Libcom/Anarchism: People of Color, the Left, and More

[FreeFocus]

Not sure if this should be in Discrimination or Theory, because it's a bit of both.

A quick foreword on this post: I registered at Libcom.org like two years ago and never really posted until these past few days. I thought that it might be a bigger forum than this, given that the site also provides a lot of commentary and articles on theory. To my dismay, one of the first threads that I posted in (granted, it was their equivalent of Chit-Chat, but if someone said politically suspect things in Chit-Chat, it could be grounds for restricting them) featured basically a 15-page tirade against an article written by an anonymous Canadian activist. The tirade was wrought with a deep misunderstanding and disrespect for Indigenous culture. I'm going to quote myself from that thread, and then some of the attacks on me.


I must lament the profound misunderstanding of, and unwillingness to respect, Indigenous cultures and resistance in this thread. First Nations in Canada are the targets of capitalist oppression/imperialism, from mining and logging in traditional lands to the Indian Act. Canada is a settler state. If the Left is unwilling to take anti-imperialism seriously, don't sit around wondering why people of Color have no interest in joining Left organizations or predominantly White organizations. It's because of stuff like this.

You even misunderstand the concept of the warrior. We don't mean what Americans mean by "warrior" - someone who just fights a war, regardless of the moral content of it; someone who just blindly follows orders. I'll leave it at that. You need to check your misconceptions and respect Native peoples enough to inquire about cultural meanings and ideas.

Some attacks on me:


Have you even read the thread?
Btw, take your nationalism and shove it.
The appropriation of indigenous struggle and its symbols for petty subcultural and political ends is a magnet, then.
Yeah, your small-nations nationalism would definitely not be given too much credit in the serious forums, either. At least here they're allowed to actually laugh.The article in question that they had been criticizing in the thread was "Of Martial Traditions & The Art of Rebellion. (http://anti-politics.net/distro/2009/martialtraditions-read.pdf)" It's 26 pages long, I've read up to page 12 so far. I disagree with some of what the author has written, but other things I agree with. Is it insane for the author to suggest that communities try to create free spaces where they can organize and build and maintain alternative institutions? Is it insane to say that the state might try to smash this and they will need to defend themselves? Is it crazy to suggest that people should learn self-defense and how to handle firearms (this was, as RevLeft user Die Neue Zeit pointed out, part of European leftist party platforms for decades (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1506576&postcount=49))? I think there's an aversion on the Left, despite all the talk about "revolutionary violence" (and even a fetish for it, among some sectors), to practical knowledge and application of it. Not all communities and countries are at the same place in terms of class struggle. Militant workers in France blocking roads, striking, and ransoming their bosses? Unimaginable in the United States. But even if we talk about workers' occupations, what do you propose they do when the cops come to arrest them? If they should just deal with getting slapped with doing years in prison for violating their bosses' private property rights, they might as well not even bother occupying a factory, and just do something "more productive," like hold a sign at a rally for two or three hours and then go home.

After you glance at/read the "Of Martial Traditions" piece and the Libcom posters' denouncement of my "nationalism," the following resources will be useful (both are related to each other) in explaining the development of warrior societies amongst First Nations communities and the cultural meaning of the warrior:

(http://www.newsocialist.org/attachments/128_NewSocialist-Issue58.pdf)
New Socialist special issue on Indigenous Resurgence (http://www.newsocialist.org/attachments/128_NewSocialist-Issue58.pdf)
What Are Warrior Societies? (http://www.peopleofcolororganize.com/history/warrior-societies/) from People of Color Organize!


These things considered, I will note that I've even come across this sentiment on here. I've been criticized by anarchists and Left Communists alike. I am an anarchist. I have criticized anarchism's roots in the past and the unwillingness of anarchists to place anti-imperialism higher on the agenda (http://www.revleft.com/vb/natives-claim-land-t129375/index.html?t=129375). I believe that only social anarchism provides the context for which full liberation is possible. At the same time, as a self-respecting person of Color, being told that culture is a facade, that nations (not nation-states or states in general) need to be abolished, that racism will magically disappear with capitalism, I am offended by a lot of what the Left - particularly anarchists and Left Communists - put forth. And then these same Leftists turn around and ask, "What can we do to attract more people of Color?" You can't just invite people to your organization, or show up at their's and ask why they don't join you. You have to make your platform relevant to the interests of groups that you profess concern and support for. Ignoring the existence of racism and imperialism surely doesn't help. A good deal of the Cuban Revolution was nationalist; they used nationalist imagery and captured the popular imagination to gain support for socialism and fighting imperialism. We can debate about the nature of the Cuban state, but Cuba got rid of American imperialism and ensured health care for all, widespread literacy, and some semblance of grassroots democracy.


Is it that the origins of anarchism and Left Communism make them unable to legitimately and effectively address the concerns of oppressed nations/communities? Does the largely White-developed anarchist scene and theory preclude work with peoples of Color concerned with class and nation/culture? Has the "mainstream" anarchist movement forced segregation on peoples of Color because of its unwillingness to respect and not denigrate their concerns?

[black magick hustla]

we left coms dont need more @people of [email protected] there are plenty of us. i think its patronizing that we have to drink the nationalist kool laid because we are of color.

[FreeFocus]

we left coms dont need more @people of [email protected] there are plenty of us. i think its patronizing that we have to drink the nationalist kool laid because we are of color.

A minority within a (very tiny) political minority = plenty? :confused:

You consider it "nationalist Kool-Aid," most other radicals in communities of Color consider it reclaiming culture from imperialism and White supremacy.

Nonetheless, if you have any examples of Left Communism being relevant in movements in the Third World or in minority communities in the West, please share them. I'd like to take a look at them and see how they balanced such concerns (if they didn't outright reject culture/language/nation).

[black magick hustla]

A minority within a (very tiny) political minority = plenty? :confused:

You consider it "nationalist Kool-Aid," most other radicals in communities of Color consider it reclaiming culture from imperialism and White supremacy.

Nonetheless, if you have any examples of Left Communism being relevant in movements in the Third World or in minority communities in the West, please share them. I'd like to take a look at them and see how they balanced such concerns (if they didn't outright reject culture/language/nation).

I am not going to rail on about who has more colored people or not. I am simply correcting a slander that is always used against us. Left Communism is absolutely tiny, and yes, insignificant. However, the second biggest section in the ICC is the mexican one and the american section and its network of supporters are probably about half non-white.

I don't frankly care about what "most radicals" do at all. Most "radicals" voted for obama and wear hemp sandals. The question was never what most radicals do, because most radicals, especially in the US, are insignificant, not only in politics but in their communities as well - these including mexican ones. Communists care about the class struggle, not about "radicals". Left communists in the third world are a minority within the class and they are part of whatever struggle the class is partaking at a particular time - the recent example is probably the TEKEL strikes of turkey.

[Widerstand]

What do these people you argue with think of the EZLN? As far as I'm aware most Anarchists think highly of them because of the way they organize and such - but they are also, first and firemost, a National Liberation movement by indigenous people.

[black magick hustla]

What do these people you argue with think of the EZLN? As far as I'm aware most Anarchists think highly of them because of the way they organize and such - but they are also, first and firemost, a National Liberation movement by indigenous people.

a lot of western anarchists try to paint the EZLN as anarchist which is dumb as hell. the EZLN is an indigenous rights group with very particular objectives that have fuck to do with class politics and world revolution. regardless of whether they are good or bad western anarchists sometimes try to get some cred by pointing at "brown anarchists". the problem is that the EZLN is not an anarchist group in any sense of the word.

[Widerstand]

a lot of western anarchists try to paint the EZLN as anarchist which is dumb as hell. the EZLN is an indigenous rights group with very particular objectives that have fuck to do with class politics and world revolution.

Obviously.



regardless of whether they are good or bad western anarchists sometimes try to get some cred by pointing at "brown anarchists".

To be fair, I don't think it's so much about color as it is about the fact that Anarchists must often feel very lonely in the world, when communists point to Venezuela and Cuba and Maoists point to Nepal and such, there's not much for Anarchists to point to.


the problem is that the EZLN is not an anarchist group in any sense of the word.

Not ideology wise, no, but some aspects of their organization (consensus decision, councils with recallable delegates, self-determination, voluntary participation, etc.) are very compatible with Anarchist views.

[Devrim]

To my dismay, one of the first threads that I posted in (granted, it was their equivalent of Chit-Chat, but if someone said politically suspect things in Chit-Chat, it could be grounds for restricting them) featured basically a 15-page tirade against an article written by an anonymous Canadian activist.

I just looked at this, and basically it is people arguing against a primitivist, who, in my opinion, has repulsive politics.


The tirade was wrought with a deep misunderstanding and disrespect for Indigenous culture.

Congratulations, you managed to get to the end of the second paragraph, before playing the 'imply people are racists card'.


I am an anarchist

You don't have what I would recognise as anarchist politics in any way, though a lot of what passes for anarchism in North American seems pretty strange. To be you come across a some sort of left-libertarian liberal cultural nationalist


I am offended by a lot of what the Left - particularly anarchists and Left Communists - put forth.

So class politics offends you. I am not at all surprised.


And then these same Leftists turn around and ask, "What can we do to attract more people of Color?"

I'd be really really surprised if a left communist had ever asked you that.


You have to make your platform relevant to the interests of groups that you profess concern and support for.

In which case a communist platform should be relevant to the working class.


Is it that the origins of anarchism and Left Communism make them unable to legitimately and effectively address the concerns of oppressed nations/communities? Does the largely White-developed anarchist scene and theory preclude work with peoples of Color concerned with class and nation/culture? Has the "mainstream" anarchist movement forced segregation on peoples of Color because of its unwillingness to respect and not denigrate their concerns?

It is good to return to the implications of racism at the end.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Not ideology wise, no, but some aspects of their organization (consensus decision, councils with recallable delegates, self-determination, voluntary participation, etc.) are very compatible with Anarchist views.

I don't think that 'consensus decision making' is very compatible with anarchist views, nor, with many anarchists, is 'self determination'.

Devrim

[Jimmie Higgins]

Not ideology wise, no, but some aspects of their organization (consensus decision, councils with recallable delegates, self-determination, voluntary participation, etc.) are very compatible with Anarchist views.I think a lot of activists looked to this struggle as a "model" of how things might be organized (although I think from a revolutionary socialist/anarchist perspective there are limitations to the way the ELZN organized, primarily by not linking the struggle to the urban proletariat even though there was a lot of support from workers towards this struggle). It's also significant because it was the first liberation struggle after the cold war and the capitalist "end of history".

At any rate, with the English-speaking North American left being so small and not rooted in either the working class or oppressed communities, I don't think it's really accurate to point to one section of the left as having a problem... unfortunately it all our problem at this time and one that needs to be overcome as much as possible for us to begin to really rebuild radical working-class struggle and organization.

But I do agree that some attitudes on the left hurt this effort and I think lumping the nationalism of the oppressed together with the nationalism of oppressors is a problem as well as 3rd worldist ideas about certain national working classes being "bought-off" and part of the problem. In order to achieve a working class revolution, the working class has to be largely untied and must build bridges with other oppressed groups in society. So for this to happen, solidarity with things like AIM back in the day, ELZN, and various other struggles against oppression and for national or social liberation are important first steps in knitting together a stronger movement for the liberation of all people: the end of capitalist rule, classes, and the state.

[Devrim]

In order to achieve a working class revolution, the working class has to be largely untied and must build bridges with other oppressed groups in society.

It is true that the working class has to be divided, but what other groups 'oppressed groups' do you think that they need to build bridges too? One could argue that in some places they need to make an alliance with the poorer part of the peasantry. I don't think that this is actually the case in the US though.

If you are talking about minority groups, and not classes, which are completely different categories, then some members of them are working class, and some of them are not. Do you want to appeal to them as an amoprhous block?


So for this to happen, solidarity with things like AIM back in the day, ELZN, and various other struggles against oppression and for national or social liberation are important first steps in knitting together a stronger movement for the liberation of all people: the end of capitalist rule, classes, and the state.

Struggles for national liberation have a tendency to tie the working class to the nation, get it killed in wars, and promote the interests of rival imperialist states. They do not do anything to build an independent working class, though supporting them may build leftist groups.

Devrim

[Palingenisis]

http://libcom.org/forums/south-west/national-minorities-in-the-uk

Check out the sickening English racism on this thread.

http://libcom.org/forums/ireland/rally-against-republican-bombings-derry-13102010

Now check out "Anarchists" support for establishment rallies against "terrorism".

:rolleyes:

[Palingenisis]

What do these people you argue with think of the EZLN? As far as I'm aware most Anarchists think highly of them because of the way they organize and such - but they are also, first and firemost, a National Liberation movement by indigenous people.

Because they arent "pure" enough...But Im sure the same people supported the wildcat strike demanding "British jobs for British workers". The political struggle of agricultural workers in Mexico to take back control over their own communities whatever its limitations of course pales in comparison with purely economic struggles in the Imperialist nations...Didnt you know? :rolleyes:

But I would say to FreeFocus that Libcom represent the extreme end of things. There was a post in the Republican Socialist group here about their fantasies of driving tanks through the IRSP HQ when the revolution comes.

[Devrim]

Because they arent "pure" enough...But Im sure the same people supported the wildcat strike demanding "British jobs for British workers". The political struggle of agricultural workers in Mexico to take back control over their own communities whatever its limitations of course pales in comparison with purely economic struggles in the Imperialist nations...Didnt you know? :rolleyes:

I think that you are talking about peasants movements in Mexico, and not agricultural workers. I also think there have been no strikes in recent years demanding 'British jobs for British workers', though there was a strike where some workers used those slogans.

Devrim

[Niccolò Rossi]

Even though I don't agree with your politics, I like you so I want to try and take the questions you posed seriously.


Is it that the origins of anarchism and Left Communism make them unable to legitimately and effectively address the concerns of oppressed nations/communities?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. Orgins in which sense? Are you implying that Marxism/Anarchism have their bases in Europe and are the 'white ideologies'. If this is the case, and we answer your question with a no, what is the solution? That 'peoples of colour' need to develop their own theory and practice apart from white workers? I think the ridiculousness of this is evident without me having to say anything more.


Does the largely White-developed anarchist scene and theory preclude work with peoples of Color concerned with class and nation/culture? Has the "mainstream" anarchist movement forced segregation on peoples of Color because of its unwillingness to respect and not denigrate their concerns?

Again I don't really know what you're asking here. I mean this sincerely. What are the 'concerns' held by 'people of colour' towards 'nation/culture'? If you think this makes me ignorant (and speaking as a Sydney-sider of european descent, I most most certainly am in the context of for example native americans and blacks in America) well then let's assume I am ignorant. Who are these people and what specifically are their concerns?

Nic.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It is true that the working class has to be divided, but what other groups 'oppressed groups' do you think that they need to build bridges too? One could argue that in some places they need to make an alliance with the poorer part of the peasantry. I don't think that this is actually the case in the US though.Well the working class in the US in the past has been able to win some professionals, small business people, and intellectuals to supporting working class politics and struggle, but really this is secondary at this point since the US working class isn't in any sort of position to "lead" other classes.

But as a general point, a working class movement in Mexico should lend solidarity and try and build alliance with and support from a movement like the ELZN. US radicals were right to support AIM and the left of the black power movement. When it comes to indigenous people in Canada or the US or Mexico, they are often more of a "nation" than any other oppressed groups because of geographical and sometimes cultural differences/segregation.


If you are talking about minority groups, and not classes, which are completely different categories, then some members of them are working class, and some of them are not. Do you want to appeal to them as an amoprhous block?If we are talking about the ELZN, then they are not organizing workers - maybe some are rural farm-workers, but my understanding is that its mostly poor individual farm-producers in indigenous areas. If Mexico were in a revolutionary position, then workers would probably want to promise local autonomy to these indigenous farmers and an end to debt - these are not specifically working class interests, but it would align these rural farmer's interests with the working class struggle.

Well, as for oppressed minority groups within society - that aspect of oppression effects people based on their group, not always just their class (although ultimately class politics are necessary for liberation for workers of groups suffering additional oppression). So it really depends on how people are responding to oppression - really it is a the question of how do we overcome divisions pushed onto us from the top of society and build a united working class struggle at that point. If people are responding in a cross-class way, then we should support it but argue for class politics and why these are necessary to really begin to beat-back oppression. Just as radicals can't demand that the working class follow us, radicals need to prove our politics and its relevance and effectiveness, radicals in a segregated and divided society can't just demand that specially oppressed groups organize along class lines if they are not doing so. Since these divisions are a tool of ruling class rule, then even discrimination against a female college professor or lawyer or sexist attacks on Democratic or Republican politicians helps bolster class rule and should be opposed.


Struggles for national liberation have a tendency to tie the working class to the nation, get it killed in wars, and promote the interests of rival imperialist states. They do not do anything to build an independent working class, though supporting them may build leftist groups.This is true, but I'm also getting confused about what you are talking about: it's one thing what a working class movement needs to do in a non-revolutionary time and different when they are about to take power. But as far as workers within a larger national liberation struggle, your points are why it needs to be the self-conscious working class winning allies to a developing working class hegemony rather than workers being an urban auxiliary to the ELZN or something. Cuba is a good example of why this is important - the national liberation movement leading a subordinate working class movement did not produce worker's power. China is another example where class was subordinated to a national struggle rather than remaining independent in their demands and goals.

[Devrim]

Well the working class in the US in the past has been able to win some professionals, small business people, and intellectuals to supporting working class politics and struggle, but really this is secondary at this point since the US working class isn't in any sort of position to "lead" other classes.

I am not quite sure what you mean here. Are you talking about left wing parties winning people from those classes to their positions, or are you talking about sectors of other classes being pulled behind the working class. The fact that the working class in the US isn't in any positğion to lead other classes reflects its weakness, which incidentally, I don't think that arguing for cross-class alliances does anything but worsen. The point is, however, that when the working class is in struggle it will pull members, and even sectors of other classes behind it. There is a great difference between this and making alliances with them though.


But as a general point, a working class movement in Mexico should lend solidarity and try and build alliance with and support from a movement like the ELZN

Why? It is, as we know a peasant nationalist movement. A strong working class in Mexico would end up pulling peasants behind it, but what seeking support, and offering alliances* to this sort of peasant movement stand to gain.


US radicals were right to support AIM and the left of the black power movement.

Again, I would ask why?

Of course we should condemn state brutality against these sort of groups. That goes without saying, but support for nationalist cross class organisations does nothing, but ideologically weaken the working class.


When it comes to indigenous people in Canada or the US or Mexico, they are often more of a "nation" than any other oppressed groups because of geographical and sometimes cultural differences/segregation

So what? What is it to do with communist who is 'more of a nation'?


If we are talking about the ELZN, then they are not organizing workers - maybe some are rural farm-workers, but my understanding is that its mostly poor individual farm-producers in indigenous areas. If Mexico were in a revolutionary position, then workers would probably want to promise local autonomy to these indigenous farmers and an end to debt - these are not specifically working class interests, but it would align these rural farmer's interests with the working class struggle.

The idea of removing the debt is pretty banal, and would be a part of the working class struggle for power anyway. The idea of local autonomy sounds like some sort of federalist localism to me. While you can see why people would be sensitive, the idea that they should be allowed to proceed how they what even if it is against the will of the vast majority of society, strikes me as deeply wrong.

Historically, the policy of autonomy that was pursued by the Bolshevik party after the Russian revolution was a complete disaster, which in every case led to anti-revolutionary nationalist regimes being set up, and in some case workers and communists being massacred with guns provided by Moscow.


Well, as for oppressed minority groups within society - that aspect of oppression effects people based on their group, not always just their class (although ultimately class politics are necessary for liberation for workers of groups suffering additional oppression). So it really depends on how people are responding to oppression - really it is a the question of how do we overcome divisions pushed onto us from the top of society and build a united working class struggle at that point. If people are responding in a cross-class way, then we should support it but argue for class politics and why these are necessary to really begin to beat-back oppression.

I think this is very wrong. When people respond in a cross-class way communists should be there to explain why it is a diversion for the working class, and can only end up with workers joining cross-class fronts, with the loss of class autonomy that that entails.


Just as radicals can't demand that the working class follow us, radicals need to prove our politics and its relevance and effectiveness, radicals in a segregated and divided society can't just demand that specially oppressed groups organize along class lines if they are not doing so.

I don't think it is a task of 'demanding anything'. Communists are not apart from the working class.


Since these divisions are a tool of ruling class rule, then even discrimination against a female college professor or lawyer or sexist attacks on Democratic or Republican politicians helps bolster class rule and should be opposed.

I am not sure what you mean by 'opposed' here. Communist should try to explain the issues behind what is going on, but what does 'oppose' mean?


But as far as workers within a larger national liberation struggle, your points are why it needs to be the self-conscious working class winning allies to a developing working class hegemony rather than workers being an urban auxiliary to the ELZN or something. Cuba is a good example of why this is important - the national liberation movement leading a subordinate working class movement did not produce worker's power. China is another example where class was subordinated to a national struggle rather than remaining independent in their demands and goals.

I think that China makes the point very well, hundreds of thousands of workers massacred, and 80% of the party killed, and its effective destruction as an organisation of the class. The thing is that this is what happens when workers take part in national liberation movements. It is not that they don't 'develop working class hegemony' within them, but that by joining them in the first place they give up any possibility of this, as it is not on a working class terrain to begin with.

Devrim

[FreeFocus]

I am not going to rail on about who has more colored people or not. I am simply correcting a slander that is always used against us. Left Communism is absolutely tiny, and yes, insignificant. However, the second biggest section in the ICC is the mexican one and the american section and its network of supporters are probably about half non-white.

I don't frankly care about what "most radicals" do at all. Most "radicals" voted for obama and wear hemp sandals. The question was never what most radicals do, because most radicals, especially in the US, are insignificant, not only in politics but in their communities as well - these including mexican ones. Communists care about the class struggle, not about "radicals". Left communists in the third world are a minority within the class and they are part of whatever struggle the class is partaking at a particular time - the recent example is probably the TEKEL strikes of turkey.

I will look into the TEKEL strikes for sure, but since you mentioned an example from Turkey, I'll ask about Left Communist influence amongst struggles more relevant to the thread in the region. Have Kurdish groups opposing Turkish oppression looked at Left Communism for direction/theory? What about Palestinians? And if you have other examples along these lines, I'd be interested.


I just looked at this, and basically it is people arguing against a primitivist, who, in my opinion, has repulsive politics.

Congratulations, you managed to get to the end of the second paragraph, before playing the 'imply people are racists card'.

You don't have what I would recognise as anarchist politics in any way, though a lot of what passes for anarchism in North American seems pretty strange. To be you come across a some sort of left-libertarian liberal cultural nationalist

So class politics offends you. I am not at all surprised.

I'd be really really surprised if a left communist had ever asked you that.

In which case a communist platform should be relevant to the working class.

It is good to return to the implications of racism at the end.

Devrim

I read through the thread a little and the primitivist makes some typical arguments, I disagree with him about needing to abolish industrialism, but he raised some other legitimate points and tried to correct their misconceptions.

Left-libertarian liberal cultural nationalist? Well, that's a mouthful :lol:. I am an anarchist; I believe in using non-hierarchical models of organization, building a semblance of the world we would like to see within our struggle. I believe in striving immediately for a stateless, classless society. If anarchists don't oppose hierarchy and oppression, what do they oppose?

Class politics obviously don't offend me, or else I wouldn't be on any Leftist forums, or I would be in OI talking about how classes "don't exist." Maybe a Left Communist wouldn't ask me why their organization is all-White, but most other Left sects would wonder why people who claim to be anti-racist are as diverse as the Ku Klux Klan.


I don't think that 'consensus decision making' is very compatible with anarchist views, nor, with many anarchists, is 'self determination'.

Devrim

How is consensus decision making not "very compatible with anarchist views?" Most anarchists oppose majoritarian decision making (voting) because the group(s) that lose the vote basically lose their say and sway over what happens. Consensus decision making brings everyone to the table to come to a solution that tries to address everyone's desires.


Even though I don't agree with your politics, I like you so I want to try and take the questions you posed seriously.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. Orgins in which sense? Are you implying that Marxism/Anarchism have their bases in Europe and are the 'white ideologies'. If this is the case, and we answer your question with a no, what is the solution? That 'peoples of colour' need to develop their own theory and practice apart from white workers? I think the ridiculousness of this is evident without me having to say anything more.

Again I don't really know what you're asking here. I mean this sincerely. What are the 'concerns' held by 'people of colour' towards 'nation/culture'? If you think this makes me ignorant (and speaking as a Sydney-sider of european descent, I most most certainly am in the context of for example native americans and blacks in America) well then let's assume I am ignorant. Who are these people and what specifically are their concerns?

Nic.

I'm not saying that socialism/anarchism are intrinsically White ideologies, but that all the major theoreticians were White Europeans living in the 19th and early 20th centuries. They were looking at European problems and analyzing what could be done. While a great deal can still be learned from Left thinkers from Europe, we shouldn't shy away from noting that they were Eurocentric. This is evident when groups today engage in theoretical posturing and politics without nuance. So you'll get things like an anarchist or Left Communist saying, "We need to abolish culture." We need to smash the bourgeoisie and ruling class influence on culture, but culture predates capitalism and even classes. The vast majority of people around the world will look upon the suggestion that they need to abolish their culture as horrendous and not give your politics the time of day.

Should workers of Color organize apart from White workers? We have the same class interests but insofar as White workers are unable or unwilling to relate to concerns beyond class (but are nonetheless tied to it), yes, workers of Color should organize apart for these interests. That's where I'm leaning towards now because anarchism, Left Communism, and other strains of libertarian communism, in theory and practice, don't seem well-equipped as they currently stand to deal with such issues. Yeah, No War But The Class War, that's all good with me. I don't think it's ultimately productive for workers to take up arms to protect their bourgeoisie. When Europeans talk about nationalism, it's usually from the WWI, WWII experience. Those are examples of workers simply dying for their national bourgeoisies and nothing else. Even some strains of the 50s/60s/70s "national liberation"movements - creating a state doesn't free your nation. Look at all of the countries in Africa and Asia - their native bourgeoisies sold them right out to imperialism again. The state turns the police and military on the people.

When Europeans colonized the world and created state-like bureaucracies, peoples under the colonial boot figured that entering the European state system could secure their interests somehow. That failed. I mean, do you think it's a coincidence that the modern state, spread around the world by European colonialism, just magically became the model for the entire international system today? Yeah, it's the capitalist state, but capitalism results in imperialism.

Here's what I said in thread in 2009 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1539784&postcount=19):


Frankly, this theoretical posturing by the vast majority of the anarchists where support is not lent to an oppressed nationality seeking the rights to express its culture free from foreign suppression is pathetic. Lets face it, most anarchists are white, and anarchism comes from primarily a European base. Therefore its ideological and developmental underpinnings will reflect that. No Europeans (aside from the Irish and a few others) have experienced the ill effects of imperialism. Certainly no sizable population of whites outside of Europe have, since they all reside in settler states. Moreover, when you look at the history of Europe, the hundreds and thousands of cultures it was once home to became somewhat homogenized when the continent was Christianized. Obviously, communists reject religion and the like, but a good deal of European cultures was based on Christianity. Therefore what we have is a type of iconoclastic attitude manifested in anarchism especially, and it is extended beyond Europe and to the rest of the world because of the global nature of our political proposals. Well, guess what, the whole world isn't like Europe and didn't follow the same path of cultural development. There's no reason to want to abolish culture or the concept of the nation. We need to smash capitalism and the state, and encourage cultural development and intercultural, internationalist exchanges.

The concerns that people of Color might have about culture are multifaceted. Let's take African-Americans, for example. During slavery, the dehumanization process (i.e. the "seasoning process") involved forcing Africans to forget their tribal/national identities, forcible conversions to Christianity, and instilling the idea that Africans were inferior merely because they were African (Christianity was used to support this; look at the "descendants of Ham" stuff). After chattel slavery was abolished, this ingrained self-hatred was still present in African-American society, manifested in despising African hair texture, African cultures (popular conceptions of Africa as a jungle, and its people "savages"), and African-American attempts to resist these racist portrayals. African-Americans continued to face terrorist attacks, especially in the south - rapes, lynchings, cross burnings, etc. State brutality was used to enforce this norm and suppress resistance.

Did African-Americans (the vast majority of whom were working class, and even the small upper class/"bourgeoisie" was subject to such attacks. to be sure, there were African-Americans who sided with the status quo, and some of them belonged to this bourgeoisie. Am I saying to side with them? No, not at all - they should have been opposed because they supported things that ran counter to not only working class interests, but cultural interests of self-respect!) only have material interests in this case the were synonymous with the interests of White workers? Especially when you consider that the vast majority of White workers SUPPORTED the state of affairs and were, in fact, the people going out and carrying out these rapes/lynchings/cross burnings? By all means, organize White workers to drop their racism and build bridges. But none of the blame rests on the backs of African-Americans and other peoples of Color. What is our crime? Having brown skin? Speaking another language? What is it?

If you want more information about Native Americans, check out the two links in the OP about warrior societies, and I can also talk about the problems, cultural and economic, that face communities today.

Class is the primary problem in a capitalist society. Merely switching White for Brown does not lead to liberation; it might solve some cultural problems, but your new leader probably hops in bed with imperialism and the same things occur.

[Devrim]

I will look into the TEKEL strikes for sure, but since you mentioned an example from Turkey, I'll ask about Left Communist influence amongst struggles more relevant to the thread in the region. Have Kurdish groups opposing Turkish oppression looked at Left Communism for direction/theory? What about Palestinians? And if you have other examples along these lines, I'd be interested.

I think that there are two things that you are misunderstanding here, though I think that both of them have been pointed out clearly.

The first is that left communist groups today are tiny, as has already been pointed out. In the case of the TEKEL struggle where, and I don't want to go as far as to say the work of left communists had influence, at least the unions thought we were worth publicly denouncing, I don't think that it is anything to do with our strength, but rather that the arguments that we put forward connect with real struggles within the working class.

The second is the question of whether Kurdish or Palestinian groups look towards what we say. Maybe this hasn't been made clear, but for me our politics are a total rejection of ethnic based politics and an assertion of class politics. If these sort of nationalists were looking at what we said, I would think we had a problem. Interestingly during the TEKEL struggle there were actually many workers who were Kurdish nationalists who expressed their position in this sort of way, "The ICC might be very wrong on the national question, but they are right on the unions".

For us we can work alongside people in real struggles without us agreeing with everything they say or vice versa.


Left-libertarian liberal cultural nationalist? Well, that's a mouthful . I am an anarchist; I believe in using non-hierarchical models of organization, building a semblance of the world we would like to see within our struggle. I believe in striving immediately for a stateless, classless society. If anarchists don't oppose hierarchy and oppression, what do they oppose?

It is an attempt to charecterise my impression of your politics. I don't think that you are an anarchist. To me an anarchist is somebody who is a member of an anarchist political organisation. If I am not mistaken, that doesn't include yourself.


Class politics obviously don't offend me, or else I wouldn't be on any Leftist forums, or I would be in OI talking about how classes "don't exist." Maybe a Left Communist wouldn't ask me why their organization is all-White, but most other Left sects would wonder why people who claim to be anti-racist are as diverse as the Ku Klux Klan.

We are not as diverse as the KKK. We are an international organisation with people from all over the world. As Marmot already said our second biggest section is the Mexician one. In Turkey we have always had a higher proportion of people from Kurdish backgrounds than in society in general. I don't think first that we have anything to worry about.

Also though, I think that the whole idea stinks of tokenism anyway.


How is consensus decision making not "very compatible with anarchist views?" Most anarchists oppose majoritarian decision making (voting) because the group(s) that lose the vote basically lose their say and sway over what happens. Consensus decision making brings everyone to the table to come to a solution that tries to address everyone's desires.

While this idea may fit in with anarcho-liberalism in the US, I don't think that it has much international or historical resonance.

If you check out the statues of the IWA/AIT, the biggest anarchist organisation today, and historically in existence since 1922, they say:


VI The International Congresses

The International Congresses of the IWA are held every second year, if possible.

The Secretariat shall sufficiently in advance of the Congress ask the Sections for issues or suggestions to be dealt with by the Congress. The Secretariat shall then draw up the Agenda, which together with the motions that have been presented, shall be sent to the affiliated Organizations at least six months before the Congress starts.

The agreements and resolutions adopted by the International Congresses are binding for all affiliated Organizations, except when those Organizations, by a resolution of a National Congress or by referendum, reject the agreements of the international Congress.

At the request of at least three national affiliated Organizations, an international agreement can be submitted for revision by a general referendum within all Sections.

In the international referendums and Congresses, every Section has one vote, and it is recommended that unanimity be sought before one proceeds to the voting.

As it says it is recommended that "unanimity is sought". I think that most organisations follow that, but it also refers to "before voting". It doesn't advocate consensus decision making, which in general allows minorities and those with the biggest mouths to dictate. It advocates voting.


I'm not saying that socialism/anarchism are intrinsically White ideologies, but that all the major theoreticians were White Europeans living in the 19th and early 20th centuries. They were looking at European problems and analyzing what could be done. While a great deal can still be learned from Left thinkers from Europe, we shouldn't shy away from noting that they were Eurocentric.

Historically in the 19th century, the major struggles of the working class took place in Europe. Therefore it is not surprising that people look to them. Communist today though do not base their ideas on 'heros' of the past. The current theoretical work of the ICC, for example, involves of course people from Europe, but also members from India, the Philippines, Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico, and Turkey as well as other organisations in other so-called 'third world' countries that we are in contact with.

At the last ICC international congress, the closing summary was given by a young woman from the Middle East. Maybe she wasn't black enough for you?


This is evident when groups today engage in theoretical posturing and politics without nuance. So you'll get things like an anarchist or Left Communist saying, "We need to abolish culture." We need to smash the bourgeoisie and ruling class influence on culture, but culture predates capitalism and even classes. The vast majority of people around the world will look upon the suggestion that they need to abolish their culture as horrendous and not give your politics the time of day.

I can't think of any groups that say "We need to abolish culture". Personally I think that what is passed off as different national cultures today is just the commercialised remnants of pre capitalist society, but that is my personal opinion.

Devrim

[FreeFocus]

I think that there are two things that you are misunderstanding here, though I think that both of them have been pointed out clearly.

The first is that left communist groups today are tiny, as has already been pointed out. In the case of the TEKEL struggle where, and I don't want to go as far as to say the work of left communists had influence, at least the unions thought we were worth publicly denouncing, I don't think that it is anything to do with our strength, but rather that the arguments that we put forward connect with real struggles within the working class.

The second is the question of whether Kurdish or Palestinian groups look towards what we say. Maybe this hasn't been made clear, but for me our politics are a total rejection of ethnic based politics and an assertion of class politics. If these sort of nationalists were looking at what we said, I would think we had a problem. Interestingly during the TEKEL struggle there were actually many workers who were Kurdish nationalists who expressed their position in this sort of way, "The ICC might be very wrong on the national question, but they are right on the unions".

For us we can work alongside people in real struggles without us agreeing with everything they say or vice versa.

It is an attempt to charecterise my impression of your politics. I don't think that you are an anarchist. To me an anarchist is somebody who is a member of an anarchist political organisation. If I am not mistaken, that doesn't include yourself.

We are not as diverse as the KKK. We are an international organisation with people from all over the world. As Marmot already said our second biggest section is the Mexician one. In Turkey we have always had a higher proportion of people from Kurdish backgrounds than in society in general. I don't think first that we have anything to worry about.

Also though, I think that the whole idea stinks of tokenism anyway.

While this idea may fit in with anarcho-liberalism in the US, I don't think that it has much international or historical resonance.

If you check out the statues of the IWA/AIT, the biggest anarchist organisation today, and historically in existence since 1922, they say:

As it says it is recommended that "unanimity is sought". I think that most organisations follow that, but it also refers to "before voting". It doesn't advocate consensus decision making, which in general allows minorities and those with the biggest mouths to dictate. It advocates voting.

Historically in the 19th century, the major struggles of the working class took place in Europe. Therefore it is not surprising that people look to them. Communist today though do not base their ideas on 'heros' of the past. The current theoretical work of the ICC, for example, involves of course people from Europe, but also members from India, the Philippines, Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico, and Turkey as well as other organisations in other so-called 'third world' countries that we are in contact with.

At the last ICC international congress, the closing summary was given by a young woman from the Middle East. Maybe she wasn't black enough for you?

I can't think of any groups that say "We need to abolish culture". Personally I think that what is passed off as different national cultures today is just the commercialised remnants of pre capitalist society, but that is my personal opinion.

Devrim

I'm not sure if you mistyped or not, but the unions involved in the TEKEL strike denounced Left Communist involvement?

I've always been under the impression that Left Communists, given their fairly fervent and militant denouncements of "impure socialism," don't really work with anyone. If Left Communists work with other groups on issues where there is common ground, cool.

If your definition of someone being a particular tendency is them having membership in an organization, there's a lot of people that you're writing off because they don't want to, or can't, join an organization. I'm not going to worry too much/debate about your personal definitions, that's just whatever. I don't think someone's politics is defined by membership in an organization; there's other ways to engage in anti-capitalist struggles to build socialism. Certainly formal organization is useful in doing so, however.

My impression and position is that anarchists support consensus decision-making as much as is practical/prudent now, and as a goal in a communist society. If we just sat around trying to reach consensus on pressing issues today, we'll be debating while things need to be moving. Voting is more practical today, but note that they emphasize that unanimity should be sought. This is so that feelings of disregard and deep disagreement are alleviated when those who vote in the minority lose the vote.

You say that my criticisms of a lack of involvement by peoples of Color is some type of tokenism, and then you go and talk about a Middle Eastern woman giving the closing summary? :lol: Insofar as there was and is a leftist presence in the Philippines, Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico, and Turkey, it hasn't been oriented towards Left Communism or even anarchism for that matter. Why did leftists in these countries decide against libertarian communist ideologies? Was it only because the dominant "socialist" model at the time was of the authoritarian statist variety (Soviet Union, China, etc) and support could be garnered from these sources?

Maybe no groups say that culture needs to be abolished, but people on here have said it and carrying some ideological positions to their conclusions come to this result.

[black magick hustla]

You say that my criticisms of a lack of involvement by peoples of Color is some type of tokenism, and then you go and talk about a Middle Eastern woman giving the closing summary? :lol: Insofar as there was and is a leftist presence in the Philippines, Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico, and Turkey, it hasn't been oriented towards Left Communism or even anarchism for that matter. Why did leftists in these countries decide against libertarian communist ideologies? Was it only because the dominant "socialist" model at the time was of the authoritarian statist variety (Soviet Union, China, etc) and support could be garnered from these sources?

i think there is a problem of communication because you don-t really get, or perhaps we are bad at explaining, what is our viewpoint. we could give a ratass about what "leftists" do in the third world. most major "left" movements are integrated to the state and/or are an arm of realpolitik of a foreign imperialism (i.e. iranian, syrian, chinese, etc). left communists's approach to the question of political power is very different than other groups. we don't think most people have to be "left communists" or that we have to recruit people into this idea, like if left communists were evangelists preaching the cause. we are historical materialists, the agency of a few militants is almost insignificant. the question of communism becomes a real possibility not when a few hardheaded ideologues see the truth, but when the class is fighting and creates its own assemblies and councils and pose the question of political power. the assemblies and the workers' councils arise as a function of the objective position of workers, not because it is "willed" into existence by enlightened ones.

stalinism became dominant because the world revolution failed and there was a counterrevolution that started way before stalin came into power.

[HEAD ICE]

If I'm not mistaken, the admin Leo is Kurdish, and his mother was tortured by the Turkish state. I guess it would be difficult to understand why someone may reject this type of nationalist/ethnic politics if one doesn't have the slightest idea about class politics.

[Devrim]

I'm not sure if you mistyped or not, but the unions involved in the TEKEL strike denounced Left Communist involvement?

No, I didn't mistype it. That is what happened. If as a communist you are involved in industrial disputes and the unions don't denounce, or attack you, then really you are not doing your job very well. I think the fact that you are not sure about what I am saying perhaps says something about your experience of workers struggle.


I've always been under the impression that Left Communists, given their fairly fervent and militant denouncements of "impure socialism," don't really work with anyone. If Left Communists work with other groups on issues where there is common ground, cool.

If you think that we denounce 'impure socialism', then we have completely failed to get our point across. The problem with states like Cuba, for example, is not because they are 'impure socialists' , but because it is a capitalist state exploiting workers. That said, we will work with anyone who we think is taking a particular moment in the class struggle forward.


If your definition of someone being a particular tendency is them having membership in an organization, there's a lot of people that you're writing off because they don't want to, or can't, join an organization.

Yes, I think that political militants are members or supporters of political organisations. I don't understand why you think that people 'can't' join organisations. As for those who 'don't want to, I do^n't think that they have communist or anarchist politics, which at their heart see a collectivist future based on class struggle.


You say that my criticisms of a lack of involvement by peoples of Color is some type of tokenism, and then you go and talk about a Middle Eastern woman giving the closing summary?

I said that we don't worry about it like you seem to think that most left wing organisations and used that example do to demonstrate that the 'leadership' of our organisation isn't, as you presume, all 'white'.


Insofar as there was and is a leftist presence in the Philippines, Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico, and Turkey, it hasn't been oriented towards Left Communism or even anarchism for that matter.

Yes you are right, but then most of what passes for the left is not orientated towards the working class either.


Maybe no groups say that culture needs to be abolished, but people on here have said it and carrying some ideological positions to their conclusions come to this result.

As I said, I have said the things that I think that you are referring to. I wouldn't say that 'culture needs to be abolished', but that a new society will create its own culture through struggle.

Devrim

[Zanthorus]

Insofar as there was and is a leftist presence in the Philippines, Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico, and Turkey, it hasn't been oriented towards Left Communism or even anarchism for that matter.

This is true in practically every country though. If you look back over the past hundred years, the dominant force in the Communist movement have been the parties that aligned themselves with the Soviet Union and it's sattelites. This is as true in Europe as it is in non-European countries. Even the Trotskyists, who are for national liberation struggles, have not been particularly succesful, although in a couple of places they have managed to gain a fairly large political following. But besides their support for natlib, there are other mitigating factors in the case of the Trots, in that they do not take such 'extreme' political stances on a range of other issues that Anarchists and Left-Communists typically do. And of course Trotskyists also aligned themselves with the Soviet bloc to a certain extent.

[FreeFocus]

i think there is a problem of communication because you don-t really get, or perhaps we are bad at explaining, what is our viewpoint. we could give a ratass about what "leftists" do in the third world. most major "left" movements are integrated to the state and/or are an arm of realpolitik of a foreign imperialism (i.e. iranian, syrian, chinese, etc). left communists's approach to the question of political power is very different than other groups. we don't think most people have to be "left communists" or that we have to recruit people into this idea, like if left communists were evangelists preaching the cause. we are historical materialists, the agency of a few militants is almost insignificant. the question of communism becomes a real possibility not when a few hardheaded ideologues see the truth, but when the class is fighting and creates its own assemblies and councils and pose the question of political power. the assemblies and the workers' councils arise as a function of the objective position of workers, not because it is "willed" into existence by enlightened ones.

stalinism became dominant because the world revolution failed and there was a counterrevolution that started way before stalin came into power.

Thanks for the explanation. I guess the question of who is right or more relevant will only be answered when we look at the structure and orientation workers' power takes on.


No, I didn't mistype it. That is what happened. If as a communist you are involved in industrial disputes and the unions don't denounce, or attack you, then really you are not doing your job very well. I think the fact that you are not sure about what I am saying perhaps says something about your experience of workers struggle.

If you think that we denounce 'impure socialism', then we have completely failed to get our point across. The problem with states like Cuba, for example, is not because they are 'impure socialists' , but because it is a capitalist state exploiting workers. That said, we will work with anyone who we think is taking a particular moment in the class struggle forward.

Yes, I think that political militants are members or supporters of political organisations. I don't understand why you think that people 'can't' join organisations. As for those who 'don't want to, I do^n't think that they have communist or anarchist politics, which at their heart see a collectivist future based on class struggle.

I said that we don't worry about it like you seem to think that most left wing organisations and used that example do to demonstrate that the 'leadership' of our organisation isn't, as you presume, all 'white'.

Yes you are right, but then most of what passes for the left is not orientated towards the working class either.

As I said, I have said the things that I think that you are referring to. I wouldn't say that 'culture needs to be abolished', but that a new society will create its own culture through struggle.

Devrim

I don't know much about workers' struggles in Turkey. Are the unions there extensively co-opted as they are in the US? Is there a labor aristocracy? Is there a profound aversion towards organized labor associating itself with communists? These things would explain the unions' denouncing Left Communist support. But if the unions are controlled by workers, which I'm not sure is the case in this instance, and Left Com ideas aren't getting meaningful support, I think it's instructive to some degree.

I'm torn on Cuba. I see that important gains have been made in comparison to where it was as a US puppet state or protectorate. At the same time, there are authoritarian elements to it, even as there is some semblance of grassroots democracy. Nonetheless, there is no meaningful workers' control of production, and workers' councils don't run anything. The state integrated these things into itself, trying to conflate them. Still, if you have any suggestions of material from your tendency that I can read as to why Cuba is capitalist, I'd be interested in reading them.

A lot of people are unable to join political organizations because there aren't any in their area. In the big cities there's usually some chapters of organizations, but the vast majority of organizations don't go into rural communities or even smaller cities.

When I first became a socialist I looked at Left Communism somewhat seriously for myself. I ultimately decided that I didn't agree with a lot of it, but I think it serves an important function by pushing the movement in a direction of not allying with the bourgeoisie and forming cross-class alliances. For that reason I still respect Left Communism, even though I think it's too parochial and antiquated. Having voices critically raise questions with regards to class, even amongst a movement that recognizes it as the central problem, is valuable. maldoror gave a good explanation of how your tendency organizes so militantly going after your politics is counterproductive; instead, working together on issues of workplace democracy and organization and workers' assemblies is more productive than arguing with small Left Com groups who don't aim to "convert" the class.

[revolution inaction]

I'm not sure if you mistyped or not, but the unions involved in the TEKEL strike denounced Left Communist involvement?

..

If your definition of someone being a particular tendency is them having membership in an organization, there's a lot of people that you're writing off because they don't want to, or can't, join an organization. I'm not going to worry too much/debate about your personal definitions, that's just whatever. I don't think someone's politics is defined by membership in an organization; there's other ways to engage in anti-capitalist struggles to build socialism. Certainly formal organization is useful in doing so, however.

i don't entirely agree with devrim on this, but he has a point, if someone cant be bothered to join a group, then there politics probably don't mean vary much to them.




My impression and position is that anarchists support consensus decision-making as much as is practical/prudent now, and as a goal in a communist society. If we just sat around trying to reach consensus on pressing issues today, we'll be debating while things need to be moving. Voting is more practical today, but note that they emphasize that unanimity should be sought. This is so that feelings of disregard and deep disagreement are alleviated when those who vote in the minority lose the vote.

A consensus is nice to have but to make it a requirement to make a decision is stupid, even in groups with hight levels of agreement, it gives one person the power to fuck up the entire process and impose there views on the rest of the group, so its far less democrat than voting.




You say that my criticisms of a lack of involvement by peoples of Color is some type of tokenism, and then you go and talk about a Middle Eastern woman giving the closing summary? :lol: Insofar as there was and is a leftist presence in the Philippines, Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico, and Turkey, it hasn't been oriented towards Left Communism or even anarchism for that matter. Why did leftists in these countries decide against libertarian communist ideologies? Was it only because the dominant "socialist" model at the time was of the authoritarian statist variety (Soviet Union, China, etc) and support could be garnered from these sources?

anarchism/communism is tiny everywhere, but popularity is not a vary good indicator of correctness, unless you think capitalism is best?



Maybe no groups say that culture needs to be abolished, but people on here have said it and carrying some ideological positions to their conclusions come to this result.
The culture we have now needs to be abolished, but i don't see how we could abolish culture, with out also abolishing humans.

[revolution inaction]

I'm torn on Cuba. I see that important gains have been made in comparison to where it was as a US puppet state or protectorate. At the same time, there are authoritarian elements to it, even as there is some semblance of grassroots democracy. Nonetheless, there is no meaningful workers' control of production, and workers' councils don't run anything. The state integrated these things into itself, trying to conflate them. Still, if you have any suggestions of material from your tendency that I can read as to why Cuba is capitalist, I'd be interested in reading them.


in what way is it not capitalist?

[apawllo]

i don't entirely agree with devrim on this, but he has a point, if someone cant be bothered to join a group, then there politics probably don't mean vary much to them.

That, or their politics don't mean very much to the groups they could be involved with.

[FreeFocus]

in what way is it not capitalist?

I didn't say that it wasn't. I have called Cuba, USSR, etc, state capitalist in the past. I'm just interested in reading the Left Com logic behind it.

[Widerstand]

Yes, I think that political militants are members or supporters of political organisations. I don't understand why you think that people 'can't' join organisations. As for those who 'don't want to, I do^n't think that they have communist or anarchist politics, which at their heart see a collectivist future based on class struggle.


Of course this completely ignores the existence of informal groups and Autonomous affinity groups, as well as the very probable chance that one lives in an area devoid of groups compatible to ones politics.

[9]

@FreeFocus:

I use the library on libcom sometimes (which is great imho), but I don't follow the forums; I've had the impression that the forums there are mainly (tho not intentionally/explicitly) for UK anarchists - is that not still the case? Because if it is, I'm sort of confused that you seem to be transposing issues you have with the politics of leftcoms/British anarchists onto the anarchist scene within the US.
If anything, I would expect much more to hear the opposite criticism about American anarchists, i.e. that they are often too accommodating toward nationalism/national liberation, or at the very least, are often somewhat inconsistent or ambiguous in their opposition to it.

I don't know where in the US you're from, but are you in touch with any US anarchist organizations, e.g. NEFAC (http://nefac.net/) or the WSA (http://workersolidarity.org/)? Have you raised any of your concerns with them? I seriously doubt you will get the same kind of response from them that you claim to have gotten from people posting on the libcom forums, for better or worse.

[Devrim]

There seem to be a lot of questions in your post FreeFocus. I will try to deal with them as well as I can.

On the unions, and connected topics:


I don't know much about workers' struggles in Turkey. Are the unions there extensively co-opted as they are in the US? Is there a labor aristocracy? Is there a profound aversion towards organized labor associating itself with communists? These things would explain the unions' denouncing Left Communist support. But if the unions are controlled by workers, which I'm not sure is the case in this instance, and Left Com ideas aren't getting meaningful support, I think it's instructive to some degree.

Just to put things in a bit of perspective, the union system in Turkey, and in many other countries is very different than the US model. In the States you basically have one union centre, the AFL-CIO. CtW has challenged this but I see them as returning to the fold in the reasonably near future. In Turkey there are many different unions with different politics. I know one person who has seven different unions at her workplace, ranging from leftist (two different one) to fascist via Islamicist. Of course this means that some unions have 'left-wing politics'. I have heard union leaders calling for the dictatorship of the proletariat in speeches at meetings. On the other hand obviously some unions are very anti-communist. I think that answers the question on whether there was 'a profound aversion towards organized labor associating itself with communists'. In case you are interested the union in the TEKEL case was Türk-İş, the largest confederation in Turkey, which was basically set up by the CIA after the Second World War.

Concerning whether the unions in Turkey are "extensively co-opted as they are in the US" or whether "the unions are controlled by workers", I think that you need to try to grasp a deeper understanding of the role of unions within capitalism rather than looking at it on an empirical country by country basis. Are there any unions in the world that are not "extensively co-opted"? If not, why not?

On Cuba:


I'm torn on Cuba. I see that important gains have been made in comparison to where it was as a US puppet state or protectorate. At the same time, there are authoritarian elements to it, even as there is some semblance of grassroots democracy. Nonetheless, there is no meaningful workers' control of production, and workers' councils don't run anything. The state integrated these things into itself, trying to conflate them. Still, if you have any suggestions of material from your tendency that I can read as to why Cuba is capitalist, I'd be interested in reading them.

There have been a couple of points on Cuba recently, and I think I am going to start a new thread on it probably in the Left Communist forum, which I notice you are a member of, where we can try to discuss it without people ranting on about how of course Cuba is socialist".

On joining political organisations:

A few people commented on this:


A lot of people are unable to join political organizations because there aren't any in their area. In the big cities there's usually some chapters of organizations, but the vast majority of organizations don't go into rural communities or even smaller cities.



i don't entirely agree with devrim on this, but he has a point, if someone cant be bothered to join a group, then there politics probably don't mean vary much to them.That, or their politics don't mean very much to the groups they could be involved with.


Of course this completely ignores the existence of informal groups and Autonomous affinity groups, as well as the very probable chance that one lives in an area devoid of groups compatible to ones politics.

The main point here seems to be that there aren't any groups locally. I would imagine that if you got in touch with virtually any political organisation which wasn't represented locally, they would welcome you with open arms and give you all of the assistance that you could. I don't think the fact that there are no local groups is really an answer to the question. There never will be if people don't start from somewhere to form them. When we started EKS (which later joined the ICC) not only were there no left communist groups in Ankara, but there were none in Turkey. Therefore we started one ourselves.

Widerstand's point about "informal groups and Autonomous affinity groups" is different. If he genuinely believes that those are a model for organising, then I think that he is very very wrong, but at least on an intellectual level it deserves more consideration than there aren't any local groups although perhaps is part of another discussion.

Devrim

[synthesis]

So class politics offends you. I am not at all surprised.

I'm not sure how coherent this is going to be, but I'll try anyways.

In general I agree with the left-communist analysis, but at times it comes across to me as though "class politics" are being presented as existing in a vacuum, or that they are somehow separable from the specific (and general) contexts in which they exist. It seems hard to deny that in the modern world, class politics are inextricably intertwined with "racial/ethnic politics," "national politics" and so on.

The simple fact that these "other politics" (little double meaning there, sorry) act to divide the working class does not mean that they don't also affect the working class in myriad, unpredictable and, again, inextricable ways, and I get the impression that the full extent of these repercussions is simply dismissed on the basis that it does not comply with the relatively universal principles of left-communism. It seems to me like this is one area in which the left-communist analysis is lacking, but there is an equal or greater possibility that I'm just missing something or that everything in this post is nonsense.

[FreeFocus]

@FreeFocus:

I use the library on libcom sometimes (which is great imho), but I don't follow the forums; I've had the impression that the forums there are mainly (tho not intentionally/explicitly) for UK anarchists - is that not still the case? Because if it is, I'm sort of confused that you seem to be transposing issues you have with the politics of leftcoms/British anarchists onto the anarchist scene within the US.
If anything, I would expect much more to hear the opposite criticism about American anarchists, i.e. that they are often too accommodating toward nationalism/national liberation, or at the very least, are often somewhat inconsistent or ambiguous in their opposition to it.

I don't know where in the US you're from, but are you in touch with any US anarchist organizations, e.g. NEFAC (http://nefac.net/) or the WSA (http://workersolidarity.org/)? Have you raised any of your concerns with them? I seriously doubt you will get the same kind of response from them that you claim to have gotten from people posting on the libcom forums, for better or worse.

When I first found Libcom I noticed that it was geared towards Europe, but the forums have sections for every world region and a lot of non-European posters.

I haven't been in touch with either NEFAC or WSA, but I have posted on NEFAC's forums (Anarchist Black Cat) before. They do seem like a good bunch and I'll probably contact them at some point. Thanks for the suggestions.

[Devrim]

I've had the impression that the forums there are mainly (tho not intentionally/explicitly) for UK anarchists - is that not still the case?


When I first found Libcom I noticed that it was geared towards Europe, but the forums have sections for every world region and a lot of non-European posters.

The people who run Libcom are anarchists who live in and around London. Of course that probably has an influence.

I don't think that it is that much geared towards Europe, but things that people are involved in tend to go into a lot more detail than on here.

I think that although the majority of the posters are probably anarchists, you can also find, council communists, left communists, the odd Trotskyist, and even a member of the SPGB there.

Devrim

[bricolage]

Someone mentioned the issue of tokenising and I think that is relevant here. When leftist groups talk about ‘recruiting more black people’ or ‘how can we attract more minorities?” (*) what they are really saying is ‘how can we attract more individuals from minority groups that can in term be used as ‘representatives’ for the whole group’. So individual Muslims speaking on leftist platforms are seen as representative of the whole ‘Muslim community’, the same for blacks, asians, whatever, even people from certain estates deprived areas. Yet what this does is it doesn’t relate to people as humans with needs and interests similar to our own but rather as means to an end, as a way to establish faux-legitimacy and co-opt entire, amorphous and cross-class, ‘communities’. There is discussed in relation to the 2005 banlieue riots in France;


In the past, living in the banlieue meant a kind of added value. Within the reformist political world being a banlieuesard could boost your career. Of course you had to remain within a certain framework, but once you’d entered the game your banlieuesard status was almost an advantage... The banlieuesard was a cult object, desired and caressed. [...] Yes, it’s true what you say. In some way this is and was a form of racism. The banlieuesard, with somewhat rough, non-respectable behaviour, was imagined by intellectuals and middle class leftists as the noble savage, the pure degree zero of the class... For everyone [in the bourgeois left], presenting a banlieuesard who was urbanised but not too much so – and this, as you’ll see, was the whole point – was the proverbial flower in the buttonhole. Not only that. The banlieuesard who could exemplify the whole banlieue became a kind of cult object. A banlieuesard as individual made no sense, and as such couldn’t hope for any sort of success or affirmation; he or she always had to be the expression, the representative of the banlieue.http://www.abahlali.org/node/1437

The point being that this is a wholly repulsive way to go about things. If it so happens that communist etc organisations/movements/ideas within a given area as predominantly clustered around those that are white the inclusion of others should not be done on grounds of tokenising or of some sort of apparent moral duty to do so - which comes across as missionary work more than anything, largely motivated by pity, pity being anthithetical to the seizure of control over our own lives. What it actually relates to is that when Marx said workers of the world unite it wasn’t just a handy slogan but a reflection of practical necessities, a revolution of white workers is not revolution at all.

Saying that those that aren’t white have to somehow be adddressed on a level other than that of class seems patronising more than anything else, indiciating they are not seen as on the same level as whites. Obviously racism still permeates the totality of the globe and in ‘Western’ countries, despite what is claimed by governements, is still a daily reality of everyday life, anyone who ignores this is foolish at best offensive at worst, it is not just something that needs to be addressed in terms of combating it within society but also the way such ideas are self-internalised. Yet the point being none of this undermines the fact that class exploitation does not (on the whole) discriminate by race and that the fault line within society still remains at the point of production.

* FreeFocus used the term ‘people of color’ but thats not one thats familiar or comfortable to me. Its an American term that I assume is acceptable there but I imagine if you started talking about ‘people of colour’ in the UK you’d end up getting smacked.

P.S. I think the other point that hasn't been addressed here is that half of the people of libcom are even ruder than most of the people here, so such responses probably stem as much from that as from political differences.

[Devrim]

* FreeFocus used the term ‘people of color’ but thats not one thats familiar or comfortable to me. Its an American term that I assume is acceptable there but I imagine if you started talking about ‘people of colour’ in the UK you’d end up getting smacked.

I think the reason that it is 'uncomfortable' is that it is very similar to 'coloured', which is used in the UK as a racist term.

Devrim

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Though once common, "colored" is considered a derogatory term in the US too (like "negro" and "oriental").

In reality there's not much difference in calling folks "colored people" or "people of color," but you can't tell that to most of the folks that go around using the latter label like it's some sort of indication of their "advanced views."