strike, etc.

I don't think I ever met a Vegan though.

I think it says more about the people your friend mixed with rather than anarchism in general.

Devrim

manic expression

16th March 2010, 09:17

Hahahahaha yeah, the RCP is totally synonomous with the working class.
Obviously you entirely missed the point. la rage explicitly stated that people who "seek to...represent the working class" should be attacked. Of course, workers inherently represent the working class, as they are party to the working class. la rage, in essence, wants to attack all workers, everywhere.

Quite an interesting stance indeed, one that you are now defending. I should commend you and la rage for the measure of honesty you have shown: not many would take such a position on this forum, you two are surely exceptional in this regard.

manic expression

16th March 2010, 10:00

Are fascists capable of recruiting at an anarchist bookfair? So should we tolerate their presence?
I'm curious: cmoney, do you oppose fascists because they seek to attack workers and/or working-class organizations?

Revy

16th March 2010, 10:23

She asserts that because of industrial farming, veganism and vegetarianism are no more moral than meat eating. The process of mono-cropping is just as destructive to animals and the ecosystem as the farming of animals, and that many vegan/vegetarian "facts" are completely false. She cites the comment that an acre of land can only support two chickens, when the figure is closer to 250, or that raising cattle uses 16 pounds of grain, when grass fed beef actually eat no grain, etc.

Nor does she seem to be a primitivist, as she's advocating sustainable agriculture, at least in the page to which I liked above.

This attack by masked anarchists is just further proof of anarchist intolerance.

she is a primitivist, why else would she say this? also the article in the first post said she was friends with Derrick Jensen, a prominent primitivist.

We have to be willing to face the answer. What’s looming in the shadows of our ignorance and denial is a critique of civilization itself. The starting point may be what we eat, but the end is an entire way of life, a global arrangement of power, and no small measure of personal attachment to it. I remember the day in fourth grade when Miss Fox wrote two words on the blackboard: civilization and agriculture. I remember because of the hush in her voice, the gravitas of her words, the explanation that was almost oratory. This was Important. And I understood. Everything that was good in human culture flowed from this point: all ease, grace, justice. Religion, science, medicine, art were born, and the endless struggle against starvation, disease, violence could be won, all because humans figured out how to grow their own food.

The reality is that agriculture has created a net loss for human rights and culture: slavery, imperialism, militarism, class divisions, chronic hunger, and disease. “The real problem, then, is not to explain why some people were slow to adopt agriculture but why anybody took it up at all, when it is so obviously beastly,” writes Colin Tudge of The London School of Economics. Agriculture has also been devastating to the other creatures with whom we share the earth, and ultimately to the life support systems of the planet itself. What is at stake is everything. If we want a sustainable world, we have to be willing to examine the power relations behind the foundational myth of our culture. Anything less and we will fail.

Questioning at that level is difficult for most people. In this case, the emotional struggle inherent in resisting any hegemony is compounded by our dependence on civilization, and on our individual helplessness to stop it. Most of us would have no chance of survival if the industrial infrastructure collapsed tomorrow. And our consciousness is equally impeded by our powerlessness. There is no Ten Simple Things list in the last chapter because, frankly, there aren’t ten simple things that will save the earth. There is no personal solution. There is an interlocking web of hierarchical arrangements, vast systems of power that have to be confronted and dismantled. We can disagree about how best to do that, but do it we must if the earth is to have any chance of surviving.

She also falsely claims that human bodies were "designed" for meat, because humans can't survive on grass (cellulose, non-digestible). She apparently doesn't realize the stark similarities our bodies have with herbivores, and the many differences anatomically that separate us from carnivores. Our evolutionary ancestors were herbivores, they were tree dwellers, that ate fruits and nuts. Our ancestors had no weapons with which to hunt - otherwise, we would have been useless in a fight with a predator preying upon us (we STILL are), the fact that she compares us to lions is not only absurd, it's ignorant. We are only at the top of the food chain through weapons, tools. Biologically, we are not predators.

Jimmie Higgins

16th March 2010, 12:18

Fixed that for you. You insulted not just my political comrades, but personal friends of mine.I didn't say anything about them or their mother's or their bucked-teeth. In other words I didn't talk about them personally, I'm talking about this incident and so don't try an pull that boo-hoo shit. And I'll ignore that untrue stereotypical and unpolitical swipe at my friends and comrades, so we can get to the point and back to the issues:

Sorry, I tend to be a somewhat violent person, and I have gotten community spaces shut down because of fighting (not political spaces, but music venues), I'm not proud of it, but it happens, and I'm not especially scared of it. Not necessarily a positive trait, but, well, real talk.Right, so that's fine if it happens to the Anarchist Bookfair? We don't need more open spaces for the radical left to exchange some ideas - places for people who are just starting to become radical to come?

Oh but you didn't organize it, so what the fuck, who cares right? A political venue and some club or house-party are totally the same and if it get's shut down, whatever?

But what if it was something you and your friends are trying to build? What if someone liked Modesto Anarcho and started making their own copies, but they added some articles of their own about making molotov coctails and talked about illegal exploits. The what if the cops used that and shut down your friends, confiscate the computers, and put them in jail under trumped up charges because of that? Oops. Would you have the same "Shit happens" attitude about that? Because basically that's what pie-throwing, and physical attacks and other stunts at events other radicals have organized does.

This is not a game, radical politics isn't a playground. If we don't build a strong and organized left with real ties to the working class soon, fascists are going to be beating up immigrants all over California and increasing their numbers as the economy gets worse for working people and both bourgoise parties blame immigrants, and union workers, for the budget crisis. Ignore the RCP, make fun of them with your friends like the rest of the bay area radical left and build fightback against the strike breakers, union busters, Democrats and Republicans. We're entering a time of major class struggle in Cali and probably soon the rest of the US. That's going to separate the real organizers and real politics (the people who have useful ideas and tactics for the working class fight-back) from the game-players and cult-followers.

chegitz guevara

16th March 2010, 14:04

she is a primitivist, why else would she say this? also the article in the first post said she was friends with Derrick Jensen, a prominent primitivist.

She also falsely claims that human bodies were "designed" for meat, because humans can't survive on grass (cellulose, non-digestible). She apparently doesn't realize the stark similarities our bodies have with herbivores, and the many differences anatomically that separate us from carnivores. Our evolutionary ancestors were herbivores, they were tree dwellers, that ate fruits and nuts. Our ancestors had no weapons with which to hunt - otherwise, we would have been useless in a fight with a predator preying upon us (we STILL are), the fact that she compares us to lions is not only absurd, it's ignorant. We are only at the top of the food chain through weapons, tools. Biologically, we are not predators.

Actually, our digestive tracts are much more similar to carnivores than to herbivores (6x body length, carnivores - 4.5x, herbivores - 11x).

Chimpanzees, our closest relatives, also eat meat, and evidence of meat eating in our ancestors goes back to homo erectus, i.e., several million years.

And, most importantly, if we weren't adapted to eating meat, we wouldn't eat meat. We aren't adapted to eat grass, so we don't eat grass. We don't eat bark (except cinnamon). We don't eat rocks like lichens (except salt). We don't eat dung. We aren't adapted to eat any of that, though other life forms are. Most humans can't eat dairy, so they don't. Those of us who are adapted, do.

I have no real problem with veganism as a moral stance, but it needs to stop spreading lies.

The Douche

16th March 2010, 15:57

I didn't say anything about them or their mother's or their bucked-teeth. In other words I didn't talk about them personally, I'm talking about this incident and so don't try an pull that boo-hoo shit. And I'll ignore that untrue stereotypical and unpolitical swipe at my friends and comrades, so we can get to the point and back to the issues:

Your implication that the MAC can't politically engage the RCP is insulting. You know its not true.

Right, so that's fine if it happens to the Anarchist Bookfair? We don't need more open spaces for the radical left to exchange some ideas - places for people who are just starting to become radical to come?

Of course violence is unfortunate, whenever it occurs, and for whatever reason. But I do recognize that it just happens some times, especially in the left.

Oh but you didn't organize it, so what the fuck, who cares right? A political venue and some club or house-party are totally the same and if it get's shut down, whatever?

That is a misrepresentation of what I said. Its not that I don't care, or that it doesn't bother me because I didn't organize it, its because I think violence is a part of everyday life, because for me, it essentially has been. And around here, we don't have political venues, community spaces for music events are the only space we have to get working class kids together, and yes we use them for propaganda. But if a nazi showed up, I wouldn't hesitate to smash him up, even though I know that means the venue will be closed.

But what if it was something you and your friends are trying to build? What if someone liked Modesto Anarcho and started making their own copies, but they added some articles of their own about making molotov coctails and talked about illegal exploits. The what if the cops used that and shut down your friends, confiscate the computers, and put them in jail under trumped up charges because of that? Oops. Would you have the same "Shit happens" attitude about that? Because basically that's what pie-throwing, and physical attacks and other stunts at events other radicals have organized does.

Anarchists throwing pies at other anarchists, and anarchists dumping water on communists, is being equated with the arrest based on trumped up charges of the MAC? Come on, the police don't give two shits what we do to each other, as long as it doesn't bother the public/private property.

This is not a game, radical politics isn't a playground. If we don't build a strong and organized left with real ties to the working class soon, fascists are going to be beating up immigrants all over California and increasing their numbers as the economy gets worse for working people and both bourgoise parties blame immigrants, and union workers, for the budget crisis. Ignore the RCP, make fun of them with your friends like the rest of the bay area radical left and build fightback against the strike breakers, union busters, Democrats and Republicans. We're entering a time of major class struggle in Cali and probably soon the rest of the US. That's going to separate the real organizers and real politics (the people who have useful ideas and tactics for the working class fight-back) from the game-players and cult-followers.

I don't know what the ISO is doing out in california, maybe you really are making connections to the working class, but whenever I saw them out here (which hasn't been in a while) they were just college kids, and they seemed like activists, not militants. And I think you know that the MAC and FTTP are doing important work and making positive gains in the movement in california. And part of the struggle we have to wage is to struggle against groups who promote themselves as liberatory, but aren't.

bcbm

16th March 2010, 16:07

Your implication that the MAC can't politically engage the RCP is insulting. You know its not true.

i've no love for the rcp and a ton of respect for you as well as the mac, but if you can engage them politically why would you choose force instead? in fact i would question why you would engage them at all. i understand the opposition to anti-working class groups on the left, but the fact is that the rcp are irrelevant and (barring the second coming of christ) will always be irrelevant. why bother? i think them masturbating about bob avakian outside of an anarchist bookfair will turn more people off than fighting them ever could.

Come on, the police don't give two shits what we do to each other, as long as it doesn't bother the public/private property.

generally the police are pretty interested in factional and personal disputes within opposition groups because it provides situations they can exploit to the detriment of all parties involved and to the benefit of the state.

KlÃ©ber

16th March 2010, 16:26

Nonetheless, I don't think anarchists need to/should tolerate anti-working class organizations in their organizing/networking spaces. I think those concert goers should have run the patronizing RCPers off as well.
Well, the Anarchist Bookfair had every right to exclude the RCP, and they were obviously asking for it, but from reading online, it seems that not all diplomatic options were exhausted before MAC deployed the "bucket from Salt Lake."

As for the concert, it would be beside the point. Nobody would even take their stuff for free, it was more like a zoological exhibit of some extinct type of dinosaurs. Music, beer, and weed beat the RCP without a fight. Could libertarian socialism not do the same? Initiating physical hostilities against them vindicates their idiocy, it gives them a sense of identity and a persecution complex. 10 years from now, if they are still going, it will have turned into "the anarchists brutally assaulted us with clubs and knives for trying to sell our paper!"

StalinFanboy

16th March 2010, 19:45

Wolf Larson

16th March 2010, 20:19

I've tabled at the anarchist book fair for the last few years and my zine-collaborator and I were debating going again this year and decided against it. I really got sick of all the non-political lifestylists and this confirms my worst feeling about some of the attendees at this event. It's really too bad, I had some good experiences there and met some great syndicalists and radicals from up and down the coast, but after the RCP got attacked last year and now this, I am really convinced that a sizable portion of people there are totally diconnected from the politcal and social realities going on right now and don't have a clue who their real fucking enemies are.

I was there this year and besides the vegan lifestyle militia you know who else I saw? "Anarcho" capitalists from the inner East Bay. These are the people who need to be pied and maced. Hell, I'd shoot them in the groin in revolutionary conditions.

As far as vegans go I had the misfortune of being in a relationship with vegan and was called a neolithic cave man [rather passively] for quite some time until I came out to our kitchen in the middle of the night and caught her jonesing on some tri-tip I had in the fridge like a rabid animal. Meat was in her teeth, coming out of her mouth, it was rare so there was a small trinkle of very light pink blood on her lips....she looked like a vampire feasting after 300 years of sleep. It was about a half LB chunk in her hand...bite marks in it as if a shark attacked it. I thought meat was going missing for a while, I'd buy turkey deli meat and it seemed to not last as long as it should have so I guess she was skimming off the top the entire time. The moral superiority game she played with me disappeared in a flash after the steak incident....as did our relationship. I started calling her Claudia [from interview with a vampire] around her friends and she thought I was going to sell her out. I guess her image was more important than our relationship. Meat. She liked meat. Perhaps all of them secretly devour meat like savage beasts in the dead of night? I'll never know. I'm not getting in another relationship with a vegan. Is that discrimination? ;)

Delenda Carthago

16th March 2010, 20:25

you wanna know what might happened in Greece if some lifestylists stopped something serious,specially in times like these?

manic expression

16th March 2010, 21:07

We have absolutely no interest in dialogue with people who identify with a political tendency that has historically directed violence toward anarchists and working class people.
How can this be, if you explicitly propose attacking workers and working-class organizations?

Jimmie Higgins

16th March 2010, 22:12

Your implication that the MAC can't politically engage the RCP is insulting. You know its not true.I do know that's not true, that's my point. I would just ignore them, but if you think they are important or disruptive enough that they need ot go, then get a friend and sit down next to them and when anyone comes up to them, you or your comrade can ask one of the two or thre RCP people: "why is it that your organization used to think homosexuality is bourgoise and decadent until a few years ago?" Or stand there next to them with a sign that says that or says they support Stalin.

That would probably cause them to leave faster than anything else - and if it doesn't, well then you've just exposed their weird politics to the 5 or 6 people that came up to them at the Anarchist bookfair. Then they can't play the victim, there's no chance that anything physical would happen that might draw the cops.

Personally I would just ignore them because as much thuggery they've done in the past, and as much as their politics are crazy, Fascists exist to organize and intimidate workers (specifically blacks, LGBT, immigrants and women) so the nazis and minutemen need to be confronted. RCP don't exist to intimidate workers, just to bore them. So, imo it's best to take them on politically and expose them to workers, not resort to 1970s RU (pre-RCP) type actions.

KurtFF8

16th March 2010, 23:53

I'm not sure why people continue to believe that anarchists and statists are in the same sect. The "attack" on the RCP was not sectarian because they are not our comrades. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with our inability to confront them politically (whatever that means. Do people honestly think that some anarchist kids from the Central Valley are going to change their minds? ha!), we have no interest in talking to these people. We have absolutely no interest in dialogue with people that view the state as a neutral tool and view capitalism as something that can be reformed. We have absolutely no interest in dialogue with people who identify with a political tendency that has historically directed violence toward anarchists and working class people.

Also, it's important to note that the RCP did not show up at the bookfair this year, at least not as a group with a table trying to sell their shit. Take that as you will, but it looks like a victory to me.

What do you mean in "different sects" The idea that Communists and Anarchists are just so inherently enemies or just "can't work together" or "aren't comrades" goes against the very nature of the website you're posting on right now.

If what you're saying is true, then RevLeft is itself an absurd forum, and either Anarchists or Communists should be lumped into the IO sub-forum. But the reality is that there is more than one common trait that links the Revolutionary Left: opposition to Capital, the desire for a stateless classless society, human development over profit, opposition to imperialism, anti-racism/sexism/homophobia/etc.

It's attitudes like yours, and I've seen this from other anarchists (and some Communists, but mainly anarchists) that "we just can't and shouldn't work together" is even worse than the most ridiculous and sectarian Marxist organizations like the Sparts who go to every ISO event and just yell at the ISO.

Fortunately this isn't the general trend of the Left that I've seen in the US recently, and it seems that the European Left is moving away from this as well (for example, in Germany you have a party that has the former Socialist Unity Party and a Libertarian Socialist wing under one party). Much of the Left in the US is moving away from this "let's focus on our differences!" attitude and towards a way of finding common ground.

There are obviously some important discussions and debates to be had, but some of these sectarian political conclusions are getting absurd.

The OP is an interesting bizarre case of this too. The idea that vegetarianism or veganism need to militantly defended shows how removed from the actual movement of human emancipation some are. I don't consider people who care enough about their diet to throw pies on the faces of those who oppose it to be part of the same Movement that I'm in (perhaps this is why I stopped being vegetarian, to distance myself from this kind of stuff)

Wolf Larson

17th March 2010, 00:14

revolution inaction

17th March 2010, 00:31

What do you mean in "different sects" The idea that Communists and Anarchists are just so inherently enemies or just "can't work together" or "aren't comrades" goes against the very nature of the website you're posting on right now.
anarchists and communists are not enemys, infact they are often the same people,but leninists are not communists and what they do is oppossed to communism.
This doesn't mean i think attacking the RCP is a good idea, I think its really silly and a wast of time, although also funny, it makes us look bad, and it doesn't achieve anything. Why cares if they have a stall out side the book fair?

Sendo

17th March 2010, 01:12

anarchists and communists are not enemys, infact they are often the same people,but leninists are not communists and what they do is oppossed to communism.
This doesn't mean i think attacking the RCP is a good idea, I think its really silly and a wast of time, although also funny, it makes us look bad, and it doesn't achieve anything. Why cares if they have a stall out side the book fair?

Because guaranteed employment, equal rights for women and minorities, and a check to US Imperialism move us in a regressive direction? You can complain about and distance yourself from Leninists, but to call them the enemy is pure hogwash.

Invincible Summer

17th March 2010, 01:12

Take that as you will, but it looks like a victory to me.

I think it's people who don't want to deal with immature hot heads

The Feral Underclass

17th March 2010, 07:40

I think the current line is: "We have nothing in common with them, because they are statists who need to be smashed, so that makes it okay." Of course, if the tables were turned, it would be more along the lines of "Help, help! We're being repressed!"

Well, actually, the tables have been turned, but in that instance Maoists and Trotskyists actually murdered anarchists, rather than broke their windows. Socialist state repression against anarchists is well documented, so I find it hugly hypocritical that you can accuse anarchists of sectarianism for smashing a window, when violence against anarchists is part of the history and tradition that you people support and defend.

Perhaps you could try being a bit more honest about it. If you statists got into power you'd have absolutely no problem with using violence against anarchists, so cut the fucking crap.

Revy

17th March 2010, 08:02

I think vegans and non-vegans on the left can come to a common ground where we need to treat animals better. That they need to have cruelty-free lives. I am not a "pure" vegan, I kill insects. but there are vegans who would "live in harmony with a roach" and I think that's taking the ethics a bit too far. And some of them bug-lovers like to spew BS like "they're only there because you're messy with food. Haha! Bullshit. this one infestation was in my bookshelf. the roaches shitted all over my books. it's not like I eat on books.

Devrim

17th March 2010, 09:03

Obviously you entirely missed the point. la rage explicitly stated that people who "seek to...represent the working class" should be attacked. Of course, workers inherently represent the working class, as they are party to the working class. la rage, in essence, wants to attack all workers, everywhere.

Quite an interesting stance indeed, one that you are now defending. I should commend you and la rage for the measure of honesty you have shown: not many would take such a position on this forum, you two are surely exceptional in this regard.

I think that you have entirely missed his point. He is not talking about attacking the working class, but attacking those who seek to represent it. As Sorel wrote in 1907 "Nothing resembles a representative of the bourgeoisie more than a representative of the proletariat".

Whether attacking Maoist is a wise thing to do, and I think it isn't, you are missing his point here completely, and I suspect deliberately.

Devrim

manic expression

17th March 2010, 09:13

I think that you have entirely missed his point. He is not talking about attacking the working class, but attacking those who seek to represent it.
Therein lies the dilemma. It is simple logic that every worker represents the working class. Take any worker at random and you have, inherently, a representative of the working class. And s/he, admittedly wants to attack them. Just as importantly, s/he clearly wants to attack working-class organizations.

Using that logic, if we were to go back to the Paris Commune, la rage would encourage attacks on all the delegates of the Commune, for they were seeking to represent their class. Is there an immediate difference between this and Versailles' actions? Not at all, actually.

Bolshevism1917

17th March 2010, 09:22

I'm not sure why people continue to believe that anarchists and statists are in the same sect

Statists? Honestly? I don't think you or any other Anarchist can provide a coherent definition of what the state is, nor can you provide a reasoned account of why the Russian Revolution failed, for that matter.

Devrim

17th March 2010, 09:59

It is simple logic that every worker represents the working class. Take any worker at random and you have, inherently, a representative of the working class.

That is using representative with a completely different meaning than it was being used.

And s/he, admittedly wants to attack them. Just as importantly, s/he clearly wants to attack working-class organizations.

It is a semantic argument and a very week one at that.

Devrim

manic expression

17th March 2010, 10:05

That is using representative with a completely different meaning than it was being used.
Not at all. Workers represent the working class. That is a perfectly reasonable statement. If you'd like to say that workers do not represent the working class, or if you'd like to explain this anarchist belief with more depth and sophistication, you're more than welcome, but until then my point stands.

It is a semantic argument and a very week one at that.
It is hardly semantic if it is precisely what the poster said. Working-class organizations, by their very nature, represent the working class, do they not? A yes or no answer will do fine here, I would hate to see anyone strain themselves.

Devrim

17th March 2010, 10:21

Not at all. Workers represent the working class. That is a perfectly reasonable statement. If you'd like to say that workers do not represent the working class, or if you'd like to explain this anarchist belief with more depth and sophistication, you're more than welcome, but until then my point stands.

It is hardly semantic if it is precisely what the poster said. Working-class organizations, by their very nature, represent the working class, do they not? A yes or no answer will do fine here, I would hate to see anyone strain themselves.

If you go to a dictionary website such as Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary which I am using here, you will see that the verb 'to represent' has two distinct different meanings:

Definition represent verb (ACT FOR)

/ˌrep.rɪˈzent/ v

•
[T] to speak, act or be present officially for another person or people
They chose a famous barrister to represent them in court.
Union officials representing the teachers met the government today.
I sent my husband to represent me at the funeral.
Women were well/poorly represented at the conference (= there were many/few present).

•
[T] to be the Member of Parliament, or of Congress, etc. for a particular area
Mr Smythe represents Barnet.

•
[T] formal to express or complain about something, to a person in authority
We represented our grievances/demands to the boss.

Definition represent verb (DESCRIBE)

/ˌrep.rɪˈzent/ v

•
[T] to show or describe something or someone
[+ -ing verb] The statue represents St George killing the dragon.
This new report represents the current situation in our schools.
He represents himself as an expert, but he knows nothing.

•
[T] to be a sign or symbol of something
To many people the Queen represents the former glory of Britain.

He is clearly using the first definition, and you are using a mixture of both..

Devrim

manic expression

17th March 2010, 10:31

If you go to a dictionary website such as Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary which I am using here, you will see that the verb 'to represent' has two distinct different meanings:

He is clearly using the first definition, and you are using a mixture of both..
If we apply the argument to the first definition: someone who stands for the working class should be attacked, someone who is a member of the working class should be attacked and someone who expresses the grievances/demands of the workers should be attacked.

Like I said, it's an interesting position, to say the least.

Saorsa

17th March 2010, 13:28

The Douche

17th March 2010, 14:18

wah wah mean nasty leninists gonna kill us all, let's go pour water on their stuff and destroy all their literature cos we're too politically weak to actually challenge them through argument. And let's ignore the fact that if the RCP had done the same thing to anarchists, or if any leninist group had done anything similar to anarchists, it'd be an *outrage* and definitive proof that leninists are anti-worker sectarian statists blah blah blah

Get a fucking grip. La rage obviously doesn't know what the hell he's talking about... for all the many problems with the RCP, they do *not* believe that the state is a 'neutral instrument' and that capitalism can be reformed. No Leninist believes that.

Get back to me when you're interested in being a political militant, as opposed to an angry liberal with a fetish for violence against other leftists who you think are mean to you.

Bloody pathetic

Looks like somebody is mad that Leninists aren't capable of defending themselves physically, and are no longer considered politically relevant by the broad working class in the first world.

If the RCP had attacked anarchists (which they have in the past, and trots) then I would have the exact same position I have now, we should attack them. It is not an outrage, we have diametrically opposed ideas, I stand for the liberation of the working class, you stand for its subservience to your party.

We don't oppose the RCP because they're "mean". We oppose them because they're anti-working class, you're not saying anything in your post that hasn't been previously adressed. Fuck yourself.

The Douche

17th March 2010, 14:33

generally the police are pretty interested in factional and personal disputes within opposition groups because it provides situations they can exploit to the detriment of all parties involved and to the benefit of the state.

This is true, I just meant as far as legal reprecussions or some sort of negative police effect, I don't think the cops care if some anarchists pie each other or some anarchists rough up some maoists.

Saorsa

17th March 2010, 14:38

Looks like somebody is mad that Leninists aren't capable of defending themselves physically

???

This is just weird. Some Leninists are big tough macho men that might be able to impress cmoney with their rippling muscles and knowledge of kung fu, others aren't. Same as it is with anarchists, and... well, all human beings. What a bizarre comment to make.

and are no longer considered politically relevant by the broad working class in the first world.

Yeah, true, and it looks especially bad when you look at the influence of anarchist ideas and the support for anarchist organisations in the broad working class. Oh wait...

If the RCP had attacked anarchists (which they have in the past, and trots) then I would have the exact same position I have now, we should attack them.

Didn't your mummy ever tell you that two wrongs don't make a right? I'm not seeing how leftists getting into punch ups helps to build a revolutionary workers movement.

It is not an outrage, we have diametrically opposed ideas, I stand for the liberation of the working class, you stand for its subservience to your party.

Right then.

We don't oppose the RCP because they're "mean". We oppose them because they're anti-working class, you're not saying anything in your post that hasn't been previously adressed.

Who's this 'we', and who gave you the right to speak for the working class?

Fuck yourself.

I'll get onto that. In the meantime, perhaps you should get back to your day job... I'm sure there are some Arabs that need killing, and you should really do your bit helping out with that. The imperialist war machine won't run itself :)

The Douche

17th March 2010, 15:18

This is just weird. Some Leninists are big tough macho men that might be able to impress cmoney with their rippling muscles and knowledge of kung fu, others aren't. Same as it is with anarchists, and... well, all human beings. What a bizarre comment to make.

The fact that you think the MAC had to "resort" to violence because of ineptitude at politics is laughable. The RCP are probably the least politically adept group on the US left. You paint the anarchists as violent neanderthals, but really you're scared that this eviction of your politics from our spaces might spread to your locale.

Yeah, true, and it looks especially bad when you look at the influence of anarchist ideas and the support for anarchist organisations in the broad working class. Oh wait...

I experience far more sympathy for anarchism than Leninism (especially of the Maoist/anti-revisionist variety) in the working class.

Didn't your mummy ever tell you that two wrongs don't make a right? I'm not seeing how leftists getting into punch ups helps to build a revolutionary workers movement.

I don't think smashing up wannabe oppressors (even if they're dressed in red) is wrong. And combatting reactionary forces/ideas is a necessary part of building a revolutionary movement. I'm an anarchist, I wouldn't show up at the RCP bookstore and try to sell my own literature on the sidewalk outside, if I did, they would react in a similar fashion. Or, knowing the way they operate nowadays, they'd probably call the pigs.

Who's this 'we', and who gave you the right to speak for the working class?

In this instance I am referring specifically to the anarchist movement.

I'll get onto that. In the meantime, perhaps you should get back to your day job... I'm sure there are some Arabs that need killing, and you should really do your bit helping out with that. The imperialist war machine won't run itself :)

Oh, cool bro.:thumbup1:

revolution inaction

17th March 2010, 15:44

Because guaranteed employment, equal rights for women and minorities, and a check to US Imperialism move us in a regressive direction? You can complain about and distance yourself from Leninists, but to call them the enemy is pure hogwash.

We want communsim, not a nicer kind of capitalism, and what about the other stuff leninist have done? repressing strikes, shooting people who tryed to run there soviets in the democratic way, mismanaging the agriculture of countries resulting in millions of dead? If someone considers leinist anti working class do you really think they are talking about giving equal rights to women? or are you strawmaning?

manic expression

17th March 2010, 16:34

The fact that you think the MAC had to "resort" to violence because of ineptitude at politics is laughable. The RCP are probably the least politically adept group on the US left. You paint the anarchists as violent neanderthals, but really you're scared that this eviction of your politics from our spaces might spread to your locale.
Let us know when that happens. In the meantime, perhaps you could explain la rage's position that all workers and working-class organizations should attacked whenever they present themselves. Such an explanation, after all, would surely disprove any claims of political ineptitude.

I experience far more sympathy for anarchism than Leninism (especially of the Maoist/anti-revisionist variety) in the working class.
The most influential revolutionary organizations in the world today, including the US, are communist (Leninist) organizations. That's plainly indisputable.

The Douche

17th March 2010, 16:44

Let us know when that happens. In the meantime, perhaps you could explain la rage's position that all workers and working-class organizations should attacked whenever they present themselves. Such an explanation, after all, would surely disprove any claims of political ineptitude.

There is nothing to explain, notice how you're the only one who is interpretting what he said in that way? You either know exactly what he means, but you're pretending not to, or you're a moron.

The most influential revolutionary organizations in the world today, including the US, are communist (Leninist) organizations. That's plainly indisputable.

Just because a couple leninist parties have big anti-war front groups does not mean that they are the most influential revolutionary organizations in the country. And ultimately it seems like those organizations have failed to produce anything more than a name under which liberals can ask nicely for peace. If you think that is being influential then I'd rather be insignificant.

KurtFF8

17th March 2010, 16:53

cmoney, you're stance of "they're anti-working class, so they ought to be attacked!" is a political conclusion that any sectarian segment of the Left could hold about just about any other segment (and this does happen of course). Even amongst, let's say, Trotskyist groups: there's a lot of "your organization is anti-working class!" But that argument on its own doesn't seem to justify, to people who are not in that group, their further political actions now does it?

I'm sure that many in the RCP see those anarchists as "anti-working class" for their tactics, strategies, ideologies, etc. as well (and many Marxists do hold that). So to justify those actions because the RCP is "simply anti-working class" is quite a jump, especially if you're actually trying to defend those actions to people who may see those actions as wrong.

I mean if you point to the violent conflict between Communists and Anarchists in the past, in "Socialist States," you'll see that the Leninists of those times were attacking the Anarchists for being "anti-working class," does that mean that those attacks on Anarchists were justified? It's the same argument that you're using here.

These petty fights about Leninism being anti-worker, or "we just can't work together" seem to be quite cryptic and irrelevant to the actual working class. I'm sorry, but in building a revolutionary movement in a place like the United States, one of the key things that is NOT needed are these petty fights. They're not a sign of real intellectual disagreement, not even honest political battling but are just a sign of outdated sectarianism that people feel they need to hold onto for some reason.

manic expression

17th March 2010, 17:01

There is nothing to explain, notice how you're the only one who is interpretting what he said in that way? You either know exactly what he means, but you're pretending not to, or you're a moron.
He clearly stated his desire to attack any representative of the working class. Obviously, workers represent their own class because they're a part of it, so he wants to attack all workers, as well as all working-class organizations. That's exactly what he said and no one has proven otherwise. Devrim tried, but I've already dealt with those inadequate arguments in turn.

So once again, perhaps you can provide an explanation for la rage's position. It would put to rest any claims of political ineptitude.

Just because a couple leninist parties have big anti-war front groups does not mean that they are the most influential revolutionary organizations in the country. And ultimately it seems like those organizations have failed to produce anything more than a name under which liberals can ask nicely for peace. If you think that is being influential then I'd rather be insignificant.
That's not nearly all that Leninist parties do: organizing against police brutality, fighting capitalist assaults on workers' livelihoods, pro-union work, standing up to racist ideologues, promoting revolutionary ideas throughout the US and more...just a taste of what Leninist parties do in the US, so obviously your conclusions are based on false information. Further, ANSWER is far and away the most effective anti-imperialist coalition in the US, its marches mobilize thousands to oppose imperialism (not just this or that war, but imperialism itself). As for liberals, they've already run away from ANSWER through UFPJ because they couldn't stomach ANSWER's anti-imperialist rhetoric, so that perception of yours has nothing to do with reality.

But on another note, I would like to congratulate you, again, for your honesty. Not many would admit that they are insignificant, as you have. Your willingness to say that you are insignificant is, if nothing else, refreshing.

The Douche

17th March 2010, 17:01

The Douche

17th March 2010, 17:03

I'm going to work, I'll edit this post with a response to manic expression when I get home.

manic expression

17th March 2010, 17:03

but the anti-revisionists hold an ideology which is opposed to socialism.
And why, exactly, is that? What is socialism, and how are anti-revisionists opposed to it?

KurtFF8

17th March 2010, 17:30

I mean, hoestly, I don't know why people are always trying to come out against secterianism, it is necessary. I don't have anything in common with the Leninists, maybe the left of the Trotskyist movement, in struggle, can be won over to the side of the working class, but the anti-revisionists hold an ideology which is opposed to socialism. What do you want me to say? I don't want the same thing as the RCP, what they want, is something I stand against. So why in the hell should we let them try to distribute literature in our spaces?

Its not outdated, its not cryptic. I want to destroy the state, the Leninists want to create a new one. We are not on the same team.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying "everyone in the Left should/can just work together!" I don't see myself working with the Spart League or the RCP any time soon. But there's a difference between that and this level of sectarianism that isn't based on legitimate fragmentation.

There are some legitimate differences among the Left, and fetishing unity in spite of those differences as an intrinsic value can be just as problematic as opposing the division. That said, I see a trend on the Left of those divisions becoming less relevant instead of remaining to be or becoming more relevant. Something you obviously don't see as happening.

I also think that these divisions you are harping on (e.g. "Leninists just want another state!") just perpetuates old arguments that aren't going to get anywhere. For example the anti-statist argument is a bit outdated. Those of us calling for a worker's state are calling for a radically different kind of state (and I would go as far as to say, even radically different form the previous attempts at building a workers state). So for Anarchists to just blanketly oppose it, whatever it may be, before there's any sign of the actual form it would take, is problematic.

There are real struggles going on that would really benefit from Leftists working together right now and holding on to these old battles does much more harm than help.

I have, and will continue to, work with Anarchists on the projects locally that I'm involved in (hell I even used to volunteer at the local infoshop). The idea that we can't get past our political differences to work on common campaigns was proven wrong day after day in my town, and other parts of my state as well. That's the kind of Left I personally want to see, and I hope that I'm on the majority opinion here.

StalinFanboy

17th March 2010, 19:41

Statists? Honestly? I don't think you or any other Anarchist can provide a coherent definition of what the state is, nor can you provide a reasoned account of why the Russian Revolution failed, for that matter.
A state is a centralized, hierarchical "organ" that imposes it's will upon a group of people.

The Russian Revolution is not really being discussed here, so whatever reason it failed is neither here nor there. You can go stroke your bolshevik hard-on somewhere else.

StalinFanboy

17th March 2010, 19:49

If we apply the argument to the first definition: someone who stands for the working class should be attacked, someone who is a member of the working class should be attacked and someone who expresses the grievances/demands of the workers should be attacked.

Like I said, it's an interesting position, to say the least.
I think the mediation of the working class through "Parties" and other forms of representation and organization that exist outside of the working class in order to organize the working class is counter-revolutionary. There is a difference between self-organization and "Party" organization. I think the most important difference is that self-organization occurs when workers begin to act in their class self-interest, and Parties exist to serve their own ends, which may or may not be in the interest of the working class, as individuals and as a whole.

StalinFanboy

17th March 2010, 19:52

wah wah mean nasty leninists gonna kill us all, let's go pour water on their stuff and destroy all their literature cos we're too politically weak to actually challenge them through argument. And let's ignore the fact that if the RCP had done the same thing to anarchists, or if any leninist group had done anything similar to anarchists, it'd be an *outrage* and definitive proof that leninists are anti-worker sectarian statists blah blah blah

Get a fucking grip. La rage obviously doesn't know what the hell he's talking about... for all the many problems with the RCP, they do *not* believe that the state is a 'neutral instrument' and that capitalism can be reformed. No Leninist believes that.

Get back to me when you're interested in being a political militant, as opposed to an angry liberal with a fetish for violence against other leftists who you think are mean to you.

Bloody pathetic
Three things:

First, what will challenging them through argument do? Other than make some people frustrated. Like I said, we don't really have any interest in talking to these people. We have nothing in common with them, and we far past the point of trying to "convert" people.

Second, would you like to give a reason as to why we are liberal? None of us believe in reform of any sort, and are not interested in single issues. And we are certainly not into identity politics.

Third, lol.

KurtFF8

17th March 2010, 20:19

It seems we're just rehashing old arguments here. Spontaneity of the working class vs organization, can parties be "working class parties" etc. etc.

None of which, of course, has anything to do with whether or not it makes sense for Anarchists to be pieing people who oppose vegetarianism and veganism in the face.

Bolshevism1917

17th March 2010, 22:31

A state is a centralized, hierarchical "organ" that imposes it's will upon a group of people.

Without even going into the meaning of the words centralized and hierarchical (and in particular whether centralization is really incompatible with democracy and socialism - one can only assume that you view the Paris Commune and other bodies as agents of hierarchy rather than working class democracy because they were organized on a centralized basis) the fact that you define the state as something that "imposes its will upon a group of people" says everything anyone needs to know about how Anarchists understand the role of the state in society, or rather their failure to understand what the state is and how it came about - your definition is devoid of class content because it basically treats the state as an autonomous actor with a uniform set of interests and a non-specific object of oppression rather than acknowledging that all state apparatuses are the product of class antagonisms and exist, with varying degrees of autonomy, to protect the interests of the ruling class. It is, in this sense, a liberal theory because it does not take the existence of class antagonisms and the materialist conception of history as its starting-point but regards the state as something which floats above society, being independent of its divisions and conflicts.

manic expression

17th March 2010, 23:42

I think the mediation of the working class through "Parties" and other forms of representation and organization that exist outside of the working class in order to organize the working class is counter-revolutionary. There is a difference between self-organization and "Party" organization. I think the most important difference is that self-organization occurs when workers begin to act in their class self-interest, and Parties exist to serve their own ends, which may or may not be in the interest of the working class, as individuals and as a whole.
And this so-called "self-organization" could not represent the working class, right? Because, of course, if it did, you would want to attack it. Therein lies your dilemma: anything that is part of the workers inherently represents the workers, and you are admittedly opposed to that.

More importantly, you have failed to substantively distinguish between the two; it's an undefined dichotomy. If "workers begin to act in their class self-interest" by calling their organization a "party" (as Marx did), then is it automatically counterrevolutionary? Why? How does the label of something determine its character? Why are you focusing on labels and platitudes instead of focusing on the immediate realities of class struggle?

The Douche

18th March 2010, 04:28

He clearly stated his desire to attack any representative of the working class. Obviously, workers represent their own class because they're a part of it, so he wants to attack all workers, as well as all working-class organizations. That's exactly what he said and no one has proven otherwise. Devrim tried, but I've already dealt with those inadequate arguments in turn.

If you really don't understand his slightly reckless phrasing then I'm sorry. He wants to (and I agree with him) attack any institutions which claim to represent the working class, and may represent portions of the misguided working class at times, who claim to represent the class, but in reality represent their own interests. (i.e. Leninists, who seek to use the working class to propel their party to power) Workers who come to support these parties are either opportunist or have been mislead, and the popularity of a Leninist party represents the failure of the anarchist movement (and the anti-state marxists).

That's not nearly all that Leninist parties do: organizing against police brutality, fighting capitalist assaults on workers' livelihoods, pro-union work, standing up to racist ideologues, promoting revolutionary ideas throughout the US and more...just a taste of what Leninist parties do in the US, so obviously your conclusions are based on false information.

None of that is in any way exclusive to Leninist organizations, and while in some areas those movements may be dominated by a Leninist party, in other places they are dominated by anarchists.

Further, ANSWER is far and away the most effective anti-imperialist coalition in the US, its marches mobilize thousands to oppose imperialism (not just this or that war, but imperialism itself). As for liberals, they've already run away from ANSWER through UFPJ because they couldn't stomach ANSWER's anti-imperialist rhetoric, so that perception of yours has nothing to do with reality.

You have an absurd sense of self-importance in your party/its coalitions. ANSWER's leadership is predominantly ML, correct (nobody was arguing that) but you are not moilizing thousands of communist militants, you are mobilizing thousands of liberals. Its nothing special, I used to get the RCP to send me newspapers (when they were still free) when I was in high school, then I would sell those papers to the liberal anti-war group in my town to supplement my personal income. By your standards I guess I was mobilizing the whole local anti-war movement for the revolution.:rolleyes:

But on another note, I would like to congratulate you, again, for your honesty. Not many would admit that they are insignificant, as you have. Your willingness to say that you are insignificant is, if nothing else, refreshing.

We are all irrelevant. You just consider yourself to be more relevant than anarchism, and that's because you want to do different things than anarchists do. You think its important to work in groups like ANSWER and consider something like that a success, I'm laughing cause all the effort and money your party put into that is almost for nothing, the wars are not ending, and ultimately you're not bringing that many people to the side of revolution. (even revolution in the eyes of your party, much less in my eyes) I have been involved in organizing mass anti-war protests to.

And why, exactly, is that? What is socialism, and how are anti-revisionists opposed to it?

Socialism is working class control of the means of production, you seek state control of the means of production. You can dress that up with terms like "worker's state", but it is what it is, and it is an unbridgeable difference. And in my view socialism also includes the destruction of hierarchy/coercive authority, which you obviously do not agree with.

Saorsa

18th March 2010, 04:48

On the whole issue of RAAN and the dumbass macho groups of angry liberals like it that call for violence against leftists... I think this leaflet (http://redanarchist.org/propaganda/fucklenin.pdf) sums up everything wrong with those groups.

Apart from bizarre threats like "we will hunt you at your conferences, burn your newspapers, and beat you in the streets", the leaflet has an image of Marx shooting Lenin in the head at the top of it. A little weird perhaps, but not such a big problem in itself. However, this image is a photoshopped parody of this famous image:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f9/Nguyen.jpg

The image depicts a captured Vietnamese resistance fighter being summarily executed during the Vietnam War. Now, it's the duty of all revolutionary organisations, whether anarchist or Marxist, to oppose the actions of the ruling class in the country they live in. It's obviously in the area and country you live that you can make the most difference. So when an 'anarchist' groups in the States to put out a leaflet that portrays a character (in this case Marx) representing RAAN's politics as being in the shoes of the imperialist murderer in that photo (South Vietnamese secret police I think), that's pretty weird. It also implies that this is an image we should make fun of, an image to be used for satire and to get cheap laughs. I don't think it is.

This is indicative of the shallow political understanding these type of 'communists' have. Imperialism, to them, isn't something to be fought, opposed and spat on, it's a source of cheap lulz. It's like they'd tell people to watch Team America if they want to learn about North Korea.

The other thing I find funny is that since that leaflet was published, I haven't heard many reports of these guys beating anyone up or burning or burning Leninist papers. For all the tough talk and threats of these groups which substitute threats for political debate and politics in general, they don't do shit.

The Douche

18th March 2010, 04:55

blah blah blah

Everytime RAAN does something it gets talked about on this board and on infoshop. RAAN is the group that the statist left and the social anarchists just loooooove to hate.

Most of your post has absolutely no substance. You motherfuckers are still talking about some shit that RAAN did a fucking year ago...

Wah wah wah "RAAN doesn't have defined politics", liar, fucking, lie, straight up, that is patently false, all the RAANistas who have posted on this board have repeatedly posted the P&D and other texts put out by the network. But weak ass Leninists and statists dressed up in red & black need somebody to hate on.

Saorsa

18th March 2010, 04:58

You paint the anarchists as violent neanderthals, but really you're scared that this eviction of your politics from our spaces might spread to your locale.

:lol:

Seriously bro, if you knew anything about the anarchist scene in New Zealand, you'd know better than that. I have good relations with heaps of anarchists, including several close friends, and there's a lot of cooperation between our two currents in this couuntry. But if they ever did decide to go all macho and try getting violent, it'd just be laughable.
Half of them are pacifist hippy types anyway, and the rest aren't exactly all that physically imposing. Vegetarianism does that to you I guess ;-)

I experience far more sympathy for anarchism than Leninism (especially of the Maoist/anti-revisionist variety) in the working class.

That's not really surprising. You're an anarchist yourself.

I don't think smashing up wannabe oppressors (even if they're dressed in red) is wrong. And combatting reactionary forces/ideas is a necessary part of building a revolutionary movement.

Considering how you already support using violence to solve political disagreements nowadays, I'm sure any world you help to create will be totally oppression free.

I'm an anarchist, I wouldn't show up at the RCP bookstore and try to sell my own literature on the sidewalk outside, if I did, they would react in a similar fashion. Or, knowing the way they operate nowadays, they'd probably call the pigs.

Perhaps. And it would be totally wrong if they did.

Saorsa

18th March 2010, 05:04

tantrum

Everytime RAAN does something it gets talked about on this board and on infoshop. RAAN is the group that the statist left and the social anarchists just loooooove to hate.I don't take you seriously enough to hate you. I think you're kind of amusing really.

Most of your post has absolutely no substance. You motherfuckers are still talking about some shit that RAAN did a fucking year ago...I see. So after a twelve month deadline has passed, it becomes irrelevant? I'll try to remember that, thanks mate. Loving the complete refusal to engage with my arguments, but meh, you can't try and punch me over the internet so I suppose you don't really know how to handle this discussion do you? :lol:

Wah wah wah "RAAN doesn't have defined politics", liar, fucking, lie, straight up, that is patently false,Um, can you read? I didn't write that "RAAN doesn't have defined politics" anywhere in my post. Exactly which parts of my post are a lie?

all the RAANistas who have posted on this board have repeatedly posted the P&D and other texts put out by the network. I really couldn't care less what you guys have put in your P&D. Unless you can promise to find a way to give me back the time I have to waste reading it, I cbf.

But weak ass Leninists and statists dressed up in red & black need somebody to hate on.My ass is a strong ass motherfucker. Fuck you motherfucker!

^ Look I can speak RAANish.

The Douche

18th March 2010, 05:13

Unless you can promise to find a way to give me back the time I have to waste reading it, I cbf.

Then you can fuck right off out of this thread. You are saying right here "I don't care about your politics", but then demanding me to present them. Moron...

khad

18th March 2010, 05:21

At this point, this thread is a vile sight. I guess one could theoretically discuss the advantages and disadvantages of intra-left violence, but apparently you people can't do this without open hostility and insinuations of violence towards other members. This is not a behavior that revleft allows. I already warned this thread, but this has gone on long enough.

Infraction to cmoney for the threat of violence and continued posturing after the warning.

Wah wah wah "RAAN doesn't have defined politics", liar, fucking, lie, straight up, that is patently false, all the RAANistas who have posted on this board have repeatedly posted the P&D and other texts put out by the network. But weak ass Leninists and statists dressed up in red & black need somebody to hate on.

Warning to Comrade Alastair for responding to provocations.

My ass is a strong ass motherfucker. Fuck you motherfucker!

^ Look I can speak RAANish.

End this crap, now.

Saorsa

18th March 2010, 05:24

but apparently you people can't do this without open hostility and insinuations of violence towards other members. This is not a behavior that revleft allows. I already warned this thread, but this has gone on long enough.

You people? The only person who's been issuing threats, talking about the joy of violence and the only person who's been initiating hostility in this thread is cmoney. I'll admit my wee paragraph there was unnecessary, but it proves my point in a way - the violence, insults and threats of groups like RAAN just lead to a degeneration in the political climate. They're a cancer in our movement... luckily, they're a very small one.

which doctor

18th March 2010, 05:25

What a weird thread, but this is a conversation that's all too familiar.

And for the record, both the RCP and RAAN are completely irrelevant organizations.

manic expression

18th March 2010, 09:40

If you really don't understand his slightly reckless phrasing then I'm sorry. He wants to (and I agree with him) attack any institutions which claim to represent the working class, and may represent portions of the misguided working class at times, who claim to represent the class, but in reality represent their own interests. (i.e. Leninists, who seek to use the working class to propel their party to power) Workers who come to support these parties are either opportunist or have been mislead, and the popularity of a Leninist party represents the failure of the anarchist movement (and the anti-state marxists).
But you have failed to provide any justification for this conclusion. You have not shown us how Leninists do not represent workers' interests. Further, you are running away from what he said. He clearly stated a desire to attack all representatives of the working class, which means attacking all working-class organizations and all workers. Please explain this or be held as wrong. Lastly, it is nice to see you, again, admitting that the anarchist movement is a failure. I applaud your honesty.

None of that is in any way exclusive to Leninist organizations, and while in some areas those movements may be dominated by a Leninist party, in other places they are dominated by anarchists.
In the US, all that is dominated by Leninists. When was the last time anarchists organized workers to oppose police brutality? Rising housing prices? Imperialist war? I thought so.

You have an absurd sense of self-importance in your party/its coalitions. ANSWER's leadership is predominantly ML, correct (nobody was arguing that) but you are not moilizing thousands of communist militants, you are mobilizing thousands of liberals. Its nothing special, I used to get the RCP to send me newspapers (when they were still free) when I was in high school, then I would sell those papers to the liberal anti-war group in my town to supplement my personal income. By your standards I guess I was mobilizing the whole local anti-war movement for the revolution.:rolleyes:
Wrong, we're mobilizing thousands of workers. I already told you, liberals ran away from ANSWER years ago (UFPJ, look it up). If you knew the first thing about anti-war protests over the past few years you'd know that the liberals rejected ANSWER outright. Keep making stuff up, though.

And it is special, because ANSWER is, by far, the most effective and visible anti-imperialist organization in the country. ANSWER doesn't just protest the War in Iraq, it protests imperialist aggression in Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Yemen, Palestine and everywhere else. So again, your conclusions are incorrect because you lack basic information that the rest of us found out years ago. Best do your homework.

We are all irrelevant. You just consider yourself to be more relevant than anarchism, and that's because you want to do different things than anarchists do. You think its important to work in groups like ANSWER and consider something like that a success, I'm laughing cause all the effort and money your party put into that is almost for nothing, the wars are not ending, and ultimately you're not bringing that many people to the side of revolution. (even revolution in the eyes of your party, much less in my eyes) I have been involved in organizing mass anti-war protests to.
No, we are not all irrelevant, you just want to believe as much. Leninists in the US are far more active, effective and visible in their work than anarchists are. Leninists are winning working-class support as we speak. We are winning workers to the side of revolution. Perhaps if you knew anything about the actual left, you wouldn't say such falsities.

And what "mass" anti-imperialist demonstration have anarchists organized and led? Note, throwing a brick at Starbucks doesn't count.

By the way, if you think mobilizing workers to fight imperialism is "almost for nothing", then whose side are you on?

Socialism is working class control of the means of production, you seek state control of the means of production. You can dress that up with terms like "worker's state", but it is what it is, and it is an unbridgeable difference. And in my view socialism also includes the destruction of hierarchy/coercive authority, which you obviously do not agree with.
Why, exactly, is it "an unbridgeable difference"? If the workers control the means of production with an apparatus for suppressing capitalist subversion (which is what a state is), then how does the situation change?

Moreover, if you view socialism as "working class control", then it implies something or someone who is not in control (control would be irrelevant if there was no other group), which logically leads to hierarchical and coercive authority. In this, you make a fundamental contradiction. Perhaps you could explain yourself, and quell any suspicions of your political ineptitude.

The Feral Underclass

18th March 2010, 14:01

Why, exactly, is it "an unbridgeable difference"? If the workers control the means of production with an apparatus for suppressing capitalist subversion (which is what a state is), then how does the situation change?

The state is not just an apparatus for suppressing capitalist subversion. It is a structural mechanism designed for one group of people to maintain political control through centralising political authority.

Moreover, if you view socialism as "working class control", then it implies something or someone who is not in control (control would be irrelevant if there was no other group), which logically leads to hierarchical and coercive authority. In this, you make a fundamental contradiction. Perhaps you could explain yourself, and quell any suspicions of your political ineptitude.

If you are going to use words such as "political ineptitude" it bodes far better if you actually have some understanding of the ideas you're attempting to criticise, otherwise you just look ridiculous.

Firstly, there is an argument to be had that acts of coercion against the ruling class are defined as self-defence. Since the ruling class daily use violence against the working class, not just overtly, but through exploitation etc, any acts of violence of coercion that would seek to de-legitimise and destroy the authority of the ruling class by the working class is, for all intent and purpose, an act of self-defence, and we don't oppose self-defence.

Secondly, you're confusing what it is anarchists oppose. We don't oppose authority being used to coerce capitalists (in self-defence) to stop ourselves being exploited, oppressed and alienated, we oppose political authority being imposed on us (the working class) by others.

The idea of hierarchy is one that relates specifically to centralisation and is a by-product of it. Since we oppose the centralisation of political authority, we naturally oppose the hierarchy that is created from it, as the concept props up these political dynamics and helps consolidate control into the hands of a few over the working class.

If we are going to have a debate about anarchist opposition to authority, then I suggest you not confound it by diverting attention towards an issue that you've constructed and bears no relevance to anarchism, and away from the real issue, which is the attempts by your tendencies to dominate and control working class struggle for the purposes of centralising political authority into your hands. Authority which ultimately destroys revolutions and creates an entrenched bureaucratic class (Russia, Cuba and China being prime examples).

Bolshevism1917

18th March 2010, 14:16

which is the attempts by your tendencies to dominate and control working class struggle for the purposes of centralising political authority into your handsWhat's left unexplained here is why authority was imposed on what you regard as potential revolutions. Do you think that Lenin and his comrades cynically used socialist language as a way of obscuring their ultimate and conscious aim, which was to install themselves as a new ruling class, or do you instead think there was something inherent in Bolshevik ideology that led to a new ruling class being installed despite people like Lenin having good intentions and a genuine desire to see working people overthrow all forms of oppression and exploitation? I think that both approaches are flawed because they are both equally oppossed to a materialist conception of history and what caused the Russian Revolution to degenerate (the former assumes that workers were so stupid that they were duped into supporting a small group of individuals who were sufficiently powerful or intelligent to alter the course of human history, whereas the latter assumes that ideas have an autonomous existence and constitute the key factor in historical change to the extent that their intrinsic content can override human intentions) but as it stands you lack a clear standpoint either way.

Firstly, there is an argument to be had that acts of coercion against the ruling class are defined as self-defenceI don't know why self-defense even has to come into it, that seems to me to be an unnecessary concession to liberal philosophy.

The Feral Underclass

18th March 2010, 14:46

What's left unexplained here is why authority was imposed on what you regard as potential revolutions.

That question doesn't make sense.

Do you think that Lenin and his comrades cynically used socialist language as a way of obscuring their ultimate and conscious aim, which was to install themselves as a new ruling class, or do you instead think there was something inherent in Bolshevik ideology that led to a new ruling class being installed despite people like Lenin having good intentions and a genuine desire to see working people overthrow all forms of oppression and exploitation?Their ultimate and conscious aim was control, but I'm sure they had good intentions. Nevertheless, the ideology is flawed. The idea of the Marxist transitional phase has been falsified in practice. It doesn't work.

I think that both approaches are flawed because they are both equally oppossed to a materialist conception of history and what caused the Russian Revolution to degenerate (the former assumes that workers were so stupid that they were duped into supporting a small group of individuals who were sufficiently powerful or intelligent to alter the course of human history, whereas the latter assumes that ideas have an autonomous existence and constitute the key factor in historical change to the extent that their intrinsic content can override human intentions) but as it stands you lack a clear standpoint either way.Well, firstly I think it's terribly naive to assume that us workers can't be duped. In any case, it's not a question of stupidity, it's a question of a lack of class consciousness.

Secondly, the Marxist concept of a transitional phase was falsified through empirical testing. I'm not making an idealistic claim against Marxism, it's plain for any one to see that the application of that theory into practice brought about material consequences that could not lead to a transition into a stateless society. The theory that you can create a stateless society by consolidating the state doesn't work, in practice. It was attempted in Russia and in China and in Cuba and neither of them have succeeded, even in maintaining healthy revolutions. Both of degenerated as new generations emerge, removed from the old revolutionary tradition, who seek greater participation in neo-liberal politics. Not that Raul Castro is even from a new generation.

The argument that there can be such a thing as a "workers state" is objectively refuted by the material conditions that the consolidation, centralisation and institutionalisation of an emerging political class, creates. What we have seen emerge is a class of bureaucrats who claim to be managing the workers state in the name of the workers, and in some instances may even have direct democratic structures in place - To begin with. But the historical role of this new bureaucratic class turns into defending the state i.e. there own political authority, meaning actual workers democracy becomes nominal, to non-existent as the state cannot reconcile its own existence with the existence of structures which emerge contrary to its own (i.e a transition to a decentralised, classless society) and outside of its control (Kronstadt and the Aragon/Catalonian collectives are a prime example). In an effort to try and control these structures they force them to lose their true revolutionary characteristics and they end up being recuperated by the state, which eventually only becomes revolutionary in name and not in practice.

This contradiction will always exist, no matter how well intentioned Marxists may be. Real, actual workers democracy can only be expressed when political authority is decentralised and that process has to begin from the moment revolution starts, otherwise if we allow the centralisation of political authority (i.e. a state) we will lose the ability to express true workers freedom, except that mandated by those controlling a structure whose specific role is to defend and perpetuate itself.

Perhaps my standpoint is now more clearer.

I don't know why self-defense even has to come into it, that seems to me to be an unnecessary concession to liberal philosophy.I'm not sure what else you could consider fighting for your life against exploitation, oppress and alienation, to be other than an act of self-defence...

manic expression

18th March 2010, 15:38

The state is not just an apparatus for suppressing capitalist subversion. It is a structural mechanism designed for one group of people to maintain political control through centralising political authority.
Exactly, the workers maintain political control through centralizing political authority. I don't think I could put it any better.

Firstly, there is an argument to be had that acts of coercion against the ruling class are defined as self-defence. Since the ruling class daily use violence against the working class, not just overtly, but through exploitation etc, any acts of violence of coercion that would seek to de-legitimise and destroy the authority of the ruling class by the working class is, for all intent and purpose, an act of self-defence, and we don't oppose self-defence.So the suppression of capitalist subversives by a worker state, too, would be self-defense. I'm glad you agree.

Secondly, you're confusing what it is anarchists oppose. We don't oppose authority being used to coerce capitalists (in self-defence) to stop ourselves being exploited, oppressed and alienated, we oppose political authority being imposed on us (the working class) by others.Then you support the worker state, because that's all it really does: suppress capitalists and organize the political power of the workers.

The idea of hierarchy is one that relates specifically to centralisation and is a by-product of it. Since we oppose the centralisation of political authority, we naturally oppose the hierarchy that is created from it, as the concept props up these political dynamics and helps consolidate control into the hands of a few over the working class.If you support suppression of capitalist subversives, then you support centralization of political authority, because the two go hand-in-hand. You can't have suppression without authority, and you can't have authority without suppression. That's just how it works. Rather than running away from it, I suggest you deal with the issue outright.

If we are going to have a debate about anarchist opposition to authority, then I suggest you not confound it by diverting attention towards an issue that you've constructed and bears no relevance to anarchism, and away from the real issue, which is the attempts by your tendencies to dominate and control working class struggle for the purposes of centralising political authority into your hands. Authority which ultimately destroys revolutions and creates an entrenched bureaucratic class (Russia, Cuba and China being prime examples).So you oppose the October Revolution, the Cuban Revolution and the Chinese Revolution? If you're going to oppose the authority of those worker states, at least be honest about it, much like cmoney has been refreshingly honest about how irrelevant the anarchist movement is.

The Feral Underclass

18th March 2010, 16:36

Exactly, the workers maintain political control through centralizing political authority. I don't think I could put it any better.

Yet again you display a grossly inadequate understanding of this subject. Your analysis just doesn't make sense. What is centralised political authority, beyond it being 'the state'? What I mean is, how does that actually manifest itself in a material way?

Political authority is the basis by which governance is controlled and maintained. To centralise that is to bring into the centre the mechanisms by which that control is perpetuated. And who is that centre? According to Marxist and Leninist theory it's the hierarchical structure of a political party, with a leadership.

The idea that "the workers" centralise political authority is a conflation. "The workers" and "the party" are not the same thing.

So the suppression of capitalist subversives by a worker state, too, would be self-defense. I'm glad you agree.Well, I don't agree actually. There's no such thing as a "workers state". It's a practical impossibility. It can exist only in name.

Then you support the worker state, because that's all it really does: suppress capitalists and organize the political power of the workers.I don't accept that a workers state is an actual thing, let alone support it. But something that you've highlighted for me is the separation in language between a "state", which is "worker" and an entity that organises political power "of the workers". Even in your language it's explicit that the "workers state" is something separate to the "workers".

As I said above, the argument that there can be such a thing as a "workers state" is objectively refuted by the material conditions that the consolidation, centralisation and institutionalisation of an emerging political class, creates. What we have seen emerge is a class of bureaucrats who claim to be managing the workers state in the name of the workers, and in some instances may even have direct democratic structures in place - To begin with. But the historical role of this new bureaucratic class turns into defending the state i.e. there own political authority, meaning actual workers democracy becomes nominal, to non-existent as the state cannot reconcile its own existence with the existence of structures which emerge contrary to its own (i.e a transition to a decentralised, classless society) and outside of its control (Kronstadt and the Aragon/Catalonian collectives are a prime example). In an effort to try and control these structures they force them to lose their true revolutionary characteristics and they end up being recuperated by the state, which eventually only becomes revolutionary in name and not in practice.

This contradiction will always exist, no matter how well intentioned Marxists may be. Real, actual workers democracy can only be expressed when political authority is decentralised and that process has to begin from the moment revolution starts, otherwise if we allow the centralisation of political authority (i.e. a state) we will lose the ability to express true workers freedom, except that mandated by those controlling a structure whose specific role is to defend and perpetuate itself.

If you support suppression of capitalist subversives, then you support centralization of political authority, because the two go hand-in-hand. You can't have suppression without authority, and you can't have authority without suppression. That's just how it works. Rather than running away from it, I suggest you deal with the issue outright.But suppression with authority is not the same as "centralising of political authority". They're two different things. I can agree that you cannot [literally] have suppression without some form of authority, but that's not "centralising political authority".

You keep conflating these issues, when I've expressly attempted to explain that they are separate issues. The suppression of capitalism is not what is being discussed by me or others. That's something you keep using as some kind of vindication that anarchist ideology suffers from some internal contradiction. Actually, what we're talking about is the actual political authority of working class people and how that manifests itself and the consequences of it.

So you oppose the October Revolution, the Cuban Revolution and the Chinese Revolution?That's a really abstract question. They've already happened so I don't see what difference this view would have. I oppose the Cuban and Chinese state, if that's what you mean.

If you're going to oppose the authority of those worker states, at least be honest about it, much like cmoney has been refreshingly honest about how irrelevant the anarchist movement is.They're not "workers states".

KlÃ©ber

18th March 2010, 17:08

So you oppose the October Revolution, the Cuban Revolution and the Chinese Revolution?
I think you know that there were anarchists who did take part in those.

I don't accept that a workers state is an actual thing, let alone support it.
If the anarchists were leading a revolution based on workers' councils, I would consider that a state insofar as there was a military hierarchy involved, but I would still support it.

The Feral Underclass

18th March 2010, 17:11

But a state is not defined as a military with a hierarchy.

KlÃ©ber

18th March 2010, 17:20

The Feral Underclass

18th March 2010, 17:26

Well, in a lot of revolutions, we have seen the military and bureaucracy set up by the revolutionaries turn into an agent of counter-revolution. Not just in Russia; there were some CNT/FAI officers and soldiers in the Spanish Republican army who used the rationalization that the Republic was a "non-state" to justify participation in the capitulationist Casado-Besteiro junta. Understanding that the military-bureaucratic apparatus can play a reactionary role, therefore it should be limited as much as possible, kept accountable with democratic checks and balances, and consciously deconstructed (since they obviously don't just "wither away" on their own) as soon as the need is gone.

It doesn't matter what we say rhetorically, if we centralise political authority then a revolution will fail.

That is why I think it is necessary to have a simple definition of the "state" as an armed force representing class interest, regardless of which class.

But what you think ought to be the definition of the state, is not the basis for what a state actual is. I also don't see why its necessary to simplify the definition of the state? What purpose is purposefully simplifying our understanding actually serving?

The anarchist definition of a state, which says that anything run by workers (which really seems to mean run by anarchists) can not be a state, seems to be insufficient insurance against the counter-revolutionary potential of whatever bureaucracy and army has to be set up to carry out the revolution.

But that's not what the anarchist definition of a state is. I'm not really sure how you've reached this understanding. I don't mean to be rude, but this paragraph make any sense. Perhaps you can explain what you mean a bit better :confused:

manic expression

18th March 2010, 17:47

Yet again you display a grossly inadequate understanding of this subject. Your analysis just doesn't make sense. What is centralised political authority, beyond it being 'the state'? What I mean is, how does that actually manifest itself in a material way?
Yet again you sidestep the issue in favor of platitudes and sophistry. The state is nothing but the organized apparatus for the rule of one class over other classes. You want to deny workers the means to defend their interests. Suppression of the enemies of socialism means a state.

How does it actually manifest itself? See any of the socialist societies you pointed out earlier. Thanks.

Political authority is the basis by which governance is controlled and maintained. To centralise that is to bring into the centre the mechanisms by which that control is perpetuated. And who is that centre? According to Marxist and Leninist theory it's the hierarchical structure of a political party, with a leadership.
Right, the vanguard party of the workers. Once again, you shower validation upon the principles of socialism.

The idea that "the workers" centralise political authority is a conflation. "The workers" and "the party" are not the same thing.
Why, because you said so? In the case of working-class parties, they are. You can engage in wishful thinking all you like, it doesn't change the fact that workers are capable of organizing themselves into a party that represents their interests.

Or are you saying that workers are so politically incompetent that they are simply incapable of organizing themselves into parties that further their interests? Your line of reasoning would lead us here: a patronizing insult to all workers.

Well, I don't agree actually. There's no such thing as a "workers state". It's a practical impossibility. It can exist only in name.
No, you won't agree, but you also won't provide a single shred of logic behind this position, because you can't. Twas ever thus.

I don't accept that a workers state is an actual thing, let alone support it. But something that you've highlighted for me is the separation in language between a "state", which is "worker" and an entity that organises political power "of the workers". Even in your language it's explicit that the "workers state" is something separate to the "workers".
Is the bourgeois state separate from the bourgeoisie?

But then again, you think the workers are less politically competent than the bourgeoisie, so I don't expect you to make the correct connection.

As I said above, the argument that there can be such a thing as a "workers state" is objectively refuted by the material conditions that the consolidation, centralisation and institutionalisation of an emerging political class, creates.
There is no class based on solely political conditions, to state as much would be to toss aside every reasonable definition of "class".

But then again, you have failed to adequately back up any of these statements, and have stayed purely in the abstract, simply because that's the only place your arguments can exist.

This contradiction will always exist, no matter how well intentioned Marxists may be. Real, actual workers democracy can only be expressed when political authority is decentralised and that process has to begin from the moment revolution starts, otherwise if we allow the centralisation of political authority (i.e. a state) we will lose the ability to express true workers freedom, except that mandated by those controlling a structure whose specific role is to defend and perpetuate itself.
There is no contradiction between centralization and the control of a class. Centralization of political power does not exclude democratic processes, nor does it

You can blabber about "decentralization of power" all you like, but all you're saying is that you don't think workers are as politically adept as capitalists.

But suppression with authority is not the same as "centralising of political authority". They're two different things. I can agree that you cannot [literally] have suppression without some form of authority, but that's not "centralising political authority".
:lol: Engels said it best, you don't change the nature of a thing by switching up labels. OK, so we'll have "some form of authority", we just won't call it "centralized". Happy?

I didn't think so. Try again.

You keep conflating these issues, when I've expressly attempted to explain that they are separate issues. The suppression of capitalism is not what is being discussed by me or others. That's something you keep using as some kind of vindication that anarchist ideology suffers from some internal contradiction. Actually, what we're talking about is the actual political authority of working class people and how that manifests itself and the consequences of it.
You are doing your very best to avoid the "actual political authority of working class people and how that manifests itself". The FACT is that it always manifests itself as a state, one way or the other. You may slap as many self-aggrandizing labels on it as you wish, but the reality is that as long as the workers are organized to defend themselves from capitalist subversion, a state exists. You can run away from it, you can slander it, you can dismiss it, but that is how it works.

That's a really abstract question. They've already happened so I don't see what difference this view would have. I oppose the Cuban and Chinese state, if that's what you mean.
:lol: I oppose the Palmer Raids. Is that an abstract statement? No, it's not. Answer the questions.

They're not "workers states".
Why, because you said so?

Note: I could cut-and-paste that one sentence in response to about all of your arguments, and debunk them in turn.

KlÃ©ber

18th March 2010, 17:47

Okay, so what is the anarchist definition of a state?

EDIT: uh-oh, manic expression is on a vapid rhetorical kick again.

You want to deny workers the means to defend their interests. Suppression of the enemies of socialism means a state.
Stalin's theory of the aggravation of class struggle under socialism totally defies Marxist logic. The state was supposed to wither away, not grow to abominable proportions. Unless, of course, the roots of the classes had not been extirpated.. which means socialism wasn't built yet.

The Feral Underclass

18th March 2010, 18:20

The state is nothing but the organized apparatus for the rule of one class over other classes. You want to deny workers the means to defend their interests. Suppression of the enemies of socialism means a state.

Right, but what is the apparatus for the rule. This is the entire point I'm making. You keep making these vague statements about what a state is, without recognising that it actually has to be something. It's not just a concept.

How does it actually manifest itself? See any of the socialist societies you pointed out earlier. Thanks.And therein lies the problem.

Right, the vanguard party of the workers. Once again, you shower validation upon the principles of socialism.A vanguard "of the workers" means a political organisation that leads them.

Why, because you said so?Well, this petty line of arguing could quite easily be reversed, couldn't it?

In the case of working-class parties, they are. You can engage in wishful thinking all you like, it doesn't change the fact that workers are capable of organizing themselves into a party that represents their interests.Again, you've missed the point I'm making. Working class people can organise themselves into a political party that represents their interests, but when we talk in the context of a "workers state", then the issue is vastly different.

As you have accepted, the socialist state is an "apparatus of rule" that is centralised, i.e. brought into the centre. You also accept the hierarchical party structure, I.e. you accept a leadership, that operates so as to "represent" the workers interests.

So going back to my original point that we see the emergence of a new political class "...who claim to be managing the workers state in the name of the workers, and in some instances may even have direct democratic structures in place - To begin with. But the historical role of this new bureaucratic class turns into defending the state i.e. there own political authority, meaning actual workers democracy becomes nominal, to non-existent as the state cannot reconcile its own existence with the existence of structures which emerge contrary to its own (i.e a transition to a decentralised, classless society) and outside of its control (Kronstadt and the Aragon/Catalonian collectives are a prime example). In an effort to try and control these structures they force them to lose their true revolutionary characteristics and they end up being recuperated by the state, which eventually only becomes revolutionary in name and not in practice."

Or are you saying that workers are so politically incompetent that they are simply incapable of organizing themselves into parties that further their interests? Your line of reasoning would lead us here: a patronizing insult to all workers.No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the objective, material consequences of centralising political authority in an apparatus of rule, controlled by a political party will degenerate a revolution.

No, you won't agree, but you also won't provide a single shred of logic behind this position, because you can't. Twas ever thus.I think that's a little unfair, considering my responses.

Is the bourgeois state separate from the bourgeoisie?

But then again, you think the workers are less politically competent than the bourgeoisie, so I don't expect you to make the correct connection.I'm sorry, but again you've missed the point I'm making.

There is no class based on solely political conditions, to state as much would be to toss aside every reasonable definition of "class".Well, I'm not entirely sure that's the case, since it's happened...

But then again, you have failed to adequately back up any of these statements, and have stayed purely in the abstract, simply because that's the only place your arguments can exist.Erm...The material conditions that were created in Russia, China and Cuba are the evidence your looking for.

There is no contradiction between centralization and the control of a class.I'm not really sure what you mean...:confused:

Centralization of political power does not exclude democratic processes, nor does itWell, actually it does. You cannot maintain centralised political authority if it's being actively challenged in a radical, meaningful way.

You can blabber about "decentralization of power" all you like, but all you're saying is that you don't think workers are as politically adept as capitalists.:lol:

You can't honestly be that stupid. Come on, let's be a bit more serious. That's clearly not what I'm saying.

Engels said it best, you don't change the nature of a thing by switching up labels. OK, so we'll have "some form of authority", we just won't call it "centralized". Happy?Well, I'll be happy if political authority isn't centralised, yes.

I didn't think so. Try again.Erm. What?

You are doing your very best to avoid the "actual political authority of working class people and how that manifests itself". The FACT is that it always manifests itself as a state, one way or the other. You may slap as many self-aggrandizing labels on it as you wish, but the reality is that as long as the workers are organized to defend themselves from capitalist subversion, a state exists. You can run away from it, you can slander it, you can dismiss it, but that is how it works.I can accept that. I can accept that the working class organising to defend themselves from capitalists subversion is a state. I'm not refuting or denying that. What I'm interested in, and what I have consistently been talking about is how does that state exist? How does the apparatus, as you call it, function as a mechanism. It is perfectly fine for you to talk in these vague, generalised terms, but in reality a state is something. It's not just a conceptual assertion.

If you want to call federalised, decentralised political authority a state, that's fine with me, that's just semantics. But that's not what you're talking about. Furthermore, that's not what a state is. Nor has it ever historically been the case.

But all that aside, you've not actually addressed the point raised in the quote you quoted. Namely, the difference between using a form of authority in self-defence and the centralisation of political authority.

But frankly, it seems to me that you're having a hard time getting to grips with this discussion.

I oppose the Palmer Raids. Is that an abstract statement? No, it's not. Answer the questions.I've answered the question.

Note: I could cut-and-paste that one sentence in response to about all of your arguments, and debunk them in turn.That would require you understanding the arguments.

The Feral Underclass

18th March 2010, 18:24

Okay, so what is the anarchist definition of a state?

We share the Marxist view that a state is one class organised to suppress another, and that a state will take on the characteristics of those that control it. However, anarchists go further in arguing that a state, in order for it to exist and perpetuate its historical objective of one class suppressing another, must centralise and institutionalise political authority into the hands of people, a minority in practice, who seek to control the state.

manic expression

18th March 2010, 18:52

Right, but what is the apparatus for the rule. This is the entire point I'm making. You keep making these vague statements about what a state is, without recognising that it actually has to be something. It's not just a concept.
See my previous answer: there are plenty of real-life examples we can learn from.

And therein lies the problem.
Your problem, not mine, or the workers'.

A vanguard "of the workers" means a political organisation that leads them.
Made up of workers. You don't expect every worker on earth to be a militant revolutionary, do you? If not, then some are going to be "led", and others are going to be in opposition. Class consciousness does not develop evenly, and so the political organs of the workers will reflect this.

Well, this petty line of arguing could quite easily be reversed, couldn't it?
Not effectively, no.

Again, you've missed the point I'm making. Working class people can organise themselves into a political party that represents their interests, but when we talk in the context of a "workers state", then the issue is vastly different.
So first, you're admitting that a vanguard party, a revolutionary party made up of workers to promote working-class interests, is possible. Second, you're saying that as soon as it gets into power, the same exact principle is both impossible and counterrevolutionary. I'm not sure how one can go with the other.

As you have accepted, the socialist state is an "apparatus of rule" that is centralised, i.e. brought into the centre. You also accept the hierarchical party structure, I.e. you accept a leadership, that operates so as to "represent" the workers interests.
A leadership of workers, yes. It's the only way a modern state, a workers state, can work.

So going back to my original point that we see the emergence of a new political class
This is still incompatible with every reasonable understanding of what class is.

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the objective, material consequences of centralising political authority in an apparatus of rule, controlled by a political party will degenerate a revolution.
Then why did the same process not degenerate the revolutions of the bourgeoisie? The capitalist class has shown itself capable of organizing a state to defend its interests, even in its revolutionary phase. Why do you assert that the workers are less politically adept than the bourgeoisie? Why do you think the workers are incapable of doing what the capitalist class has already done?

I'm sorry, but again you've missed the point I'm making.
The point of me asking that: no, the present ruling class and the capitalist state are separate, for one can exist without the other. Just as the working class can (and in capitalist society, does) exist without a worker state. The point is that the issue is tangential.

Well, I'm not entirely sure that's the case, since it's happened...
Fine, how did the Soviet bureaucracy become a new class?

Erm...The material conditions that were created in Russia, China and Cuba are the evidence your looking for.
That evidence backs up my arguments. Workers took control of society through a worker state.

I'm not really sure what you mean...:confused:
You keep saying that centralization of political authority will destroy any hope for working-class power. But this is a leap in logic.

Well, actually it does. You cannot maintain centralised political authority if it's being challenged.
Of course you can, it's called maintaining centralized political power. And without the challenge, there is no need for the authority in the first place. It's like saying you can have a beach without water: authority implies a challenge.

You can't honestly be that stupid. Come on, let's be a bit more serious. That's clearly not what I'm saying.
But it is what you are implying.

If the capitalists have successfully organized a state to defend their interests, why do you think workers are unable do this?

Well, I'll be happy if political authority isn't centralised, yes.
But if it is about labels, then what's the point of the disagreement? If we call a state a "commune", does the latter label justify the former?

I can accept that. I can accept that the working class organising to defend themselves from capitalists subversion is a state. I'm not refuting or denying that. What I'm interested in, and what I have consistently been talking about is how does that state exist? How does the apparatus, as you call it, function as a mechanism. It is perfectly fine for you to talk in these vague, generalised terms, but in reality a state is something. It's not just a conceptual assertion.
I think it depends on the process of the revolution and the course taken by the workers after its completion. In the Soviet Union, the Soviets were the basis of the state, and remained so; however, the Civil War made the Bolsheviks the only viable political party left in the country, and thus the state and the party were essentially structures in constant accord. This is not the case in Cuba, however, and we can see that many non-PCC members are represented in the government (which is not a carbon-copy of the Soviet system). Revolutions are unpredictable things, and so the product of revolution is similar in many ways.

If you want to call federalised, decentralised political authority a state, that's fine with me, that's just semantics. But that's not what you're talking about. Furthermore, that's not what a state is. Nor has it ever historically been the case.
What would constitute a federalized, decentralized political authority? Further, why does centralization automatically equal counterrevolution in your eyes?

But all that aside, you've not actually addressed the point raised in the quote you quoted. Namely, the difference between using a form of authority in self-defence and the centralisation of political authority.
The only difference is that the first (authority in self-defense) is the goal, while the second (centralization of political authority) is the method. The second accomplishes the first.

Can you wage war without a chain of command? Yes, you can, but not very effectively. That's what we're discussing here.

I've answered the question.
You oppose the Soviet Union circa 1921, I know. Do you oppose the October Revolution?

The Douche

18th March 2010, 21:25

I'm not going to participate in this thread anymore since I probably cannot engage in the discussion in a principled manner. Maybe if we split the thread/make a new one to discuss why anarchists see/may see Leninism as anti-working class then it can avoid the hostile nature (which I have contributed to) of this thread.

Jimmie Higgins

19th March 2010, 05:25

So going back to my original point that we see the emergence of a new political class "...who claim to be managing the workers state in the name of the workers, and in some instances may even have direct democratic structures in place - To begin with. But the historical role of this new bureaucratic class turns into defending the state i.e. there own political authority, meaning actual workers democracy becomes nominal, to non-existent as the state cannot reconcile its own existence with the existence of structures which emerge contrary to its own (i.e a transition to a decentralised, classless society) and outside of its control (Kronstadt and the Aragon/Catalonian collectives are a prime example). In an effort to try and control these structures they force them to lose their true revolutionary characteristics and they end up being recuperated by the state, which eventually only becomes revolutionary in name and not in practice."I agree that this is essentially what happened with the USSR - the emergence of a new class, but I'm curious as to the anarchist perspective as to why this is inherent.

Workers who have a wildcat strike can create a strike comittee that exists while needed - then it is disbanded. Even early capitalist armies - centralized and authritarian organizations - were created and disbanded when not needed. The underlying factor to me seems to be the desires of the class in power. In the USSR's working class only had power brifly (and obviously China and all the other so-called socialist countries never had worker's power to begin with) and so of course the ruling clique wanted to maintain their new special privilage in society and build their power through state-organized labor production.

Is there an anarchist arguement against some of the ideas presented in "State and Revolution" where Lenin talks about instantly recallable elected representatives that are part of working bodies... their role is essentially just to carry out publicly the will of the workers who voted them as reps? He argued that reps shouldn't be paid more than workers, and need to be accountable - and recallable. How could they set up their own class interests under this kind of system? If worker's maintain control over production (implicitly with the power to shut it down too), it seems to me, no clique would have a chance of positioning themselves as a new ruling class over workers.

The US permanent military force wasn't created and maintained - as some liberals argue - because of the military beurocracy and their desire to hold onto power - this happened because the US ruling class needed a permanent way to rule their half of the world.

So centralism and democracy imho, do not seem to be the causes of a new beurocratic class to emerge.

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the objective, material consequences of centralizing political authority in an apparatus of rule, controlled by a political party will degenerate a revolution.This makes it sound like maybe you are more against substitutionism than centralism. The Bolsheviks did not set out to become the sole party or to use their party to substitute for the working class. But when they did and basically workers could no longer defeat them even if they could, Russia set down on a dangerous road that eventually allowed a group of people who saw their position in society as dependant on their ability to create production through the state on the backs of workers.

I think the only role of a vanguard party is basically to get revolutionaries together and organized specifically for promoting working class revolution and power. When so-called vanguards try to substitute themselves for the whole working class, then that where the problems start.

I think there's a lot of knee-jerk dislike of the semantic conotations of "the state" and it's not a bad knee-jerk to have considering USSR, Cuba, China, not to mention the joke democracy of bourgoise states and the repession in bourgoise states. But all these countries have a minority ruling class and I think if working class power is estabished, not matter how they initially organize their rule (more or less centralized/federalist, whatever) if that power is established, it will be very hard for any clique to emerge as a new class above. In fact workers may use state power to ensure that a minority does not sever the working class from power: a garenteed right to strike, right to form pro-worker opposition parties and so on.

And since this initial organizing of worker's power would be in the interests of a majority class, they will have no interest in keeping un-needed aparatus for organization... just like telemarketers will no longer be needed and will be abolished, so would the state. If there are enough universities build in population areas, there would no longer be any need for the representaives on a comittee for allocating resources for building universities - it could just be voted on by everyone as the need arises, for example. If there is no active counter-revolution, I'm fairly sure that it would not be in the worker's interests to keep a militia around. Again, it was in the interests of the USSR because they were becomeing an imperialist power that needed to project the interests of it's minority class into other regions of the world. The same with the permanent US military.

To me states are just organizations, they do not have magical inherent interests of their own - it's only when they represent a minority ruling class that these organizations are destructive (to all but the exploiting class).

syndicat

19th March 2010, 05:39

I agree that this is essentially what happened with the USSR - the emergence of a new class, but I'm curious as to the anarchist perspective as to why this is inherent.

It's not inherent in the existence of a unified popular power that develops and enforces the social rules. The problem lies in creating the sort of hierarchical managerial power we see in a state. In other words, from a libertarian socialist viewpoint it would be possible to have a governing power in society that isn't a "state" as we see it. It would depend on whether decision-making authority and knowledge and so on is concentrated increasingly into the hands of a few. States, as Engels said, are above society and divorced from real control by the masses because that facilitates their accountability to dominating and exploiting classes.

An example from the Russian revolution I usually give is comparing the St Petersburg Soviet, set up on the initiative of Menshevik & other social democratic leaders, with power concentrated in its executive committee, so that it came to treat the plenary meetings of worker delegates as a rubber stamp. Versus the Kronstadt soviet where the worker and sailor delegates actually ran the soviet...had the discussions and made the decisions, and were closely watched by, and were accountable to, weekly assemblies that took place in workplaces and ships. The libertarian socialists in the Russian revolution wanted the model of the Kronstadt soviet generalized throughout Russia.

Another contrast would be between the Supreme Council of National Economy, set up by the Bolsheviks in Nov 1917, to plan the economy, top-down, with experts and party stalwarts and trade union bureaucrats appointed from above (origins of Gosplan). Versus the national congress of factory committees proposed as the grassroots planning body by the factory committee movement...and this was the social planning proposal by the libertarian socialists in the Russian revolution.

So, the idea is not that there does not need to be a unified means of social power, but that it needs to be rooted in, and controlled by, the base.

Jimmie Higgins

19th March 2010, 05:39

Fine, how did the Soviet bureaucracy become a new class?I think it was a result of the destruction of the working class which led to substitution, allowing some capitalists and Tsarist bureaucrats to maintain their positions because, frankly, the bolsheviks were trying to prevent reactionay white armies and so activists were being killed on the front lines along with countless workers and the remaining workers were leaving the famine-stricken industrial areas.

There was essentially no longer any social base at that early point after the revolution: workers were de-industrialized, and they could no longer lead the peasants becuase the pesants were too busy fending for their own survival to care about the interests of the working class let alone the bolsheviks.

As Lenin said, the party was fooling itself in thinking that they were leading the old regime's burocrats and not the other way around. In addition, with no real social base, the party tried to "act int the interests of the workers" which was mistaken, but I don't know what they could have done differently at that point. The party tried different things but was kind of aimless and just blindly trying to hold thngs together.

State-capitalism seemed to offer a solution and they basically used the state to take the role ususally played by capitalists in order to re-industrialize and build up production. Maybe they were sincere about this, maybe people were just self-interested, but this road led to the emergence of a new ruling class whose interests were in creating national power and prductive forces, not worker's power.

syndicat

19th March 2010, 05:53

but the destruction of the working class usually takes Petrograd as a model. population of Petrograd had been swollen by war as it was a war production center. after the war it's population dropped from 2 million to half a million. to avoid starvation Lenin advised workers to go back stay with their peasant relatives...which workers were doing anyway, to avoid starvation.

but other cities did not decline like St Petersburg. Kharkov actually grew after 1917.

moreover, measures like the Supreme Council of National Economy and one-man management, which were being put in play by early 1918, before the Russian civil war, already imply creation of a managerial layer controlling the economy, to which workers would be subordinate. so even if the working class had not declined due to collapse of production, these measures would still have led to a new bureaucratic class over the working class. the Bolsheviks never supported direct worker management.

The Feral Underclass

19th March 2010, 09:33

See my previous answer: there are plenty of real-life examples we can learn from.

Yet Marxists never seem to learn from them.

Your problem, not mine, or the workers'.

Well, since Marxist revolutions degenerate into rigid bureaucracy with the destruction of any real expression of workers power and a gradual return to capitalism, then I would say it is a very real problem for working class people.

Made up of workers. You don't expect every worker on earth to be a militant revolutionary, do you?

Why not? Or if not militant revolutionaries, at least class conscious enough to understand that they can organising for themselves.

If not, then some are going to be "led", and others are going to be in opposition. Class consciousness does not develop evenly, and so the political organs of the workers will reflect this.

I reject your premise. There's no necessary requirement for leadership, even if class consciousness does develop unevenly.

So first, you're admitting that a vanguard party, a revolutionary party made up of workers to promote working-class interests, is possible. Second, you're saying that as soon as it gets into power, the same exact principle is both impossible and counterrevolutionary. I'm not sure how one can go with the other.

I'm sure you can't. But a revolutionary party is not the same as a state and a state by the very nature of it being centralised cannot represent the workers interests, it can only serve the interests of the state as it attempts to maintain its control, which will eventually become contrary to the interests of the workers.

The reason for this, is because the centralisation of political authority I.e a state, requires subordination to it and to the "centre", dominated by a political elite, whether elected or not, whose role is to ensure the continued hegemony of the states control. It's purpose is to maintain a defence of the revolution at all costs. In the process of doing that this bureaucratic minority becomes entrenched within its role, in the course of which actual expressions of workers power are recuperated, because their divergence cannot exist simultaneously if the state is to maintain and defend itself (for example, the bureaucracy wouldn't allow workers collectives organising areas of land and industry independently of that centralised political authority, or maintaining military militias separate to a centralised army). So, you cannot have the emergence of workers councils in factories and the creation of workers militias that express their own political power if centralised political authority exists, meaning that eventually these separate expressions of workers power are either recuperated into the state or smashed.

I've now said this to you three times. If you wish to continue this debate, please could you address the points, rather than repeating sound bites and party rhetoric. If you don't understand it, then just admit you don't and we can move on.

A leadership of workers, yes. It's the only way a modern state, a workers state, can work.

You completely ignored the entire argument and quoted me out of context so you could repeat yourself. This isn't a discussion, this is just you stating things. Is this really how your political organisation encourages debate?

You've repeatedly ignored my argument. Please address it!

So going back to my original point that we see the emergence of a new political class "...who claim to be managing the workers state in the name of the workers, and in some instances may even have direct democratic structures in place - To begin with. But the historical role of this new bureaucratic class turns into defending the state i.e. there own political authority, meaning actual workers democracy becomes nominal, to non-existent as the state cannot reconcile its own existence with the existence of structures which emerge contrary to its own (i.e a transition to a decentralised, classless society) and outside of its control (Kronstadt and the Aragon/Catalonian collectives are a prime example). In an effort to try and control these structures they force them to lose their true revolutionary characteristics and they end up being recuperated by the state, which eventually only becomes revolutionary in name and not in practice."

Then why did the same process not degenerate the revolutions of the bourgeoisie?

Because the purpose of bourgeois revolutions was not to establish a classless, stateless society.

The capitalist class has shown itself capable of organizing a state to defend its interests, even in its revolutionary phase. Why do you assert that the workers are less politically adept than the bourgeoisie? Why do you think the workers are incapable of doing what the capitalist class has already done?

This isn't about workers being capable or incapable of establishing a state, it's about analysing the actual nature of what that means.

Obviously, it is perfectly possible for a group of workers to established control of centralised political authority and use it to defend themselves. It has happened in Russia and Cuba and China. They successfully defeated counter-revolutions and established a socialist state. That's possible.

The issue is, that's not our objective. At least, that's not the objective of communists. Perhaps you're not a communist, I just assumed you were. But my goal is the creation of a classless, stateless society, and in that context, which is what I thought we were discussing, the establishment of this socialist state will not see the creation of a classless, stateless society, because the material conditions it creates render that process impossible. Thus, in terms of the overall objective of a revolution being the establishment of communism, a revolution degenerates.

Fine, how did the Soviet bureaucracy become a new class?

I think Jimmy Higgin's response is essentially correct.

You keep saying that centralization of political authority will destroy any hope for working-class power. But this is a leap in logic.

Why is it? This is where the debate should be. You explain to me why it's a leap in logic. Just stating it isn't really very helpful.

Of course you can, it's called maintaining centralized political power. And without the challenge, there is no need for the authority in the first place. It's like saying you can have a beach without water: authority implies a challenge.

But if that challenge is to decentralise political authority into community assemblies, federated into regional plenums, a removal of the party leadership and direct workers council control over factories and a militia, then the leadership who control centralised political authority have to chose to disband their authority, or defend it. They usually chose to defend it, meaning that those expressions of workers democracy are actually crushed as a result of them trying to maintain control. This is what happened in Kronstadt and in Spain. This continued process then entrenches the bureaucracy and any transition to communism is impossible, unless the bureaucracy is overthrown.

But it is what you are implying.

If the capitalists have successfully organized a state to defend their interests, why do you think workers are unable do this?

I've explained why several times.

But if it is about labels, then what's the point of the disagreement? If we call a state a "commune", does the latter label justify the former?

But it's not about labels :blink:

It's about the nature of political authority and how it is structured in the real, material world. Is that not obvious from what we've been discussing? It feels like I'm talking to myself...

I think it depends on the process of the revolution and the course taken by the workers after its completion.

A revolution is only really complete when communism has been established.

What would constitute a federalized, decentralized political authority?

Political authority that was generated from communities and factories, outwards to larger region and industrial plenums, connected nationally on a federal basis. Instead of political authority coming from a centre downwards, it would go from the base outwards. Political authority would be mandated by communities and factories, not by commissars, central and executive committee's or government departments

Further, why does centralization automatically equal counterrevolution in your eyes?

I've explained that already.

The only difference is that the first (authority in self-defense) is the goal, while the second (centralization of political authority) is the method. The second accomplishes the first.

Yes, it does, but it's not the only way of accomplishing it and in fact, in terms of trying to establish communism, it's the worst way of doing so.

Can you wage war without a chain of command? Yes, you can, but not very effectively. That's what we're discussing here.

So long as a military is controlled and accountable by workers assemblies and positions of command are elected and recallable, in the midst of battle I would agree that military experts should have positions of authority.

But that is an exception for the heat of battle and is in no way a position institutionalised and maintained outside of that situation.

black magick hustla

19th March 2010, 09:52

Their ultimate and conscious aim was control, but I'm sure they had good intentions. Nevertheless, the ideology is flawed. The idea of the Marxist transitional phase has been falsified in practice. It doesn't work.

I don't think it is a matter of consciously installing the state or not. I think that while there is a division of classes it will arise naturally. The state is a conservative, reactionary organ, so it cannot be "worker's", but no anarchist can prevent it from rising unless there are no different demographics that expouse different interests.

The Feral Underclass

19th March 2010, 10:14

I've only responded to small highlights of your post, I hope that's OK. I just don't have the time to respond to it all.

I agree that this is essentially what happened with the USSR - the emergence of a new class, but I'm curious as to the anarchist perspective as to why this is inherent.

It's the nature of centralised political authority.

Workers who have a wildcat strike can create a strike comittee that exists while needed - then it is disbanded. Even early capitalist armies - centralized and authritarian organizations - were created and disbanded when not needed.The issue is that centralised political authority can never just become unnecessary. How does an entrenched bureaucracy whose purpose is to maintain its control in order to defend its gains suddenly just become unnecessary?

Is there an anarchist arguement against some of the ideas presented in "State and Revolution" where Lenin talks about instantly recallable elected representatives that are part of working bodies... their role is essentially just to carry out publicly the will of the workers who voted them as reps? He argued that reps shouldn't be paid more than workers, and need to be accountable - and recallable. How could they set up their own class interests under this kind of system? If worker's maintain control over production (implicitly with the power to shut it down too), it seems to me, no clique would have a chance of positioning themselves as a new ruling class over workers.Centralised political authority negates that process. If we want workers to control communities and industries directly, then there is no need for a political party or a centralised political system I.e. a state.

So centralism and democracy imho, do not seem to be the causes of a new beurocratic class to emerge.Meaningful, direct democracy cannot exist within a centralised system.

This makes it sound like maybe you are more against substitutionism than centralism.Could it not be argued that they are, in this context, essentially the same thing?

To me states are just organizations, they do not have magical inherent interests of their own - it's only when they represent a minority ruling class that these organizations are destructive (to all but the exploiting class).I agree with you, but they represent a minority ruling class, by definition. You can't have centralised political authority/system, which is what a state essentially is, without a minority ruling class.

NiccolÃ² Rossi

19th March 2010, 13:16

The state is a conservative, reactionary organ, so it cannot be "worker's"

To say the state is inherently conservative is entirely different from saying the state is inherently reactionary.

Jimmie Higgins

19th March 2010, 16:18

AT,

Thanks for your response, I know there was some overlap between my questions and what Manic Expression was arguing, so don't worry about taking up only certain parts.

I guess the main question is why "entrenchment" and separation from the working class in interests is inherent in centralism. I can see why this is in modern capitalist society because basically a minority class uses the state to ensure minority rule. Therefore the organizations it creates to protect rule become permanent and entrenched. The bourgeois could never get rid of the cops because that would leave the ruling class vulnerable to the first riot or strike that comes along. We outnumber them and so there's never going to be a period where the capitalist state withers or a state-capitalist state withers.

A worker's state where there is real worker's power and where representatives are merely tools of popular demands would only need most kinds of central organization for certain needs: defending worker's power from attempts by the old ruling class stop the revolution; deciding how to prioritize the various initial needs of people; and generally figuring out how to make up for the structural inequalities of capitalist society - building houses or hospitals or schools in places that capitalism has left to rot. If a majority class is the ruling class, they would have no need for a militia after armed counter-revolution is a factor, they would not need organizational bodies for finding homes for the homeless once workers are able to develop their urban areas to meet our needs and so these organizational bodies would become less and less important. If these organizational bodies are subject to recall are not socially and economically separate from the people they represent, then I can't see how these tools of a majority class rule could develop their own class interests and peruse an internal counterrevolution like what happened in the USSR.

Also, the way see it, the an organized vanguard is necessary to organize and agitate for a revolution, but the vanguard party is not a model for the future state or the kernel of the new state's bureaucracy. A vanguard is only the workers who are revolutionary in outlook and organizing for revolution - a vanguard party is a party made up of people organizing for revolution and after the revolution there would be no "vanguard" since the entire working class would essentially be revolutionary. You don't need military scouts after the army has taken the fort so to speak.