Anarcho-Trots?

[JacobVardy]

I've seen a few people calling themselves anarcho-trots recently. Can anyone explain what this term means? It seams entirely self-contradictory. The one guy i got an answer from said that he believed in using a Leninist model to make the revolution but switching to anarchist organisation strait after the revolution.

[syndicat]

That doesn't make a lot of sense. If he (she) believes in disciplined revolutionary political organization, it would make more sense for him to embrace platformism or some dual organizationalist libertarian left organization.

I've heard that the old Anarchist Workers Organization in the UK went thru a route like this, ended up in the SWP I think. We have a similar trend in the USA who started out in Love & Rage but ended up in Freedom Road, as soft maoists. The old New American Movement of the '70s had a libertarian socialist tendency (I was in it) and some of them ended up in Solidarity. I don't think they'd call themselves "anarcho-trots" tho.

[Spawn of Stalin]

The term is generally used as a pejorative and in jest...I didn't realise there were people who actually identified with anarcho-Trotskyism.

[9]

The only people here who seriously call themselves "anarcho-trots" are pretty clear trolls.
On the other hand, the closest thing to actual "anarcho-trots" (i.e. not trolls on the internet) are platformists. Still, it is a revleft meme and not an actual political tendency.

[bricolage]

It's a joke or insult really.
I think anyone who calls themselves an anarcho-trot in any serious way is a bit deluded.


The one guy i got an answer from said that he believed in using a Leninist model to make the revolution but switching to anarchist organisation strait after the revolution.

This seems pretty confusing, especially seeing as locating a homogenous 'leninist model' or 'anarchist organisation' is problematic in itself.
I think also it gets confusing as I'm not sure what is entailed by 'after the revolution'. In any meaninful sense the revolution is over when we reach communism, when that happens it's not about being a leninist or an anarchist, or even a communist really, it's just about being human.
Although a lot of people use 'after the revolution' to mean after a few shots are fired or after a bit of power is grabbed. Here I suppose we are talking about the phase of tranistion and how to manage it. Returning to your quote I suppose the 'anarchist organisation' here would be decentralised councils, communes etc, militas yadda yadda as opposed to the rather fictional 'workers state' as favoured by leninists. If you are talking about a leninist model to 'make' the revolution then I'm guessing it refers to a strict, disciplined vanguard party (although to say this party 'makes' the revolution is elitism of the highest kind). So I'm guessing you could have a party that then dissolves itself during the transition from capitalism to socialism/communism, I've never heard of anyone advocating that though.

[syndicat]

9 is right. "anarcho-trot" is a sectarian put down of platformists by anti-platformist anarchists.

[el_chavista]

...using a Leninist model to make the revolution but switching to anarchist organization strait after the revolution.
According to the Trots, all revolutions have degenerated in Burocratized Workers States. Then it is easy to conclude that the only way to avoid this is by starting an anarchist revolution after the communists seize power :)

[28350]

I mean, I've heard of anarcho-Stalinists, as in the PLP of the US.
I'm not sure what they advocate, but it's either a socialist revolution followed almost immediately by communism, or (which I find interesting) a socialist revolution followed by the dictatorship of the proletariat followed by a communist revolution.
Not sure though, to be honest.

[ContrarianLemming]

"Anarcho-Trots? did they shoot themselves at Kronstadt?"

[ed miliband]

Daniel Guerin was pretty much an anarcho-Trot, no? I know he was very close to Trotsky for some time but I presume that was before he became an anarchist.

[Devrim]

I've heard that the old Anarchist Workers Organization in the UK went thru a route like this, ended up in the SWP I think.

I think you will find that it was 'Anarchist Workers' Group' and that they ended up in the RCP.

Devrim

[AK]

I hope to god that this thread is just a big troll. I myself am an ex-member of the Vast And Glorious Brotherhood of Anarcho-Trot Conspirators.

In all seriousness, though, I once considered myself to be borderline Anarchist (like it's a disease or something :p) whilst also still being a Trotskyist. As Blasphemy1 said in the Ex-Trotskyist usergroup, "I always viewed Trotskyism as being much more libertarian than it actually was" - and soon I found that my views belonged more in the council communist tendency than the Trotskyist.

How Anarchism and Trotskyism actually fit together, I have no clue.

[ContrarianLemming]

I hope to god that this thread is just a big troll. I myself am an ex-member of the Vast And Glorious Brotherhood of Anarcho-Trot Conspirators.

In all seriousness, though, I once considered myself to be borderline Anarchist (like it's a disease or something :p) whilst also still being a Trotskyist. As Blasphemy1 said in the Ex-Trotskyist usergroup, "I always viewed Trotskyism as being much more libertarian than it actually was" - and soon I found that my views belonged more in the council communist tendency than the Trotskyist.

How Anarchism and Trotskyism actually fit together, I have no clue.

Theres a group for recovering trots? Point me to it sir!

I think people consider tortskyism to be the "nicer" version of Leninism because Trotsky criticized Stalin so much, in comparison to Stalin he seems far more libertarian, thus, people fall into this hole whey consider Trotskyism "nice" Marxism
Council Communism is nice marxism!

[Crusade]

I can't deal with any more subgroups of tendencies. I'm slowly beginning to lose my mind.

[ContrarianLemming]

I can't deal with any more subgroups of tendencies. I'm slowly beginning to lose my mind.

Anarchism's subgroups are social anarchism and individualist anarchism, social anarchism subgroups are syndicalism, collectivism, communism and mutualism, syndicalism's subgroups are vanilla syndicalism, revolutionary syndicalism and anarcho syndicalism, subgroups of anarcho syndicalism and anarcho-communism and parecon, inclusive democracy and Platformism. Individia..

http://scienceblogs.com/whitecoatunderground/upload/2009/06/my_head_just_asploded/your-head-asplode.jpg

[AK]

Council Communism is nice marxism!
I'm confused as to whether you're being sarcastic or genuine, I can't read minds, see.
As for the group, here it is: http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=459

[ContrarianLemming]

I'm confused as to whether you're being sarcastic or genuine, I can't read minds, see.
As for the group, here it is: http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=459

oh I'm being genuine, notice how the marxist tendencies share the anarchist characteristic of not being named after anyone.

[AK]

oh I'm being genuine, notice how the marxist tendencies share the anarchist characteristic of not being named after anyone.
That doesn't actually make any sense... or maybe I'm just thick. All I know is Left'ism and Councillism aren't named after anyone but Maoism, Trotskyism, Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism are named after individiuals... this confused me so bad.

[Crusade]

oh I'm being genuine, notice how the marxist tendencies share the anarchist characteristic of not being named after anyone.

How can a Marxist tendency not be named after anyone?

[AK]

How can a Marxist tendency not be named after anyone?
Left Communism, Council Communism...

[Crusade]

Left Communism, Council Communism...

Ah, my apologies. Sorry, my girl made me take an IQ test and for some reason now I'm overlooking more things logically. I'm 135 though, apparently. ROAR OFF TOPIC MONSTER ATTACKS AGAIN ROAR!!!

But yeah, you already covered the other stuff regarding Mao, Stalin, etc

[Chambered Word]

It was a joke. Whenever Stalinists got into shit with the admins they'd whine about an anarcho-Trot conspiracy (like Intelligitimate before he was eventually banned).

I'm a member but don't tell though.

[AK]

I'm a member but don't tell though.
You just ruined the sacred code of secrecy :scared:
But, yes, those were the origins.

[bricolage]

Left Communism, Council Communism...

I think I've heard some left communists oppose being called Marxists. Not sure though.

[AK]

I think I've heard some left communists oppose being called Marxists. Not sure though.
I wouldn't be surprised, but they can't deny that their ideology does have roots in Marxism.

[ed miliband]

They would object to being called Marxists like Marx and De Leon rejected the term.

[Devrim]

I think I've heard some left communists oppose being called Marxists. Not sure though.

I don't call myself a Marxist. The vast majority of left communists do though.

Devrim

[ContrarianLemming]

That doesn't actually make any sense... or maybe I'm just thick. All I know is Left'ism and Councillism aren't named after anyone but Maoism, Trotskyism, Marxism-Leninism and Stalinism are named after individiuals... this confused me so bad.

Sorry, I meant that the more statist forms of marxism (leninism) are named after some great individual, while the more libertarian forms of marxism, like council communism and situationism, are not, which is a characteristic of anarchism.
Note how the only "anarchist" ideas named after people are the anarcho capitalist ones.

[Madvillainy]

Sorry, I meant that the more statist forms of marxism (leninism) are named after some great individual, while the more libertarian forms of marxism, like council communism and situationism, are not, which is a characteristic of anarchism.
Note how the only "anarchist" ideas named after people are the anarcho capitalist ones.

That's only because Kroptokinist or Malatestaist sound lame as. I don't see how it really matters anyway, we should judge these groups by their ideas not by what they call themselves.

And yea basically 'anarcho-trot' is an insult directed at platformist groups like the wsm who share a lot of traits and positions with the various trot groups here.

[ContrarianLemming]

That's only because Kroptokinist or Malatestaist sound lame as. I don't see how it really matters anyway, we should judge these groups by their ideas not by what they call themselves.

And yea basically 'anarcho-trot' is an insult directed at platformist groups like the wsm who share a lot of traits and positions with the various trot groups here.

Yeah I was a member of the WSM myself but I decided to commit myself to the wider leftist movement in Ireland.
It's a shame really, the only actual anarchist orginization in ireland and it's anarcho trot!

And what an unfortunate nickname trotskyists have

plus, the mutualists usedto call themselves proudhonists, back in the good ol days.

[Madvillainy]

Yeah I was a member of the WSM myself but I decided to commit myself to the wider leftist movement in Ireland.
It's a shame really, the only actual anarchist orginization in ireland and it's anarcho trot!


Well there is Organise! in Belfast, who are quite good, but they don't have a presence anywhere else in Ireland... Maybe you should get in contact with them!

[ContrarianLemming]

Well there is Organise! in Belfast, who are quite good, but they don't have a presence anywhere else in Ireland... Maybe you should get in contact with them!

I'm so glad you didn't make a big deal about this being Ireland while Belfast isn't quite. Socialism and republicanism are far to intertwined here.
I read the Orginize were pretty influenced by the troubles, while WSM is influenced by irish republicanism, which I really can't stand, I am a citizen of the world.

[howblackisyourflag]

Are WSM controversial for being Platformists?

They're the only real anarchist group in Ireland that I know of.

[Madvillainy]

Are WSM controversial for being Platformists?

They're the only real anarchist group in Ireland that I know of.

They are controversial within the anarchist movement because they don't have a problem supporting various nationalist movements and because they believe unions can be reformed and support electing left-wing union reps. There are many other problems with them but these are the main two.

And yes they are the only anarchist group in Ireland, although as I mentioned earlier there is a group in Belfast called Organise! who have a sound position on national liberation and the unions.

[ContrarianLemming]

They are controversial within the anarchist movement because they don't have a problem supporting various nationalist movements and because they believe unions can be reformed and support electing left-wing union reps. There are many other problems with them but these are the main two.


This is exactly what I mean by the situation with socialism in Ireland, no matter how hard I try, it seems damn near impossible to find an irish socialist group that isn't irish republican or nationalist, or sympatise with sein fein or the IRA. Ireland's whole socialist tradition is completely poisoned with nationalism.

And ciaran is correct in his analysis, although platformism is also a sort of controversial anarchist idea.

[Android]

Aeon135 - I pretty much agree with what Ciaran has said regarding the WSM & Organise!.

Organise! have recently held their conference where they have declared themselves anarcho-syndicalist. If you agree with their politics on unions and national liberation you should definitely get in touch, seeing that your identify as an anarcho-syndicalist.

Also, depending on the price of flights, I will probably be at the Dublin Anarchist Bookfair manning a stall for the Anarchist Federation. Although I don't identify as an anarchist any more, I'd be interested in chatting with you.

[ContrarianLemming]

Aeon135 - I pretty much agree with what Ciaran has said regarding the WSM & Organise!.

Organise! have recently held their conference where they have declared themselves anarcho-syndicalist. If you agree with their politics on unions and national liberation you should definitely get in touch, seeing that your identify as an anarcho-syndicalist.

Like I said earlier, I don't like getting into purely anarchist politics, I rather just keep up with the mags, news and rallies.


Also, depending on the price of flights, I will probably be at the Dublin Anarchist Bookfair manning a stall for the Anarchist Federation. Although I don't identify as an anarchist any more, I'd be interested in chatting with you.Although I'm sure your a fine person Rowan, I make it an unbreakable interweb rule to never meet anyone I've met online, hope you understand :)

[howblackisyourflag]

So whats an Irish anarchist not from a republican or nationalist background to do then?

[Android]

Like I said earlier, I don't like getting into purely anarchist politics, I rather just keep up with the mags, news and rallies.


Didn't pick up from your earlier post that you weren't interested in being involved in a political group.


Although I'm sure your a fine person Rowan, I make it an unbreakable interweb rule to never meet anyone I've met online, hope you understand

Thats fair enough. Of course I understand.

[ContrarianLemming]

So whats an Irish anarchist not from a republican or nationalist background to do then?

I dunno..guess I'll marry a protestant! Shake things up a bit! I'll be an Irish Harvey milk!

I just realized now that Orginise! was the AF publication, who are ancom's, which doesn't really matter. But why do they refer to themselves as AFED on there site? http://www.afed.org.uk/

There seems to be a far left obsession with acronym? CNT, FAI, UGT, CGT, AFED, CPS, AYF, IWW, IWA, WSM

:D

[syndicat]

i have my disagreements with the WSM, but I wouldn't call them anarcho-trotskyists. They don't defend the idea of a party taking state power.

here in the USA when I encounter anarchists who criticize platformism as being secret Leninists, I find that this means that they're individualists or spontaneists who dodn't see the point to revolutionary political organization and horizontal discipline.

this "anarcho-trot" slur has a long tradition in anarchoid circles. for example the radical wing in the CNT in the Spanish revolution were called "anarcho-Bolsheviks" by their faction opponents, due to their proposal for worker defense councils controlled by the unions, to run a unified militia, and replace the state. so I suppose that those libertarian socialists who advocate popular power or popular self-governance to replace the state are going to be called "authoritarians" or "Bolsheviks" or whatever by the anti-power and individualist anarchists. It's just a dishonest form of rhetoric.

[black magick hustla]

I don't know about the anarcho-trot slur used by americans but in libcom, when it is leveled against platformists, has more to do with their position on unions, national liberation, and sometimes even elections than their percieved authoritarianism. The least worse aspect of groups surrounding Anarkismo is their "authoritarianism". Actually, looking at the platform in a vacuum without taking into account platformists groups today, is generally a positive document.

[syndicat]

unions, national liberation, and sometimes even elections than their percieved authoritarianism.

well, quite a few platformists are syndicalists. if you read "Black Flame," this seems to be the view of the authors of that book, who identify with the syndicalist tradition. WSM has an official position that is anti-syndicalist but that is not necessarily found everywhere.

on libcom council communism or left-communism tends to have a strong influence and this means many people take the view that unionism is inherently conservative or part of the state and that ongoing formal worker organization is to be not supported. since that viewpoint rejects the revolutionary syndicalist tradition, and the position of most anarchists in the past, it can't be used as a reason to denounce those anarchists who disagree with them as "trotskyists".

platformists, in my observation, reject a national liberation state building project, but, in reality, anarchists do not all agree on the subject of how to relate to circumstances that can be described as "national liberation struggle." take the civil wars in Central America in the '80s for example. here it was necessary to oppose American intervention and to support the mass organizations in those countries, even if we don't agree with the politics or alliances of those organizations.

I don't know of any platformists who advocate for electoral politics. voting on ballot measures, on the other hand, is not the same thing as voting for candidates. I think taking a position on ballot measures is okay because in that case the people get to make the decision directly, and here in California we often get reactionary ballot measures and it can be a form of relevant organizing to support a "Vote no" position.

I think some times some platformists may overemphasize the role of the political organization as distinguished from the mass organizations in terms of their role in revolutionary change, and those who have such a position are closer to Leninist vanguardism.

in the USA there are a few ex-Trots who are platformists and who maybe still retain some elements of their old viewpoint but they wouldn't call themselves "anarcho-trots" since they've rejected the "transitional state" and Leninism. It's also good to keep in mind that there has always been a significant amount of marxist influence on anarchism historically.

[Revy]

I've seen a few people calling themselves anarcho-trots recently. Can anyone explain what this term means? It seams entirely self-contradictory. The one guy i got an answer from said that he believed in using a Leninist model to make the revolution but switching to anarchist organisation strait after the revolution.

No such thing. they are probably being sarcastic and making fun of the Stalinist trolls.

Although I suppose there are serious minded individuals who try to blend aspects of ideologies like anarchism and Trotskyism. Probably rare, anarchists and Trotskyists don't exactly get along that well. Most anarchists are anti-Lenin (and Trotsky by association), Trotskyists are the exact opposite.

[Android]

i have my disagreements with the WSM

What are your differences with the WSM. I'm being genuine in asking.


I wouldn't call them anarcho-trotskyists. They don't defend the idea of a party taking state power.


I don't know about the anarcho-trot slur used by americans but in libcom, when it is leveled against platformists, has more to do with their position on unions, national liberation, and sometimes even elections than their percieved authoritarianism.

Like maldoror, I'm familiar with its use on libcom to say that their position on union, national liberation (although the WSM position paper has improved over recent years) etc could be found in the Trotskyist movement. Although I personally, wouldn't use the label of anarcho-trot, I don't think those that use it are incorrect in using it. For the reason that the anarcho or libertarian prefix before trotskyist deals with the question of "a party taking state power."

[syndicat]

What are your differences with the WSM.

i disagree with their anti-syndicalism. i had a long debate with one of their members on this question...altho in the end he ended up pretty much agreeing with me.

you can find the debate here: http://workersolidarity.org/archive/debates.html

[Android]

on libcom council communism or left-communism tends to have a strong influence and this means many people take the view that unionism is inherently conservative or part of the state and that ongoing formal worker organization is to be not supported. since that viewpoint rejects the revolutionary syndicalist tradition, and the position of most anarchists in the past, it can't be used as a reason to denounce those anarchists who disagree with them as "trotskyists".

Members of libcom.org admin group (who are members of the Brighton SolFed group as well) who produced Strategy & Struggle and while they wouldn't identify as revolutionary syndicalists, they certainly do identify as anarcho-syndicalist. While you may disagree with their definition and understanding of what is anarcho-syndicalism, it doesn't change the fact that they identify with that tradition.

[syndicat]

when I had a debate about that with Joseph K on libcom, he conceded that their position differs from historical libertarian approach to revolutionary syndicalism.

also, I don't know of any syndicalists in the USA who would agree with the position that Brighton SolFed holds. There may be a individual here or there, but no anarchist or syndicalist group to my knowledge. the only syndicalist political groups in the USA to my knowledge are WSA and ASR and neither would agree with the point of view of Brighton SolFed. Nor would the platformist syndicalists in the various Anarkismo network groups in USA, as far as I am aware.

in fact, as far as i know, almost the only people in the USA who hold a position like that are council communists or left-communists, altho occasionally there have been local short-lived "anarcho-communist" groups who hold such a view. of course, in saying this, I'm talking about anarchists who hold a class struggle perspective. it may be that primmies or post-lefts or situationists (if there any left) might agree with that sort of viewpoint.

[black magick hustla]

on libcom council communism or left-communism tends to have a strong influence and this means many people take the view that unionism is inherently conservative or part of the state and that ongoing formal worker organization is to be not supported. since that viewpoint rejects the revolutionary syndicalist tradition, and the position of most anarchists in the past, it can't be used as a reason to denounce those anarchists who disagree with them as "trotskyists".


I don't think this is true. In libcom, leftcommunists get routinely abused.




platformists, in my observation, reject a national liberation state building project, but, in reality, anarchists do not all agree on the subject of how to relate to circumstances that can be described as "national liberation struggle." take the civil wars in Central America in the '80s for example. here it was necessary to oppose American intervention and to support the mass organizations in those countries, even if we don't agree with the politics or alliances of those organizations.

This is the position trotskyist groups take tbh. To most trotskyists, its a strategic view, rather than one out of principle.



I don't know of any platformists who advocate for electoral politics. voting on ballot measures, on the other hand, is not the same thing as voting for candidates. I think taking a position on ballot measures is okay because in that case the people get to make the decision directly, and here in California we often get reactionary ballot measures and it can be a form of relevant organizing to support a "Vote no" position.

I think this is the main issue with "anarkismo" platformism. It involves itself a lot in leftist, cross class campaigns. obviously we disagree with this. But in this context it makes sense to be called an anarcho trot.




in the USA there are a few ex-Trots who are platformists and who maybe still retain some elements of their old viewpoint but they wouldn't call themselves "anarcho-trots" since they've rejected the "transitional state" and Leninism. It's also good to keep in mind that there has always been a significant amount of marxist influence on anarchism historically.

I think leninism as a political slur is meaningless. What does it really mean anyway? I don't support the "transitional" state. I think it emerges organically and it is a very conservative and reactionary force.

[Palingenisis]

Like maldoror, I'm familiar with its use on libcom to say that their position on union, national liberation (although the WSM position paper has improved over recent years) etc could be found in the Trotskyist movement. Although I personally, wouldn't use the label of anarcho-trot, I don't think those that use it are incorrect in using it. For the reason that the anarcho or libertarian prefix before trotskyist deals with the question of "a party taking state power."

Are you refering to the same scum who condemned the right of the Irish nation to assert our self-determination in arms and who continually make soops to Orange fascism? Fine Irish name you have there...Pity about the social-Imperialist politics...

[Palingenisis]

Like maldoror, I'm familiar with its use on libcom to say that their position on union, national liberation (although the WSM position paper has improved over recent years) etc could be found in the Trotskyist movement. Although I personally, wouldn't use the label of anarcho-trot, I don't think those that use it are incorrect in using it. For the reason that the anarcho or libertarian prefix before trotskyist deals with the question of "a party taking state power."

What exactly is your prob with Donald Duck?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vH7IOnuVyU

[syndicat]

me:

platformists, in my observation, reject a national liberation state building project, but, in reality, anarchists do not all agree on the subject of how to relate to circumstances that can be described as "national liberation struggle." take the civil wars in Central America in the '80s for example. here it was necessary to oppose American intervention and to support the mass organizations in those countries, even if we don't agree with the politics or alliances of those organizations.

mal:
This is the position trotskyist groups take tbh.

no. trots follow the Leninist view in favor of "national self-determination". supporting mass organizations, if they have some independence, is not the same thing as supporting a party with a state building project. in reality a nationality can't be "liberated" if its working class majority isn't, and thus can't happen within class society.

but this shouldn't be used as an excuse to defend or sit on the side lines in cases of struggles against imperialist domination. for example, external debt is a way in which finance capital in the core countries superexploits third world countries. so, should they reject the debt to better meet working class needs? What if there is a movement in that country for this aim?


I think this is the main issue with "anarkismo" platformism. It involves itself a lot in leftist, cross class campaigns.

i doubt it. can you give any examples?

you sound like the usual leftcommunist sectarian.

[Palingenisis]

This is exactly what I mean by the situation with socialism in Ireland, no matter how hard I try, it seems damn near impossible to find an irish socialist group that isn't irish republican or nationalist, or sympatise with sein fein or the IRA. Ireland's whole socialist tradition is completely poisoned with nationalism.

.
`
Uh Martin Mc Guiness called the IRA (the "Real" IRA too you my darling Irish Times reader) "traitors to the Island of Ireland"...So sympathizing with the IRA (which I and millions more like me do) and sympathizing with Provie Sinn Fein are pretty much mutually exclusive...

Ireland's whole socialist tradition is "piosoned" by a hunger for National Liberation because of something called "British Imperialism"...It might be worth your while looking up its history "comrade".

[Palingenisis]

And yes they are the only anarchist group in Ireland, although as I mentioned earlier there is a group in Belfast called Organise! who have a sound position on national liberation and the unions.

Both have crap postitions on the Unions and "national liberation"....Though Orangize! are slightly less crap on the Unions (buts thats probably just to spite the WSM).

What is it about grand Irish names and crap social-Imperialist politics....:rolleyes:

[Android]

when I had a debate about that with Joseph K on libcom, he conceded that their position differs from historical libertarian approach to revolutionary syndicalism.

I have no reason not to believe you. But I'd prefer if you post a link to the relevant discussion thread. I do remember a few exchanges between Joseph Kay and yourself, the most recent on the compatibility of platformism and anarco-syndicalism. However, Joseph Kay does critique revolutionariy syndicalism and counter pose it to anarcho-syndicalism as he conceives it, so maybe that is what you are referring to.


I don't know of any syndicalists in the USA who would agree with the position that Brighton SolFed holds. There may be a individual here or there, but no anarchist or syndicalist group to my knowledge. the only syndicalist political groups in the USA to my knowledge are WSA and ASR and neither would agree with the point of view of Brighton SolFed. Nor would the platformist syndicalists in the various Anarkismo network groups in USA, as far as I am aware.

It is irrelevant that there is no group in North America articulating the conception of anarcho-syndicalim put forward by Brighton SolFed. The absence of co-thinker doesn't mean their perspective isn't anarcho-syndicalist, it is the ideas they put forward which determine that.

However, when there Strategy & Struggle document was first published I thought is was a council communist document. Since then though the views expressed in that document have changed and evolved. Joseph Kay has abandoned the mass-minority distinction and argues that a union is simply a coming together of workers with a shared (economic) interest, which is what separates in their opinion a revolutionary union which seeks to regroup revolutionary workers, from trade and industrial unions which seek to represent all workers in the respective trade/industry. Thus what is essentially being argued for is minority unionism, which means a permanent industrial network which becomes the revolutionary union when it has an organisation of workplace groups which argue for a revolutionary perspective within the workplace with mass meetings being the organs of struggle. So the difference between your respective perspectives is over the definition of what a union is and strategy resulting from that, am I correct?

From my point of view, I disagree with their abandonment of the mass-minority distinction and have a semantical disagreement on calling what is described above a revoutionary union, whereas a industrial network or whatever would do fine as far as I'm considered.

[black magick hustla]

me:


mal:

no. trots follow the Leninist view in favor of "national self-determination". supporting mass organizations, if they have some independence, is not the same thing as supporting a party with a state building project. in reality a nationality can't be "liberated" if its working class majority isn't, and thus can't happen within class society.

What mass organizations though? Do you mean Wayne Price's call for the defense of the Lebanese nation-state?

99% of mass organizations invested in national liberation have "state building projects". Most trotskyists actually argue that national liberation is a prerequisite for socialism, therefore it is favorable. Rather than national liberation by itself. The same line followed by some irish republicans.





i doubt it. can you give any examples?

you sound like the usual leftcommunist sectarian.

Actually. I once sat in a lecture given by a WSM militant that was having a lecture tour through the US. He was specifically talking about how the WSM's "success" were a product of entryst tactics in nominally "leftist campaigns" like globalization and enviromentalism. In fact you can read it in the wikipedia article:

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

I don't think anti-globalization is a class demand at all. It is a leftist demand, based on the idea that the national bourgeosie is "better" than the bigger western ones. If globalization stopped, the working class would not gained a tiny bit from this.

[Android]

Are you refering to the same scum who condemned the right of the Irish nation to assert our self-determination in arms and who continually make soops to Orange fascism? Fine Irish name you have there...Pity about the social-Imperialist politics...


What is it about grand Irish names and crap social-Imperialist politics....

Come on, leave out the bit about the support for militarist gangs. Pretty much all trotskyist groups support the 'right of the irish nation to self-determination'.

I don't hold "social-imperialist politics" (e.g. AWL). I'm afraid it is you that defends social-imperialist politics, although in reverse. Unlike the AWL who believe imperialism can play a 'progressive' role in the development of normal 'class' politics. Whereas I'm assuming from your previous post that you hold the working class in Ireland is obliged to support a capitalist gang in the name of "the right of the Irish nation to assert our self-determination in arms". And then when 'national liberation' is achieved, we can then struggle as a class for ourselves.

[syndicat]

It is irrelevant It is irrelevant that there is no group in North America articulating the conception of anarcho-syndicalim put forward by Brighton SolFed. The absence of co-thinker doesn't mean their perspective isn't anarcho-syndicalist, it is the ideas they put forward which determine that.


There never was an anarcho-syndicalist group historically to hold that one should not advocate for a mass organization that would have a formal ongoing existence.

I don't think their view can be reduced simply to advocating for "minority unionism" since they also have in mind a high level of ideological agreement for that "minority." This is why they reject the distinction between the political or specific organization and the mass organization.

Moreover, they seem to make a distinction between ad hoc events such as worker assemblies in a period of strike or protest and the ongoing formal minority organization.

This formula may make some sense in some countries. Both the CGT and CNT in Spain have functioned to some extent this way at times.

But why elevate it to a universal principle for all times and places?

Moreover, "minority unionism" can still exist where there is a distinction in degree of ideological consciousness.

There do exist "minority unions" in the USA, and usually radicals are involved in keeping them going. Starbucks Workers Union would be an example. I was involved in a union of this sort in the '70s. But when there was a sudden upsurge of militant opposition among co-workers, they were absorbed into the union. We had mass outdoor meetings, called "speak outs", and a sudden increase in people involved. But, as I say, this meant that the union now incorporated more people. This is the way things of this sort have occurred in the USA, such as the history of ebb and flow of IWW in various industries in its heyday.

And the IWW was not a narrow "craft" or "industrial" union. And there was another example from the '30s, the Independent Union of All Workers, that organized everybody throughtout the small cities in the midwest where it organized. This union had been initiated by IWW members.

In a situation where there is a mass upsurge and an assembly is held to get people together to make decisions and run a strike and so on, why would these people not be incorporated into a single union ongoing? In the cases where this hasn't happened in Spain, I think this can be explained by the fact there are separate minority unions.

[syndicat]

mal:
What mass organizations though? Do you mean Wayne Price's call for the defense of the Lebanese nation-state?


you seem to have a problem keeping things straight. first of all, Price is one individual, and I doubt you've accurately described his view in that case, and, in any case, his views were not shared by the majority in NEFAC on this issue. a sensible discussion of platformism needs to be about platformist organizations.

secondly, you also seem to not be able to distinguish me from the platformists. I'm not a platformist. I belong to WSA. we're not a platformist organization. it's been our view that we support independent worker or peasant organizations, especially where they have some independence. we don't have to agree with their entire point of view. it's a question of being on the right side in the class struggle, which you seem to have a problem doing.


Actually. I once sat in a lecture given by a WSM militant that was having a lecture tour through the US. He was specifically talking about how the WSM's "success" were a product of entryst tactics in nominally "leftist campaigns" like globalization and enviromentalism. In fact you can read it in the wikipedia article:


again, it's difficult having a rational discussion with you because you jump around from one thing to another. you originally were talking about "cross-class campaigns". From the fact that some campaign can gain some middle class support, it doesn't follow it is a cross class campaign. It depends on the nature of the campaign. In the USA we have a distinction between the big national enviro NGOs who are often pro-corporate or pro-capitalist and look to businesses for funding, organizations like the National Resources Defense Council. And then we have what is called the environmental justice movement. This is made up of groups based in working class communities, often communities of color. To take an example, there may be a campaign against a waste incinerator that would be located in or near a poor community and there would be a campaign against it.

if you think environmentalism isn't a working class issue, you're crazy. also you're using the phrase "globalization" the way the capitalist press do. they try to portray the global justice movement -- that's what its members call it -- as "anti-globalization". but in fact it's a set of movements that are based on a certain kind of globalization. I'll give an example. Consider the campaign against e-waste. An enviro justice issue and also a problem of "globalization." Vast quantities of discarded electronic gear get shipped to China and India to be dismantled in dangerous conditions by people working informally, polluting the local communities and the people who do this work. This led to an international campaign against dumping of e-waste in the third world. This forced agreements to take back waste by HP and Dell for example. This issue here is the way capitalist firms externalize their costs onto vulnerable communities. one of the organizations involved is the Sillicon Valley Toxics Coalition. This emerged out of some worker health and safety groups in the '70s. The original issues were poisoning of workers in semiconductor and electronics assembly plants.

And your description of a specific organization's participation in mass campaigns or mass organizations as "entryist" is grand-standing unless you can back that up. In other words, what was their actual conduct within these organizations? Or is it that you are against a revolutionary organization participating in mass organizations?

[Homo Songun]

it seems damn near impossible to find an irish socialist group that isn't irish republican or nationalist, or sympatise with sein fein or the IRA. Ireland's whole socialist tradition is completely poisoned with nationalism.

Hooray for poison! Hope it kills off British imperialists soon. :thumbup1:

[Devrim]

in fact, as far as i know, almost the only people in the USA who hold a position like that are council communists or left-communists, altho occasionally there have been local short-lived "anarcho-communist" groups who hold such a view. of course, in saying this, I'm talking about anarchists who hold a class struggle perspective. it may be that primmies or post-lefts or situationists (if there any left) might agree with that sort of viewpoint.

This is an amalgamation technique. It is generally considered to be a Stalinist method.

Devrim

[syndicat]

This is an amalgamation technique. It is generally considered to be a Stalinist method.



actually, it might be relevant to ask: is it true? and, yes, attaching a derogative name to a proposition, rather than answering it, as you just did, is a stalinist technique.

[Devrim]

actually, it might be relevant to ask: is it true? and, yes, attaching a derogative name to a proposition, rather than answering it, as you just did, is a stalinist technique.

I have no idea if it is true. I have never met a primitivist or a 'post-left' (I am not really sure what it means even), and have no idea what they talk about.

Devrim

[ContrarianLemming]

@devrim
post left anarchists are insurrectionary anarchists who don't want to be accociated with marxists anymore, to put it simply. :rolleyes:

[Palingenisis]

@devrim
post left anarchists are insurrectionary anarchists who don't want to be accociated with marxists anymore, to put it simply. :rolleyes:

Actually they draw heavily on Marxists such as Jacques Cammatte and Otto Ruhle my darling Irish Times reader.

[Palingenisis]

I have no idea if it is true. I have never met a primitivist or a 'post-left' (I am not really sure what it means even), and have no idea what they talk about.

Devrim

You need to hang around the cafeterias of Art Schools a bit more Dev...:)

[bricolage]

Has anyone ever met a primitivist? I think they must be on the list with anarcho-capitalists and hoxhaists of people you only ever encounter on the internet.

[Palingenisis]

Has anyone ever met a primitivist? I think they must be on the list with anarcho-capitalists and hoxhaists of people you only ever encounter on the internet.

I have met exactly three.

Not sure how seriously I would take any (but one was pretty cute :blushing:).

[Palingenisis]

Has anyone ever met a primitivist? I think they must be on the list with anarcho-capitalists and hoxhaists of people you only ever encounter on the internet.

I have never met on anarcho-capitalist in real life but they do seem all over the net dont they? I suspect they are all basically sociopaths or have very poor people skills which explains why they gravitate to that particular maddness...As for Hoxhaites though I have never met a full blown one so to speak I have met quite a few people with a deep respect and love for Enver Hoxha and the Albanian Labour Party. Whatever the Trots say they had a lot of sympathy and still do within Irish Republicanism.

[Ravachol]

Has anyone ever met a primitivist? I think they must be on the list with anarcho-capitalists and hoxhaists of people you only ever encounter on the internet.


I have met exactly three.

Not sure how seriously I would take any (but one was pretty cute :blushing:).

That's pretty funny, considering some parts of the Dutch and Belgian squatting scenes seem to contain a disproportionate ammount of them (mainly crust punks), people literally claiming 'the revolution' is all about going 'back to the land' and living in mud huts :rolleyes:

[Ravachol]

Actually they draw heavily on Marxists such as Jacques Cammatte and Otto Ruhle my darling Irish Times reader.

Depends on the specific tendency though. Post-Left Anarchism is often heavily inspired by Marxism, especially theories originating in the french "Ultra-Gauche"
Some currents withing Insurrectionary Anarchism however seem to be more influenced by Bonnot-style Illegalism popular in the 1800's amongst Anarchists such as Vaillant and Ravachol (no, not me and yes, the guy my nickname comes from :p)