what don't you like about your tendency?

[ed miliband]

i guess i'm an anarchist, though i consider myself a communist above all else, because i'm a member of an anarchist organisation. so i'll say what i don't like about anarchism.

1. when anarchists set up some sort of fake beef with marx, like he was an evil dictator or something. made worse when they act like proudhon has more to offer modern anarchism than marx, or suggest that marx just nicked anything from proudhon anyway.

2. obsession with "community politics".

3. when trying to describe what a future anarchist society will look like (a silly task in itself), anarchism is made to sound fucking gross, like we'll all be living in villages and meeting up on the hour to vote on who'll clean out the communal toilet.

[The Machine]

I'm just like a non denominational socialist, probably more of an anarchist than anything, and orwell said it best:

"In addition to this there is the horrible — the really disquieting — prevalence of cranks wherever Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words "Socialism" and "Communism" draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, "Nature Cure" quack, pacifist, and feminist in England"

Oh and theres this horrible tendency of people who don't adhere to any particular tendency to embrace pan-leftist united front bullshit. FUCK THAT with a passion.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Left Communist following more of a Leninist and Bordigist current.

I hate that some have a complete hatred of anarchism, Trotskyism, etc. and consider them all utopian and stupid. Yes, I disagree with these tendencies, but I would not consider the people in those tendencies stupid.

Basically it seems that many that follow my tendency can become very arrogant, sectarian, and intolerant.

[ed miliband]

I'm just like a non denominational socialist, probably more of an anarchist than anything, and orwell said it best:

"In addition to this there is the horrible — the really disquieting — prevalence of cranks wherever Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words "Socialism" and "Communism" draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, "Nature Cure" quack, pacifist, and feminist in England"

Oh and theres this horrible tendency of people who don't adhere to any particular tendency to embrace pan-leftist united front bullshit. FUCK THAT with a passion.

i always find it interesting how orwell included feminists in his list of "cranks". hmmmm.

but i agree with yr second point.

[The Machine]

well its probably a combination of the fact that orwell was kind of a chauvinist and feminists back in the day were still kind of moonbats

[ed miliband]

mostly to do with orwell being a bit of a conservative dickhead imo.

[The Machine]

feminists of the era were a fuck of a lot more conservative than orwell

[Brosa Luxemburg]

feminists of the era were a fuck of a lot more conservative than orwell

Besides supporting prohibition, I am not sure how right this is (of course, I don't know much about the subject so I may be wrong).

[ed miliband]

feminists of the era were a fuck of a lot more conservative than orwell

yeah, i mean some of the suffragettes were aligned to the tories in the uk, and i know some of the campaigners for women's suffrage had links to white supremacism in the states.

still, couldn't miss an opportunity to have a pop at orwell.

[The Machine]

Besides supporting prohibition, I am not sure how right this is (of course, I don't know much about the subject so I may be wrong).

first wave feminism was pretty intrenched in the populist reform movement of the day, which was pretty conservative. a lot of feminists were conservative christians and at least in the united states it would you would be hard pressed to find a feminist who supported communist revolution, like orwell did. idk much about england. theres a reason emma goldman did not associate with first wave feminists.

[The Machine]

still, couldn't miss an opportunity to have a pop at orwell.

The Road to Wigan Pier is better than the Manifesto

#FightMe

[Os Cangaceiros]

Besides supporting prohibition, I am not sure how right this is (of course, I don't know much about the subject so I may be wrong).

It's actually very true for a good number of leaders in the feminist movement back in the day, who complained about all of the moral decay in society, and wanted women to be good little worker bees in the capitalist economy and have voting rights so they could regulate good moral behavior.

[Deicide]

I don't have a tendency :blushing:

[Ilyich]

1. Trotskyists tend to be stuck, as one might say, in the early 1900's.

2. Trotskyists tend to be highly sectarian.

3. Many Trotskyist parties disregard democratic centralism and blindly follow their 'Trotsky after Trotsky' leader.

4. Trotskyism itself has cultish features in its 'worship' of Trotsky.

[The Machine]

literally the only good thing about trotskyites is that they arent stalinsts

[#FF0000]

3. Many Trotskyist parties disregard democratic centralism and blindly follow their 'Trotsky after Trotsky' leader.

4. Trotskyism itself has cultish features in its 'worship' of Trotsky.

See also: Maoism.

[#FF0000]

leftcoms are hipsters

[Prometeo liberado]

well its probably a combination of the fact that orwell was kind of a chauvinist and feminists back in the day were still kind of moonbats
Or that he was just a complete and utter incompetent socialist, and you can add to that journalist.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

1. Trotskyists tend to be stuck, as one might say, in the early 1900's.

2. Trotskyists tend to be highly sectarian.

3. Many Trotskyist parties disregard democratic centralism and blindly follow their 'Trotsky after Trotsky' leader.

4. Trotskyism itself has cultish features in its 'worship' of Trotsky.

What Sentinel said

[The Machine]

Or that he was just a complete and utter incompetent socialist, and you can add to that journalist.

homage to catalonia was pretty good journalism guy

[NewLeft]

When they side with reactionaries against comrades.

[Ocean Seal]

As a non-doctrinaire, and also I suppose some kind of Leninist more specifically an Orthodox Lacanian Stalinist, I recognize where the flaws in my side lie.

1.) Acting as if anti-imperialism actually does shit. Don't get me wrong, it could in theory, but showing up to a protest against bombing Libya isn't exactly going to stop the US war machine, so we shouldn't act all high and mighty about it.
2.) Feeling the need to defend whatever your great leader(s) did. They fucked up from time to time, lets admit it and move on.
3.) Hating on black blocs and condescendingly acting as if we are employing a proven and effective method.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'll just list two areas of left-wing thought that I feel I'm most close to:

anarchism: my eyes glaze over whenever the topic of animal rights come up. Animal rights and veganism is a major ideological issue in much of the anarchist milieu, too, or at least in the USA, and for most of the past decade or so seems to inspire the most militant actions. And I really don't care about the topic much at all.

Some of the "class struggle anarchists" who have some bizarre notion of anarchist history in which people like Malatesta and Kropotkin weren't advocates of insurrectionary violence, or that people like Rocker didn't admire Max Stirner, or that people like Fernand Pelloutier (French anarcho-syndicalist and one time leader of the French CGT) weren't self-proclaimed egoists, etc. and that the "real anarchism" is some kind of quasi-Marxist unionization effort.

left communism: Some people on the left communist side, both historically and contemporarily, seem to think that they hold the key to the one true proletarianism, and that the REAL proletarian agenda as set forth by history is known by them and them alone. Hence Bordiga's belief that it didn't really matter how tiny and insignificant your party was, as long as your party line was correct. Also ultra-determinist mechanical conceptions of history and ultra-Leninist party fetishist politics (from some left communists, definitely not all).

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Hence Bordiga's belief that it didn't really matter how tiny and insignificant your party was, as long as your party line was correct.

I don't think that Bordiga really argued that. He was saying that the party would most likely be made up of a minority of the proletariat at times when class consciousness would be lacking among the proletariat and that the party should lead the class, which is, as you stated before, pretty strict adherence to Leninist thought. But, I have never seen Bordiga say that it didn't matter how tiny and insignificant the party was as long as it was correct.

[Caj]

One thing that bothers me is how left communists can be ridiculously sectarian at times, denouncing every other tendency as "the left-wing of capital" or whatever. I also hate the so-called "Roosterists" who think Roosterism can be achieved on one farm. Revisionists! Comrade Rooster clearly stated that the roosters of the world must overthrow the farmers of all the world's farms!

[Brosa Luxemburg]

One thing that bothers me is how left communists can be ridiculously sectarian at times, denouncing every other tendency as "the left-wing of capital" or whatever. I also hate the so-called Roosterists who think Roosterism can be achieved on one farm. Revisionists!

Exactly, it must spread to each farm. I also hate the Roosterists that argue against the idea of protracted cock warfare.

[WanderingCactus]

anarchism: my eyes glaze over whenever the topic of animal rights come up. Animal rights and veganism is a major ideological issue in much of the anarchist milieu, too, or at least in the USA, and for most of the past decade or so seems to inspire the most militant actions. And I really don't care about the topic much at all.
I'm kind of divided on this. I do sympathize with animal welfare and stuff, and I definitely believe that the bulk of meat (and other animal products) production is shitty, but I'm also not at all hesitant to eat meat. This leaves a disconnect between myself and the many vegan anarchist folks.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't think that Bordiga really argued that. He was saying that the party would most likely be made up of a minority of the proletariat at times when class consciousness would be lacking among the proletariat and that the party should lead the class, which is, as you stated before, pretty strict adherence to Leninist thought. But, I have never seen Bordiga say that it didn't matter how tiny and insignificant the party was as long as it was correct.

I would argue that's essentially what his position was in the aftermath of the early 1920's. Of course it wasn't worded exactly as I worded it, I wasn't quoting him, but that's essentially what it boiled down to. We can see this influence today in how left-communist groups proudly admit to how tiny and insignificant they are (or, at least some posters affiliated with left-communist groups on this website). But it doesn't matter, because they hold the "historic memory of the class" with them or some such thing.

I actually think that Bordiga is one of the more overrated communist figures on this site. I like his legacy as a person, ie his persona, but as a theoretician I don't find much use in his work.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I would argue that's essentially what his position was in the aftermath of the early 1920's. Of course it wasn't worded exactly as I worded it, I wasn't quoting him, but that's essentially what it boiled down to. We can see this influence today in how left-communist groups proudly admit to how tiny and insignificant they are (or, at least some posters affiliated with left-communist groups on this website). But it doesn't matter, because they hold the "historic memory of the class" with them or some such thing.

Yeah, again, Bordiga never advocated that and I would seriously disagree that this was essentially his position after 1920. He did hold that the party should be made up of a minority of the class, but he wanted it to have major influence over the entire class. This is different from what you were saying. Overall, I somewhat agree with Bordiga on this point for a time when class consciousness is lacking in the proletariat, but I feel the party would naturally develop into a mass party when the proletariat as a whole gain class consciousness.


I actually think that Bordiga is one of the more overrated communist figures on this site. I like his legacy as a person, ie his persona, but as a theoretician I don't find much use in his work.

Again, I agree with a lot of the posts you make on this site but this is something that we severely disagree on.

[The Machine]

Some of the "class struggle anarchists" who have some bizarre notion of anarchist history in which people like Malatesta and Kropotkin weren't advocates of insurrectionary violence, or that people like Rocker didn't admire Max Stirner, or that people like Fernand Pelloutier (French anarcho-syndicalist and one time leader of the French CGT) weren't self-proclaimed egoists, etc. and that the "real anarchism" is some kind of quasi-Marxist unionization effort.


this.

theres so much marx nut riding on this site half the people who call themselves anarchists are just marxists who like the IWW or something. the only leftist theory thats discussed here is marxism or insurrecto poetry.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yeah, again, Bordiga never advocated that and I would seriously disagree that this was essentially his position after 1920. He did hold that the party should be made up of a minority of the class, but he wanted it to have major influence over the entire class. This is different from what you were saying. Overall, I somewhat agree with Bordiga on this point for a time when class consciousness is lacking in the proletariat, but I feel the party would naturally develop into a mass party when the proletariat as a whole gain class consciousness.

I was going to post again on this subject, but I've decided that I don't want to derail this thread anymore. I'll post on your wall and we can continue this discussion if you want.

[Janichkokov]

The Road to Wigan Pier is better than the Manifesto

#FightMe


The Road to Wigan Pier is indeed awesome, but not nearly as good as Homage to Catalonia!

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Don't have one. I win.

[Pretty Flaco]

focusing on shit nobody gives a fuck about from a hundred years ago.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

i guess i'm an anarchist, though i consider myself a communist above all else, because i'm a member of an anarchist organisation. so i'll say what i don't like about anarchism. As am I.


1. when anarchists set up some sort of fake beef with marx, like he was an evil dictator or something. made worse when they act like proudhon has more to offer modern anarchism than marx, or suggest that marx just nicked anything from proudhon anyway. We don't have a 'fake beef' with Marx. He had one with us. Banning us from the IWMA, proclaiming Bakunin and Proudhon to be illegitimate. And Marx was influenced by Proudhon. What Is Private Property? was a major influence on Marx's thought. I don't dislike the Great Karl Marx, I've read more books from Marx and Engels than any Anarchist author.


2. obsession with "community politics". What's wrong with community politics? If i'm not mistaken, it's grass-roots democracy.


3. when trying to describe what a future anarchist society will look like (a silly task in itself), anarchism is made to sound fucking gross, like we'll all be living in villages and meeting up on the hour to vote on who'll clean out the communal toilet. I've never heard of us discussing that. Rather, we reference a lot of Kropotkin's book The Conquest For Bread or Spain.

To your question; I dislike that some of us are split on a future of collectivism or Communism. When I think we know Communism should be our choice.

[o well this is ok I guess]

fruit-juice drinker what

[Prometeo liberado]

homage to Catalonia was pretty good journalism guy

Are you absolutely out of your mind or do you just take that single book as the end all, be all of what happened? We are talking about a "journalist' who purported to be a socialist yet during WW2 gave lists of names to MI5 of supposed communist in the War dept. Good comrades lost their jobs and couldn't feed their families because this fake red always saw to it that his sense of Englishness trumped class loyalty. Orwell pretty much tells you how much of a nationalist he is all through that garbage of a book. Pretty good journalism? Im surprised you can even type, let alone read and analyze, guy. Please.

[WanderingCactus]

As am I.

We don't have a 'fake beef' with Marx. He had one with us. Banning us from the IWMA, proclaiming Bakunin and Proudhon to be illegitimate. And Marx was influenced by Proudhon. What Is Private Property? was a major influence on Marx's thought. I don't dislike the Great Karl Marx, I've read more books from Marx and Engels than any Anarchist author.

What's wrong with community politics? If i'm not mistaken, it's grass-roots democracy.

I've never heard of us discussing that. Rather, we reference a lot of Kropotkin's book The Conquest For Bread or Spain.

To your question; I dislike that some of us are split on a future of collectivism or Communism. When I think we know Communism should be our choice.
Something about this post puts me off. Maybe it's all the 'us' and 'we' in reference to some whole of anarchists, I don't know.

E: To contribute to the topic at hand; I don't explicitly identify with any one tendency, so my problems with one tendency are basically my problems with all of them: groupthink. There's very little worthwhile independent and critical thought in organizations and such.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Something about this post puts me off. Maybe it's all the 'us' and 'we' in reference to some whole of anarchists, I don't know.

E: To contribute to the topic at hand; I don't explicitly identify with any one tendency, so my problems with one tendency are basically my problems with all of them: groupthink. There's very little worthwhile independent and critical thought in organizations and such.
Well, I've never heard a majority of Anarchists yearning to live in a society compiled with waste, ruin, and laziness. Or, to word it a little differently : I dislike that some Anarchists are split on a future of collectivism or Communism. When I think Communism is a better choice, in my opinion.. how's that?

[The Machine]

Are you absolutely out of your mind or do you just take that single book as the end all, be all of what happened? We are talking about a "journalist' who purported to be a socialist yet during WW2 gave lists of names to MI5 of supposed communist in the War dept. Good comrades lost their jobs and couldn't feed their families because this fake red always saw to it that his sense of Englishness trumped class loyalty. Orwell pretty much tells you how much of a nationalist he is all through that garbage of a book. Pretty good journalism? Im surprised you can even type, let alone read and analyze, guy. Please.

do you know what journalism is? you've got your facts wrong first of all, but even if you didn't Orwell's list has nothing to do with his abilities as a journalist. i'm also pretty sure you've never read homage to catalonia if you think he talks about how he's a nationalist (an interesting accusation for a stalinoid to make btw)
but really just shut the fuck up and get your facts right. he didn't give a list of subversives to M15 you fucking stupid, he made a list of writers, politicians and celebrities he didnt feel were suitable to work for the IRD because they supported the USSR. i dont particularly care one way or another about it, but you definitely won't see me crying any tears for 1940's era stalinist intellectuals (and no one went hungry because of orwells list you big fucking dummy). calling him a snitch, like you moonbats do every time his name gets brought up, is a bit much.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Anarchist - The way that absolutely any authority figure, police in particular, are evil and must be destroyed (no room for any concept of an individual within the authority group that is decent and intelligent and maybe even shares some of your views and ideas).
All tendencies - the conviction that they are right, no question, quite dogmatic and unwaivering.

[Zav]

I suppose my main tendency is Anarchist-Communism. I don't like how so many An-Coms are unwilling to create Anarchy in real life, call those who at least try "lifestylist", yet uphold historic examples on a pedestal. If you have revolutionary politics, you should at least support those who make them happen, if not try to do so yourself. In short, hypocritical arm-chairism.

As an Environmentalist, I dislike the attitude of reliance on technical advances when the problem is the socio-economic system, not a lack of technical prowess, and the idea that we have the time to reform our social structure. Basically, it's the Liberalism I don't like, but these aspects are the most irritating.

As a gender egalitarian, I LOATHE the gender domination present in parts of the Feminist movement and most (alas) of the Masculist movement, and the refusal of the same people to acknowledge people outside the false dichotomy of male and female.

As a pirate, leechers. 'Nough said.

As an Individualist, I dislike the right-wingers who use the philosophies of Individualism as an excuse for Capitalism, ignoring the fact (and refusing to hear it) that Communism is better for the individual as well as the greater society.

As an IT person, I hate Apple fanboys. :thumbdown:

As a metalhead, I really dislike right-wing black metal, which is most of it, and most tech death. Death metal is great; progressive metal is great. Together they are not.
Cytotoxin is the exception.

As a Queer, I dislike when stereotypes made by the rest of society infiltrate the brains of Queerfolk.

As a vegan, I dislike the New Age ideas polluting the community.

I'm just going through my groups, if you couldn't tell. I'm done now.

[Prometeo liberado]

do you know what journalism is? you've got your facts wrong first of all, but even if you didn't Orwell's list has nothing to do with his abilities as a journalist. i'm also pretty sure you've never read homage to catalonia if you think he talks about how he's a nationalist (an interesting accusation for a stalinoid to make btw)
but really just shut the fuck up and get your facts right. he didn't give a list of subversives to M15 you fucking stupid, he made a list of writers, politicians and celebrities he didnt feel were suitable to work for the IRD because they supported the USSR. i dont particularly care one way or another about it, but you definitely won't see me crying any tears for 1940's era stalinist intellectuals (and no one went hungry because of orwells list you big fucking dummy). calling him a snitch, like you moonbats do every time his name gets brought up, is a bit much.

Lets see, tendency baiting, personal attacks and and re-constructing criteria to support the facts("he didn't give a list of subversives to M15 you fucking stupid, he made a list" ). Is this the way you people argue a point? If naming names of other socialist who supported an Allie does not make you a nationalist then what does? Have you ever read Down and out in Paris and London. Christ, he extols the fact that being homeless in England is much better than doing so in Paris, because the English are so much more "civilized". Not a nationalist, please. He was not a journalist, he editorialized his stories. He manipulated situations and data to back up his prejudices. Journalist report, he painted a picture. A supporter of neither the Communist nor the Anarchist he was a chameleon who wrote from that perspective. And so it was back in the U.K., neither a journalist nor a socialist he became a stooge for, as you put it, people "he didnt feel were suitable". Leave out the personal nonsense little one, or go to RAAN.

[Tim Cornelis]

There isn't anything in particular I don't like about my tendency as it is not a dogma and open to individual interpretation.

As for its adherents, amongst anarchists some have a very liberal mentality. Some are utopian socialists creating alternative spaces and communes within capitalism. Others are lifestyle-ists, zealous about vegan lifestyle, bohemian, etc. And some anarchists, because they exclusively hang out in "alternative, anarchic circles", seem to be somewhat detached from how the rest of society sees them.

[Deicide]

I dislike overtly deterministic Marxists, or vulgar Marxists

''Capitalism will destroy itself and will lead to Communism!! That's the plan of entire human history!!!!! It's the dialectical completion of history!!! In the meanwhile, while we wait for the prophesied self-destruction of capitalism, lets smoke weed and eat chocolate chip muffins.''.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Infraction to TheMachine for tendency baiting and flaming...

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2462539&postcount=15

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2462793&postcount=40

Rest of you, stay on topic or the thread gets closed.

[Blake's Baby]

Left Communist following more of a Leninist and Bordigist current...


Left Communist of a more Luxemburgist slant here...



...Basically it seems that many that follow my tendency can become very arrogant, sectarian, and intolerant.

This, very much this.

Some of the loveliest, cleverest, most committed and darned interesting people but man, they kvetch - not about Trotskyists, about each other...


leftcoms are hipsters

Nah, I think that's just you. Unless by 'hipsters' you mean trousers from circa 1968.

[Welshy]

Some of the loveliest, cleverest, most committed and darned interesting people but man, they kvetch - not about Trotskyists, about each other...

Another sort of left com here (but of the leninist/bordiga side), but I found talking to other left coms there is more complaining about trots and stalinists than anything and that the in fighting only seems to come about when the ICT and ICC talk about each other. I could just be missing something

On Topic:

I hate how small we are and how some really intelligent people in the tendency avoid doing stuff and organizing. I also hate the determinism. I understand that the right material conditions are required but revolutions can fail even if the conditions are right so actions can't be ignored, though we shouldn't fall into the trap of voluntarism.

[Kronsteen]

Ah, things I don't like about my beloved IS. There's so many....

* We define success by recruitment counts.

* We have a few professional theorists, and the attitude that they do all the hard thinking for us, so we can get on with protests and campaigns.

* We try to pretend Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and Luxemburg all agreed with each other on everything.

* We use the word 'liberal' as an insult.

* We believe in democratic centralism...but mainly centralism.

* We're all completely, utterly clueless about science and technology.

* We love 'the workers' but don't like talking with them.

* We assume that anyone who disagrees with us just hasn't thought about it.


focusing on shit nobody gives a fuck about from a hundred years ago.

Oh yeah, that one totally.

[Invader Zim]

mostly to do with orwell being a bit of a conservative dickhead imo.

Except that, really, he wasn't conservative at all, at least not by any contemporary standard anyway. That said, he did buy into a load of bullshit about English character.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

''Capitalism will destroy itself and will lead to Communism!! That's the plan of entire human history!!!!! It's the dialectical completion of history!!! In the meanwhile, while we wait for the prophesied self-destruction of capitalism, lets smoke weed and eat chocolate chip muffins.''.

I don't even think I can begin to describe how hard I literally laughed out loud after reading that. :D

[Peoples' War]

I dislike overtly deterministic Marxists, or vulgar Marxists

''Capitalism will destroy itself and will lead to Communism!! That's the plan of entire human history!!!!! It's the dialectical completion of history!!! In the meanwhile, while we wait for the prophesied self-destruction of capitalism, lets smoke weed and eat chocolate chip muffins.''.
I just call them asshats.

Well, since my tendency encompasses quite a few:

I dislike Degenerated Workers' State Theory and Socialism in One Country.

[Prometeo liberado]

''Capitalism will destroy itself and will lead to Communism!! That's the plan of entire human history!!!!! It's the dialectical completion of history!!! In the meanwhile, while we wait for the prophesied self-destruction of capitalism, lets smoke weed and eat chocolate chip muffins.''.

This shit may become one of the funniest signitures one day............just not today.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Are you absolutely out of your mind or do you just take that single book as the end all, be all of what happened? We are talking about a "journalist' who purported to be a socialist yet during WW2 gave lists of names to MI5 of supposed communist in the War dept. Good comrades lost their jobs and couldn't feed their families because this fake red always saw to it that his sense of Englishness trumped class loyalty. Orwell pretty much tells you how much of a nationalist he is all through that garbage of a book. Pretty good journalism? Im surprised you can even type, let alone read and analyze, guy. Please. So do you judge all literary merit by the politics of the writer?

[Prometeo liberado]

So do you judge all literary merit by the politics of the writer?

First, if one is trying to pass off a piece if writing as "journalism" or "I was there and this is what happened" then I will take into account whatever baggage this writer brings with her/him. As this baggage does ultimately bear influence on all of your analysis. If one is a racist one's writings will show a racist bent, no? Anything other than that would be called fiction of sorts. In Orwell's case he was a petty English nationalist of questionable socialist credentials. He did report to MI5 and name names. He did have communist fired. Blackballed if you will. This has to define a man who purports to have written an honest account of the Spanish Civil War. His politics dictated his actions. I have read everything he has written and patterns emerge that speak volumes of the man and at the end of the day he is nothing more than a liberal civil servant who held being English more important than understanding what it is to be an internationalist.

[o well this is ok I guess]

First, if one is trying to pass off a peice if writting as "journalism" or "I was there and this is what happened" then I will take into account whatever baggage this writer brings with her/him. As this baggage does ultimately bear influence on all of your analysis. If one is a racist one's writtings will portay a racist bent, no? Anything other than that would be called fiction of sorts. Nevermind you put only one sentence towards the actual content of the book itself ("Orwell pretty much tells you how much of a nationalist he is all through that garbage of a book").
But let us consider this line: "This baggage does ultimately bear influence on all of your analysis". And which baggage is this? His markedly english perspective? And what bearing does this have on the interpretation of the events?
Could you please demonstrate?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Lets see, tendency baiting, personal attacks and and re-constructing criteria to support the facts("he didn't give a list of subversives to M15 you fucking stupid, he made a list" ). Is this the way you people argue a point? If naming names of other socialist who supported an Allie does not make you a nationalist then what does? Have you ever read Down and out in Paris and London. Christ, he extols the fact that being homeless in England is much better than doing so in Paris, because the English are so much more "civilized". Not a nationalist, please. He was not a journalist, he editorialized his stories. He manipulated situations and data to back up his prejudices. Journalist report, he painted a picture. A supporter of neither the Communist nor the Anarchist he was a chameleon who wrote from that perspective. And so it was back in the U.K., neither a journalist nor a socialist he became a stooge for, as you put it, people "he didnt feel were suitable". Leave out the personal nonsense little one, or go to RAAN.
Granted that Orwell became a reactionary fuckwad. But Homage to Catalonia is a very interesting book. The politics are a bit off, but it is pretty cool to have an account of what it was like to serve in a unit of the POUM militia. I didn't know about the "naming names" incident. If he actually did that he is an even bigger fuckwad than I thought.

[Prometeo liberado]

And what bearing does this have on the interpretation of the events?

The Spanish Civil War was an international historical event and should have been reported as one. Bringing in one's nationalist bent only confuses what is an already confusing arena. He has done it in every non-fiction book he has written. Basically if your neighbor is known to beat his wife would you take as serious a book he wrote on how to love a woman?

I didn't know about the "naming names" incident. If he actually did that he is an even bigger fuckwad than I thought.
Pretty sure all the evidence is online now. MI5 even has a site to look it up. I will say though that if I did not find his work somewhat entertaining then I would not have read all of his works though.

[o well this is ok I guess]

The Spanish Civil War was an international historical event and should have been reported as one. Bringing in one's nationalist bent only confuses what is an already confusing arena. He has done it in every non-fiction book he has written. I will reiterate: And what bearing does this have on the interpretation of the events? Could you please demonstrate?
Or, in other words, could you stop talking as a propagandist and actually engage the text?

Also, regarding your comment on Down and Out in Paris and London ("Christ, he extols the fact that being homeless in England is much better than doing so in Paris, because the English are so much more "civilized") could I get the example from the text where he says such?

[Prometeo liberado]

Also, regarding your comment on Down and Out in Paris and London ("Christ, he extols the fact that being homeless in England is much better than doing so in Paris, because the English are so much more "civilized") could I get the example from the text where he says such
Just from I remeberwithout reading more from chapter 24,
‘And you should just see the London statues! Paris is vulgar — half grandiosity and half slums. But London — ’

"The thought of not being poor made me very patriotic. The more questions the Roumanians asked, the more I praised England; the climate, the scenery, the art, the literature, the laws — everything in England was perfect." And this just prior to becoming poor again. The whole book is filled with this nonsense.

Go read the book. And feel free to reiterate, I've answered your question more times than I care to. Boring.

[Revolution starts with U]

My tendency is socialist, so I can't speak for any one specific tendency but:

"liberal til proven communist" mindset

"anything the bourgeois do is terrible" mindset

-historical determinism which completely takes human action out of the equation... as if the Revolution will just happen even if nobody joins it.
--- includes anti-lifestylism (to make a long story short, lifestylism isn't going to bring down bourgeois society. But again, the Revolution is only going to happen if people actually join in on it)

-parrot like, superficial, knee-jerk anti libertarianism

-the anarchist FAQ

[o well this is ok I guess]

Just from I remeberwithout reading more from chapter 24,
‘And you should just see the London statues! Paris is vulgar — half grandiosity and half slums. But London — ’

"The thought of not being poor made me very patriotic. The more questions the Roumanians asked, the more I praised England; the climate, the scenery, the art, the literature, the laws — everything in England was perfect." And this just prior to becoming poor again. The whole book is filled with this nonsense.

Go read the book. And feel free to reiterate, I've answered your question more times than I care to. Boring. You have answered one question, and inadequately so. You have yet to provide an answers regarding Homage to Catalonia with any smidgeon of substance.
It doesn't really help your case that within the same chapter (right beside the bit you quoted, at that) Orwell more or less ridicules this attitude of his. ("Then the boat drew Alongside Tilbury pier. The first buildings we saw on the waterside was one of those huge hotels, all stucco and pinnacles, which stare from the English coast like idiots staring over an asylum wall. 'Built by french architects," I assured them; and even later, when the train was crawling into London through the eastern slums, I still kept it up about the beauties of English architecture."). And besides, you've read the book, correct? Of course. Therefore, you are surely aware that sleeping in prison cells and being forced to pay for the worst of sleeping accommodations was not exactly portrayed as, you know, a positive thing befitting of the gentlemanly English (being what I assume you think Orwell thinks of everything English).
Now come on. Could you answer these questions rather than evade them, or taking extremely limited examples from text?

[Pretty Flaco]

i dont like how a lot of people here have what i call cookie cutter politics. it seems like a lot of people just wiki'd the politics of some random guy and then straight took their side on every position and shit.

[Revolution starts with U]

you've read the book, correct? Of course.

I see what you did there :lol:

[black magick hustla]

"insurrectionarism":
poetic, fuzzy wank that passes off as theory. highschool poetical manifestos that all sound the same. veganism. animals.

"left communism":
tree house friendship societies. no understanding of rhetorics and effective writing. ridiculous things like "honor courts" and "parasitism"

"communisation"
phds

[Os Cangaceiros]

With regards to Orwell, I don't have much use for his politics, he was an "aristocratic socialist" with rather uninteresting views, but it's pretty hard to argue that someone doesn't understand what it is to be an internationalist when that someone took a bullet to the throat fighting against fascism in Spain. I mean, I don't like Tito at all, but I definitely respect him for his partisan warfare against the Nazis.

Orwell did rock the Hitler stache, though...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/eb/OrwellBurmaPassport.jpg/341px-OrwellBurmaPassport.jpg

Also, if we're going to throw out all of someone's potential contributions for nationalistic undercurrents, better do Engels too, after all he praised Germany for "civilizing" the Czechs and Slovenes, lest eastern Germany be "torn to pieces" by the Slavs, who he compared to rats. Just saying.

[seventeethdecember2016]

The massive Bureaucracy that is needed to sustain it.

[Deicide]

^ Marx needs to be thrown out too.

''Edgar Bauer, hurt by some chance remark, turned the tables and ridiculed the English snobs. Marx launched an enthusiastic eulogy on German science and music – no other country, he said, would have been capable of producing such masters of music as Beethoven, Mozart, Haendel and Haydn, and the Englishmen who had no music were in reality far below the Germans who had been prevented hitherto only by the miserable political and economic conditions from accomplishing any great practical work, but who would yet outclass all other nations. So fluently I have never heard him speak English.''

[Pretty Flaco]

Orwell did rock the Hitler stache, though...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/eb/OrwellBurmaPassport.jpg/341px-OrwellBurmaPassport.jpg



god fuckin damn i hope that wasn't ever popular because its ugly as fuck.

[hatzel]

The massive Bureaucrqcy that is needed to sustain it.

Bare lulz you said it best, brother.

The main thing I don't like about my tendency is that I have to spend half the time asking the opposite question - what do I like about my tendency? - because the left is mainly (obvious exaggeration) full of asshat clowns, and sometimes it's difficult to honestly believe that the theory is basically good, even if its adherents don't bring anything worthwhile to the table, and certainly don't live up to their promise or potential.

I find 'the broad left' far more frustrating than its conservative counterpart, because at least right-wingers are usually 'out' and candid about their conservatism, so it's expected of them to take regressive positions, without trying to justify them according to some vague progressivist schema. Whilst some/many (who knows?) leftists seem to fall into antiquated, irrelevant and often highly questionable positions - not to condemn them too harshly for it; we can't expect people to be 'perfect' (which, quite ironically, is another problem with these very individuals: that they honestly expect such 'perfection') - which they then try to force into a wider progressive program, and wrap in radical-sounding rhetoric. I would much prefer it if these people said "yeah, I take this position, and perhaps it's somewhat of an aberration, but that's my issue to deal with," rather than acting as if they are the embodiment of pure revolutionary consistency. Yeah that shit brings me down. Waaay down.

Also people who are full of pretty (really?) words wholly devoid of meaningful content. All slogans with no bite. These people often overlap with the aforementioned, though...

[ed miliband]

"communisation"
phds


endnotes doesn't seem that way to me. i don't know much about the tiqqun, etc. "communisation" though.

[Zukunftsmusik]

rant

I thought your main problem with your tendency would be that it's not a tendency :tt2:

[hatzel]

I thought your main problem with your tendency would be that it's not a tendency :tt2:

Another very serious concern, indeed :unsure:

[Prometeo liberado]

You have answered one question, and inadequately so. You have yet to provide an answers regarding Homage to Catalonia with any smidgeon of substance.
It doesn't really help your case that within the same chapter (right beside the bit you quoted, at that) Orwell more or less ridicules this attitude of his. ("Then the boat drew Alongside Tilbury pier. The first buildings we saw on the waterside was one of those huge hotels, all stucco and pinnacles, which stare from the English coast like idiots staring over an asylum wall. 'Built by french architects," I assured them; and even later, when the train was crawling into London through the eastern slums, I still kept it up about the beauties of English architecture."). And besides, you've read the book, correct? Of course. Therefore, you are surely aware that sleeping in prison cells and being forced to pay for the worst of sleeping accommodations was not exactly portrayed as, you know, a positive thing befitting of the gentlemanly English (being what I assume you think Orwell thinks of everything English).
Now come on. Could you answer these questions rather than evade them, or taking extremely limited examples from text?

Obviously answers to old and tired questions have been given and instead of admitting this you retort "You've read the book, correct?". I can only yawn at childish remarks that tell of vapid knowledge about the subject. I would rather you simply said either you don't agree or I am wrong . Either way this nonsense wouldn't have been such a waste of time. I could explain to you, in detail, how gravity works and you would question whether I actually "read the book", correct? Please just do the research yourself.:closedeyes:

[o well this is ok I guess]

Obviously answers to old and tired questions have been given and instead of admitting this you retort "You've read the book, correct?". I can only yawn at childish remarks that tell of vapid knowledge about the subject. I would rather you simply said either you don't agree or I am wrong . Either way this nonsense wouldn't have been such a waste of time. I could explain to you, in detail, how gravity works and you would question whether I actually "read the book", correct? Please just do the research yourself.:closedeyes: bro cmon

[Prometeo liberado]

bro cmon

And then this.......:rolleyes:

[o well this is ok I guess]

And then this.......:rolleyes: Bro cmon
I can lend you Homage to Catalonia, if you need a copy.

[Quail]

Hmm, what do I dislike about anarchists?

I find that a lot of people seem to have this ridiculous idea that we shouldn't bother doing anything about the environment because some miraculous technological advancement will save us.

Another thing that really irritates me is class struggle anarchists who put all of their energy into animal rights activism. I'm a vegan myself, but why can't some of the energy that goes into organising against vivisection/circuses/etc be put into organising around all the issues that the working class face?

Recently it's been annoying me that some people are just so unreliable. People say they'll do stuff so you can (for example) get a claimants union off the ground, and then you never hear from them again. It's so frustrating.

[ed miliband]

Recently it's been annoying me that some people are just so unreliable. People say they'll do stuff so you can (for example) get a claimants union off the ground, and then you never hear from them again. It's so frustrating.

if you're sheffield afed i think we're both on the same mailing list or whatever it is lol

[Quail]

if you're sheffield afed i think we're both on the same mailing list or whatever it is lol
The afed one?

[ed miliband]

The afed one?

i'm leeds afed, it's a shared one between leeds and sheffield right? i never post anything mind

[Omsk]

I like everything.

[Quail]

i'm leeds afed, it's a shared one between leeds and sheffield right? i never post anything mind
Yeah it is. I don't post too often either at the moment. We tend to arrange stuff by text at the moment anyway.

[black magick hustla]

endnotes doesn't seem that way to me. i don't know much about the tiqqun, etc. "communisation" though.

lol endnots are all phds in real life

[Comrades Unite!]

Certain Maoists never shut the fuck up saying ''Reactionary filth!Should be SHot!'' and ''You goddamn Trot'' when you disagree with them on a matter.

eg.On Blog tv MRN said the Purge was necessary to push the Soviet Union forward.
I said it wasn't and I was bombarded with people calling me reactionary.

[Q]

1. Trotskyists tend to be stuck, as one might say, in the early 1900's.

2. Trotskyists tend to be highly sectarian.

3. Many Trotskyist parties disregard democratic centralism and blindly follow their 'Trotsky after Trotsky' leader.

4. Trotskyism itself has cultish features in its 'worship' of Trotsky.

That really sums it up. I'll add that most Trotskyists (most revolutionary lefts for that matter) have no proper conception of the party. In most schemes we just start out with small "propaganda groups" and recruit the "ones and twos" ad infinitum until, presto!, we have a mass party ready to take power. But yeah, that just adds to point 2 I guess.

[Raúl Duke]

Hmmm...

I consider myself a league of my own...but I guess I could talk about short-comings of American leftists, in particular American anarchist that are or were true.

I remember American anarchists that were new to anarchism and/or not exposed to news of anarchist developments outside the US were quite "anarchist-lite" as in stating stupid shit like being "committed pacifists," eating meat/et.al is 'unanarchist,' and what not. Some were even into endorsing voting. It was here in revleft were being in touch with anarchists from outside the US (particularly the UK) one can see a strong anti-vote stance, no platform for fascists, advocating a diversity of tactics, and being very working-class/socialist centered (i.e. this is a point because I've met self-described anarchists in the US who go around saying they are advocates of the ideas of different incompatible political thinkers like Kropotkin, Rothbard, and Mises :rolleyes: and who go around spouting they support Ron Paul and markets <facepalm> ) all of which influenced my political development; rather than focusing on the whole anti-state rhetoric which unforunately has given people, particularly those in the US, the misconception that that's what anarchism is solely about and thus spout non-sense like anarcho-capitalism.

[Tim Finnegan]

I hate the way that so many English-speaking ultra-lefts write like they've been translated, badly, from French.

[Salyut]

We don't organize to the extent of other tendencies.

That and we tend to be few and far between so most contact is done via the interwebs.

[Salyut]

I hate the way that so many English-speaking ultra-lefts write like they've been translated, badly, from French.

I wish I had more access to ultra-left material in the library. :(

[Blake's Baby]

I hate the way that so many English-speaking ultra-lefts write like they've been translated, badly, from French.

Some of us have.

Not kidding, since coming into contact with the ICC, I've started to use the term 'milieu'. It's a term used in the ICC; and it's used in English by the ICC because it's used by the French section of the ICC. No-one's got a better term so we stick with 'milieu', even though it sounds like political jargon and no-one outside the circle of ICC sympathisers and contacts really knows what we mean or why we use it.

The ICT uses 'proletarian camp' which isn't much better, but at least has the virtue of being in the language it's used in.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't really like the word "milieu", but I honestly can't think of a better equivalent.

The closest I can come up with is "scene", but that sounds like a cultural grouping to me.

[Pretty Flaco]

I wish I had more access to ultra-left material in the library. :(

Maybe you could check in the french language section?

[Devrim]

I hate the way that so many English-speaking ultra-lefts write like they've been translated, badly, from French.

It is because it is translated badly from French.

Devrim

[revolt]

left communist. I'd say what I object to can be applied to a lot of anti-stalinists in general, which is that a lot of people who are anti-stalinist will go on about how stalinists are nerds or whatever, which is stupid. thats not how you talk about political and social issues. its just irritating.

[Luc]

can y'all tell us what milleu means while were on the topic of it?

edit: arg my dislike wasnt relevant nvm

[Tim Finnegan]

Literally it translates as "mid-place", and means something like "environment", in this case a cultural or social environment. In English usage, it's similar to "scene", just without the connotations of subculture, although the particular way in which BB's using may have nuances that I'm not aware of.

[citizen of industry]

when trying to describe what a future anarchist society will look like (a silly task in itself), anarchism is made to sound fucking gross, like we'll all be living in villages and meeting up on the hour to vote on who'll clean out the communal toilet.

:lol:

[Blake's Baby]

Literally it translates as "mid-place", and means something like "environment", in this case a cultural or social environment. In English usage, it's similar to "scene", just without the connotations of subculture, although the particular way in which BB's using may have nuances that I'm not aware of.

I'd translate it differently depending on context - 'medium', as in 'culture-medium' perhaps; but environment in other places, and scene in yet others.

None is particularly good at expressing the idea that seems to be quite clear in French, that the are groups and individuals (in this case Left Communist groups and individuals) that have a certain amount of common ground but some differences. The 'proletarian political milieu' (ICC term) or 'proletarian camp' (term used by members of the ICT, I'm unsure how 'official' it is as a term though) is this wider group of organisations and individuals, that Left Communists tend to recognise as comrades with whom we have disagreements, rather than labelling as part of 'the left wing of capital' (which is how we characterise most of the rest of you).

The 'proletarian political environment' would imply the (total) environment in which proletarian politics was expressed, rather than the groups and individuals expressing those views; and 'proletarian political scene' sounds like it's trying to be a fashion show in overalls or something. But 'scene' is probably the closest word we have in English for the idea that's being expressed in French. Shame about the connotations though.

That's probably why we use 'milieu'.

[hatzel]

Wait wait wait I just remembered what my serious gripe is...namely, when I sarcastically call myself a theocrat or something (because I'm too cool to accept some political label, of course, so I just pick some random silly title :cool:) and then people who know nothing at all about my opinion on anything are "but how can you support that, what with all the herby-derby Iran herby-derby Middle Ages herby-derby Osama?! :scared:" and getting all indignant. So basically my main problem is that I make hilaaaaarious jokes and other people just take me seriously. All. The. Time. How very annoying that is...

Kind of like when people on here actually refer to me as a post-neoist or a neocrat or whatever else because it was/is under my name as if it's totally serious. Totally.

...oh wait but this is my fault, clearly, so I shouldn't complain...

[Ostrinski]

The main thing I find irritating among many tendencies, and especially among left communists, is defining of political positions along the lines of historical stances.

[Q]

It is because it is translated badly from French.

Devrim

That is actually interesting. What you see with many Trotskyist groups is something similar. A lot of words and concepts are used in Dutch, but originate from British-English. Terms like "struggle", "fight", "militant", etc all have a specific British context that isn't easily translatable so we end up with words that seem somewhat alien to outsiders and have a clique-ish feel to it. In other words: New recruits have to be somewhat "initiated" (not in a formal sense, but it just happens) into the language that it used.

I think somewhat similar is happening in the ICC and in other international organisations/currents that have an influencing source-country.

[Anarpest]

An insufficient grasp on the difference between poetry and theory which tends to embarrass both.

[Salyut]

Maybe you could check in the french language section?

My attempts at learning other languages just haven't gone well. :x

[L.A.P.]

I guess I still consider myself a Marxist-Leninist/Maoist somewhat. I don't think I need to write out my complaints about that tendency.


Orthodox Lacanian Stalinist

ಠ_ಠ

[Crux]

Nothing I don't also dislike in the left in general.

[Bostana]

Isms and schism is all they are

[Invader Zim]

Are you absolutely out of your mind or do you just take that single book as the end all, be all of what happened? We are talking about a "journalist' who purported to be a socialist yet during WW2 gave lists of names to MI5 of supposed communist in the War dept. Good comrades lost their jobs and couldn't feed their families because this fake red always saw to it that his sense of Englishness trumped class loyalty. Orwell pretty much tells you how much of a nationalist he is all through that garbage of a book. Pretty good journalism? Im surprised you can even type, let alone read and analyze, guy. Please.

None of this is accurate.

Orwell didn't snitch on communists to MI5. What he did was recommend that the Information Research Department (IRD), a white propaganda agency created under the post-war Attlee Government, not employ a number of writers whose politics would have made them unsuited to, and uninterested in, the task at hand. That is the be all and end all of it. It did not cost anybody their job, Orwell did not provide the IRD any information that wasn't already within the public sphere, and there is no evidence that the IRD even acted upon it.


So lets go through it point by point:

"We are talking about a "journalist' who purported to be a socialist"

He was both a journalist and a socialist. Anyone who gives his work a cursory glance can confirm it. 0/1

"yet during WW2"

The list incident occurred post-war in 1949. 0/2

"gave lists of names to MI5"

Actually the list went to the Information Research Department, which was a white propaganda agency, and had nothing to do with British Intelligence, let alone the Home service. The IRD was a department of the Foreign Office, not the Home Office (to which the Security Service had been transferred in 1920), for a start. 0/3

"of supposed communist in the War dept."

There was no such thing as the War Department and had not been since 1857. And the War Office was not infiltrated by any Communist moles that Orwell could possibly have been aware of, and nor was that the purpose of his list. And, as noted, his list went to the IRD in the Foreign Office - not the War Office. 0/4

"Good comrades lost their jobs"

Orwell's list was about sounding out writers, not sacking people. Nobody lost their job as a result of Orwell's list. Nobody was arrested. And nobody's career was damaged at all by the list. 0/5

"and couldn't feed their families"

Given that nobody lost their job, or was in any danger of losing their job, you just made that up and it is a load of ahistorical emotive crap. 0/6


"because this fake red always saw to it that his sense of Englishness trumped class loyalty."

Opposition to Stalinism in the 1940s, following the actions of the Soviet Union in Spain, has nothing to do with 'Englishness'. It has everything to do with the fact that Orwell, unlike you, understood the material realities of that regime.

0/7

So everything you just said is wrong. 100% of it. I'm surprised you can even type, let alone read and analyze, guy. Please.

[Invader Zim]

It is because it is translated badly from French.

Devrim

Well, the original material was. But in this instance, English speaking writers then copy that style to fit it.

[Devrim]

That is actually interesting. What you see with many Trotskyist groups is something similar. A lot of words and concepts are used in Dutch, but originate from British-English. Terms like "struggle", "fight", "militant", etc all have a specific British context that isn't easily translatable so we end up with words that seem somewhat alien to outsiders and have a clique-ish feel to it. In other words: New recruits have to be somewhat "initiated" (not in a formal sense, but it just happens) into the language that it used.

I think somewhat similar is happening in the ICC and in other international organisations/currents that have an influencing source-country.

Yes, I can imagine that this happens in a lot of organisations which have one section that dominates an international tendency.

I think that the case of the ICC is even worse in that the language of the biggest section, French, is being translated through English to many of the sections.


Well, the original material was [translated from French to English badly]. But in this instance, English speaking writers then copy that style to fit it.

Yes, you are right. They have adopted the style of these poor translations for their own. There are phrases, which I have heard members of the ICC, who are native English speakers, use, which don't make sense in English. Then members of other sections, who aren't native speakers, copy them (quite understandably as it is an example set by native speakers) and the cycle goes on with the language used becoming more and more jargonised.

When you add to this the act that English shares a significant amount of vocabulary with French (incidentally Orwell wrote an interesting piece on this contrasting the phrase juvenile delinquents with young thugs if I remember correctly) the unfortunate result is that it makes people come across like middle class pseudo intellectual wankers.

Devrim

[Blake's Baby]

I'd like to salute the comrade's intervention as an element of the milieu.

[Panda Tse Tung]

What i dont like about my tendency.

Red alert commies.
Quite often dogmatic behavior and ignoring debate opponents.
Scene point commies.

[Landsharks eat metal]

The biggest thing I don't like is the name. I guess that goes with most of the left, but I'm never sure what to say if I'm asked about my politics.
"Communist" means I adore Stalin.
"Anarchist" means I'm just in love with chaos/bombs.
"Anarcho-Communist" means I have to get lectured about how anarchism and communism are actually opposites.
"Anarcho-Syndicalist" means I get looked at funny or have people not take me seriously and start quoting Monty Python at me.
So I usually just say I'm a leftist, and people probably think I mean that I'm a liberal.

The name is really my biggest issue, along with some of the other people who are sometimes grouped under the term anarchist (an-caps, teenagers who think "anarchy is punk rock", etc.). It all made me really confused when I was trying to learn about anarchism.

[Prometeo liberado]

None of this is accurate.

Orwell didn't snitch on communists to MI5. What he did was recommend that the Information Research Department (IRD), a white propaganda agency created under the post-war Attlee Government, not employ a number of writers whose politics would have made them unsuited to, and uninterested in, the task at hand. That is the be all and end all of it. It did not cost anybody their job, Orwell did not provide the IRD any information that wasn't already within the public sphere, and there is no evidence that the IRD even acted upon it.


So lets go through it point by point:

"We are talking about a "journalist' who purported to be a socialist"

He was both a journalist and a socialist. Anyone who gives his work a cursory glance can confirm it. 0/1

"yet during WW2"

The list incident occurred post-war in 1949. 0/2

"gave lists of names to MI5"

Actually the list went to the Information Research Department, which was a white propaganda agency, and had nothing to do with British Intelligence, let alone the Home service. The IRD was a department of the Foreign Office, not the Home Office (to which the Security Service had been transferred in 1920), for a start. 0/3

"of supposed communist in the War dept."

There was no such thing as the War Department and had not been since 1857. And the War Office was not infiltrated by any Communist moles that Orwell could possibly have been aware of, and nor was that the purpose of his list. And, as noted, his list went to the IRD in the Foreign Office - not the War Office. 0/4

"Good comrades lost their jobs"

Orwell's list was about sounding out writers, not sacking people. Nobody lost their job as a result of Orwell's list. Nobody was arrested. And nobody's career was damaged at all by the list. 0/5

"and couldn't feed their families"

Given that nobody lost their job, or was in any danger of losing their job, you just made that up and it is a load of ahistorical emotive crap. 0/6


"because this fake red always saw to it that his sense of Englishness trumped class loyalty."

Opposition to Stalinism in the 1940s, following the actions of the Soviet Union in Spain, has nothing to do with 'Englishness'. It has everything to do with the fact that Orwell, unlike you, understood the material realities of that regime.

0/7

So everything you just said is wrong. 100% of it. I'm surprised you can even type, let alone read and analyze, guy. Please.

You have in your possession more than enough evidence to the contrary, I sent it to you. Not only that but you gave me the source to do it because my sources just aren't good enough apparently. Simply dismissing something without offering a credible source and then high fiving yourself is boring and weak. Personal attacks? Now I know that school must be out for the summer.You've been here since 2002 and it seems that the maturation process has yet to take hold, Troll on I guess.

[Azraella]

this.

theres so much marx nut riding on this site half the people who call themselves anarchists are just marxists who like the IWW or something. the only leftist theory thats discussed here is marxism or insurrecto poetry.

Well to be fair, I think anarchism as a thing is theoretically starved. Anarchism focuses on ethics and action more than dry theory. Marxian anarchist probably describes me the best, since it addresses the thing I dislike about anarchism.

[hatzel]

Well to be fair, I think anarchism as a thing is theoretically starved.

Well to be fair I think that's a really 1890's thing to say...

[Invader Zim]

You have in your possession more than enough evidence to the contrary, I sent it to you. Not only that but you gave me the source to do it because my sources just aren't good enough apparently. Simply dismissing something without offering a credible source and then high fiving yourself is boring and weak. Personal attacks? Now I know that school must be out for the summer.You've been here since 2002 and it seems that the maturation process has yet to take hold, Troll on I guess.

You haven't provided anything to source your bullshit. The only thing you sent me was a link to a badly written and occassionally misleading book review (http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R358O95ZVVEO8N) on amazon - moreover, a book review article that does not substanciate a single one of the lies you posted.

Lets go through what you said, and then what your source says, and play 'spot the difference':

You : "yet during WW2"


Book Review: "compares US and British propaganda policies from 1945 to 1960"

Post-war.

You: "gave lists of names to MI5"

Book Review: At no point does the review even mention the Orwell list, which he supplied to the IRD, nor does it say that he gave the list to MI5, nor does it contend that Orwell was a spy, and nor does it even mention MI5.

You: "of supposed communist in the War dept."

Book Review: At no point does the review mention the Orwell list, nor does it state that the names included were of clandestine communists in the "war department". Nor, indeed does it even mention the 'war department', because there was no such thing as the 'war department' in the 1940s.

You: "Good comrades lost their jobs"

At no point does the review make that claim.

You: "and couldn't feed their families"

At no point does the review make that claim.



And ironically, the review you provided does, in fact, substanciate much of what I said. I guess you didn't read your own 'source'.

Oh, and you make the claims about Orwell, it is your jobn to substanciate them. Not mine. Oh, and it was you who made disparaging comments about another unser in this thread before I did - so you're the troll here, and you also don't know what the fuck you're talking about. My suggestion, go to a library and actually look this shit up before making a total fucking fool of yourself once again.

[Kronsteen]

I sometimes wonder if I should stop calling myself a disillusioned Trotskyist and join the anarchists who make up 75% of our branch and have all the new ideas.

Then I remember the downsides.

* 'Being a radical' and 'Riding a skateboard' get somehow fused.

* All organisation gets done on Facebook, for the police to read.

* Everyone says they're into bisexual free love, and they have monogamous opposite-sex partners.

* Saying "Weed's not a real drug man". While trying to run a meeting, stoned.

* Trying to convert nazis by singing songs about peace at them.

* Hoping to elicit public support by filming each other getting beaten up by the police...and putting it on youtube.

* Citing Kurt Cobain lyrics as theory.

* You can't be over 30.

[Rusty Shackleford]

egghead leninists
jarhead leninists

[black magick hustla]

I'd like to salute the comrade's intervention as an element of the milieu.

i chuckled

[Ravachol]

From the top of my head?

People who see 'teh rev' as some grandiose flag-waving moment after which we'll be in the land of milk and honey.

People who think the mindless accumulation of 'pro-revolutionaries' (god what an awful term :p) has a direct influence on the acceleration of the revolutionary process.

People who are obsessed with media-image or whatever as a result of the former.

People who think they're the revolutionary subject by themselves and act from some kind of moral high ground.

People who see themselves at 'the service of the revolution' instead of the other way around.

Humanity. Life. The universe.

[Tim Finnegan]

People who see themselves at 'the service of the revolution' instead of the other way around.
This one should be carved into the sky in blazing letters.

[Deicide]

I don't like Stalinists who are not Stalinist enough.