SYRIZA MP attacked at soccer game

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite1_1_17/12/2012_474761



SYRIZA coalition MP Dimitris Stratoulis was the victim of an attack during a soccer game at the Olympic Stadium in Athens on Sunday evening.

According to Stratoulis, three men approached him at half-time and identified themselves as members of extreme right party Golden Dawn before repeatedly hitting him on the head.

“They approached me and said, 'Stratouli, we are members of Golden Dawn and we will kill you,'” the SYRIZA MP told reporters after the incident.

In a statement released after the attack SYRIZA condemned the assault and demanded that its perpetrators be arrested and face charges.

Meanwhile, Golden Dawn issued its own statement in which it denied any kind of involvement in the incident, stressing that at the time of the attack its members were holding a rally in Nikaia, in southeastern Athens.

ekathimerini.com , Monday December 17, 2012

[GoddessCleoLover]

Golden Dawn aspire to Nazidom and anyone familiar with that era of German history knows that the NSDAP established its hegemony within the German Right and a reputation for fierceness through many acts of brutality. It seems reasonable to expect GD to escalate the violence in order to enhance its street cred.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's time SYRIZA upped its own "street cred."

[GoddessCleoLover]

It's time SYRIZA upped its own "street cred."

As an old RW activist who has seen a few street battles (state visit of the Iranian Shah in November, 1977 when Pahlavi and Jimmy Carter got accidentally tear-gassed) I agree in general with the proviso that all specifics have to be left up to those who are liable to be doing the bleeding. It would be helpful if SYRIZA and KKE would do some joint AntiFa work.

[Delenda Carthago]

It's time SYRIZA upped its own "street cred."
For now they just had a fucked up mass fight with the anarchists in Exarheia after a SYRIZA students party. Maybe they did for training. :P

[GoddessCleoLover]

Were the anarchists the aggressors? were they Black Bloc types?

[Ravachol]

Were the anarchists the aggressors? were they Black Bloc types?

Dear god wtf is a 'black bloc type'? :blink:

[Delenda Carthago]

Were the anarchists the aggressors? were they Black Bloc types?
I dont know what do you mean by "BB types", but it wasnt like a political thing. Just a party gone wrong. And it just happened that the one team was SYRIZA students, the other anarchists.

[l'Enfermé]

Dear god wtf is a 'black bloc type'? :blink:
He probably means one of those cretins that dress like batman, sans the cape and bat-mobile, and get off on breaking things.

[GoddessCleoLover]

He probably means one of those cretins that dress like batman, sans the cape and bat-mobile, and get off on breaking things.

Exactly. I completely disapprove of Black bloc antics of smashing store window, car windows and the like. On a practical level it alienates workers and as a Marxist I view workers as the revolutionary vanguard.

OTOH I attended an action in Baltimore led by anarchists that contained Black bloc elements and was really impressed. The action was militant but none of the Oakland excesses.

Looking back at my prior post, i believe the wording stemmed from my concern that this is not a good time for SYRIZA, KKE and anarchists to be taking violent actions against each other. That type of thing only plays into the hands of Samaris and the Golden Dawn.

[Ravachol]

He probably means one of those cretins that dress like batman, sans the cape and bat-mobile, and get off on breaking things.

Like me? Or like insurrecto bros? Or like some anarcho-syndicalists? Or like anti-revisionist Turkish ML's in Germany? Or like PCR Maoists in Canada? Black Bloc is a tactic, there's various types of people engaging in it, not even all of them anarchist so yeah...



Exactly. I completely disapprove of Black bloc antics of smashing store window, car windows and the like.


Good, I'll be sure to let everyone know. They'll stop now.



On a practical level it alienates workers and as a Marxist I view workers as the revolutionary vanguard.


So those participating are not workers? What about football hooligans? Largely a proletarian bunch and they sure enjoy a little rioting. If you think violence structurally alienates people you've never seen the enthusiasm with which people support wars, genocide, police brutality, 'recreational' riots, martial arts matches, etc.

I have my criticisms of the BB tactic, but if you think 'riots' alienate workers you can take your complaints to those in Egypt, Tunesia, Greece, Argentinia, London, Paris, Bangladesh and oh well everywhere.



OTOH I attended an action in Baltimore led by anarchists that contained Black bloc elements and was really impressed. The action was militant but none of the Oakland excesses.


Pray tell what are those 'excesses' that have solicited your wrath and disapproval?

[GoddessCleoLover]

Like me? Or like insurrecto bros? Or like some anarcho-syndicalists? Or like anti-revisionist Turkish ML's in Germany? Or like PCR Maoists in Canada? Black Bloc is a tactic, there's various types of people engaging in it, not even all of them anarchist so yeah...




Good, I'll be sure to let everyone know. They'll stop now.



So those participating are not workers? What about football hooligans? Largely a proletarian bunch and they sure enjoy a little rioting. If you think violence structurally alienates people you've never seen the enthusiasm with which people support wars, genocide, police brutality, 'recreational' riots, martial arts matches, etc.

I have my criticisms of the BB tactic, but if you think 'riots' alienate workers you can take your complaints to those in Egypt, Tunesia, Greece, Argentinia, London, Paris, Bangladesh and oh well everywhere.



Pray tell what are those 'excesses' that have solicited your wrath and disapproval?


Your first sentence is a meaningless gibe unworthy of any substantive response. You follow that up with a homage to violence that Ernst Roehm would have been proud to bellow out in front of the Sturmabteilung. Next comes a hodgepodge of references from around the world. What I saw in Tahrir Square were masses of people demanding governmental change, not wannabe gangstas with an excess level of testosterone and no class consciousness. You finish your post with a question the answer to which would be obvious to child, but to answer the question asked the excesses to which I refer are the store and window-smashings.

[Ravachol]

Your first sentence is a meaningless gibe unworthy of any substantive response.


Apparently, so is yours.



You follow that up with a homage to violence that Ernst Roehm would have been proud to bellow out in front of the Sturmabteilung.


I'm not dealing in empty leftist moralism, I neither eulogize nor condemn violence as an abstract category. I'm merely stating the obvious, unless you care to argue the contrary?



Next comes a hodgepodge of references from around the world. What I saw in Tahrir Square were masses of people demanding governmental change, not wannabe gangstas with an excess level of testosterone and no class consciousness.


This seems appropriate:

http://i.imgur.com/i0RYh.jpg?1?6518

Besides, your elitist whining conflating your preferred tactical perspective with 'class consciousness' is quite revealing. Could you care to actually argue why those who engage in the BB tactic are 'wannabe gangstas with an excess level of testosterone and no class consciousness' whilst the Egyptian masses (members of the muslim brotherhood and various liberal factions included) or the Bangladeshi mobs that torched their factories in 2006 or the London and Paris suburban youth somehow ARE 'class consciouss masses demanding governmental change' (as if communists care about the latter).



You finish your post with a question the answer to which would be obvious to child, but to answer the question asked the excesses to which I refer are the store and window-smashings.

How are these 'excesses'? Besides, you do realize in Egypt hundreds of police stations were burned to the ground right? You do realize windows are broken and police is confronted during the Greek general strikes? Etc., etc.

[l'Enfermé]

Like me? Or like insurrecto bros? Or like some anarcho-syndicalists? Or like anti-revisionist Turkish ML's in Germany? Or like PCR Maoists in Canada? Black Bloc is a tactic, there's various types of people engaging in it, not even all of them anarchist so yeah...
If you dress like batman, not as a joke, and you're not 8 years old you're probably a cretin, yes.

And what the hell does that last sentence mean? Did I say that the BB is not a tactic or that all BBers are Anarchist? :confused:

[GoddessCleoLover]

How are these 'excesses'? Besides, you do realize in Egypt hundreds of police stations were burned to the ground right? You do realize windows are broken and police is confronted during the Greek general strikes? Etc., etc.

I am perfectly contented that as a result of mass action, the police stations/torture chambers of the Mubarak dictatorship were destroyed. We want to smash the state and its repressive apparatus.

Confronting the police, as done by the Greek workers, is in the same category of taking a militant stance against a repressive state apparatus that we wish to smash. In the real world I participating in confronting the police at a demo where the pigs accidentally teargassed the President of the USA.

To my mind smashing store windows and cars is entirely distinct from the former. I believe the revolutionary goal ought to be for the workers' to control Starbucks, not to burn them out of jobs.

If you don't see these distinctions that's fine. I am just explaining my analysis for what it is worth..

[Ravachol]

I believe the revolutionary goal ought to be for the workers' to control Starbucks, not to burn them out of jobs.


See, here's the crux. If this is what you want you're not a communist. Communism isn't about the seizure of the means of production and running this world 'for ourselves' as we find it, ending up administrating our own prison. Communism is complete transformation of all social relations (including their materialization within places of production and consumption) and their replacement by communal relationships.

Ask any worker if he or she would want to 'self manage starbucks' and they'll most likely prefer not to. Besides, if your conception of communism involves the existence of 'jobs', you might want to re-evaluate that conception... I think this is a relevant pamphlet. (http://www.prole.info/ar/index.html)



I am perfectly contented that as a result of mass action, the police stations/torture chambers of the Mubarak dictatorship were destroyed.


What is the threshold number of workers when a 'minority' becomes a 'mass'? And why should we be concerned with quantitative justifications?



Confronting the police, as done by the Greek workers, is in the same category of taking a militant stance against a repressive state apparatus that we wish to smash.


So it's only okay to defend? Never to attack? I'd think everyone from the Bolsheviks to the Makhnovists to the CNT to the Paris Communards would disagree with you. Besides, there's plenty of looting and bank smashing going on in Greece, not only by elements from the anarchist milieu.

[Ravachol]

If you dress like batman, not as a joke, and you're not 8 years old you're probably a cretin, yes.

Who dresses like batman?

[GoddessCleoLover]

See, here's the crux. If this is what you want you're not a communist. Communism isn't about the seizure of the means of production and running this world 'for ourselves' as we find it, ending up administrating our own prison. Communism is complete transformation of all social relations (including their materialization within places of production and consumption) and their replacement by communal relationships.

Ask any worker if he or she would want to 'self manage starbucks' and they'll most likely prefer not to. Besides, if your conception of communism involves the existence of 'jobs', you might want to re-evaluate that conception... I think this is a relevant pamphlet. (http://www.prole.info/ar/index.html)



What is the threshold number of workers when a 'minority' becomes a 'mass'? And why should we be concerned with quantitative justifications?



So it's only okay to defend? Never to attack? I'd think everyone from the Bolsheviks to the Makhnovists to the CNT to the Paris Communards would disagree with you. Besides, there's plenty of looting and bank smashing going on in Greece, not only by elements from the anarchist milieu.


Thank you for an intelligent and principled post and I am at least clear in my mind as to our differences. you are more optimistic than am I, since I remember when the size of the revolutionary left in Baltimore in the 70s and see that today only about twenty percent of that remains.

On to theoretical stuff. Doing away with restaurants and jobs is a great idea. Home cooking is always the best and jobs suck. Even still, IMO Communist revolutionaries must become organically connected to the working class. I have seen things running against the Left for more than thirty years. Since 2008 I have seen the beginnings of what is hopefully a "sea change" in American national-popular culture.

I see where you are coming from, and emotionally I am there but my instincts tell me we have a tough and probably long road ahead with respect to both mass organizations and organizations of revolutionary leftists.

[Delenda Carthago]

I have my criticisms of the BB tactic, but if you think 'riots' alienate workers you can take your complaints to those in Egypt, Tunesia, Greece, Argentinia, London, Paris, Bangladesh and oh well everywhere.


I cant speak on the other countries, but in Greece, those that you are referring to, have no relation to the working class movement. Matter of fact, up until 2010, the main "line" was that "there is no class struggle, the workers are sheeps, they are petit bourgeois(!!!)" etc.

[Sasha]

You follow that up with a homage to violence that Ernst Roehm would have been proud to bellow out in front of the Sturmabteilung.

Thats a mighty fine godwin you got going there sir...

[Ravachol]

I cant speak on the other countries, but in Greece, those that you are referring to, have no relation to the working class movement.


They're not part of the 'labour movement', perhaps. And that's a good thing. But unless you think all who're labeled koukouloforoi are petit-bourgeois or whatever, they're sure as hell largely part of the proletariat. Confusing ideological sloganeering in the name of 'the working class' with the real movement of the class (which is composed of many different and often contradictory sections and practices) is only of interest to sect politics.

The following texts seem to confirm most of the general as sketched by Greek comrades of mine (both living in Greece and recent immigrants):

http://www.blaumachen.gr/2010/12/the-historical-production-of-the-revolution-of-the-current-period/

http://www.blaumachen.gr/2012/02/the-rise-of-the-non-subject/



Matter of fact, up until 2010, the main "line" was that "there is no class struggle, the workers are sheeps, they are petit bourgeois(!!!)" etc.

Sure, I've heard this condescending ideological stuff being passed around in some anarchist circles (and some maoist circles too), but that only really matters if you think ideological veneer is what drives history, the fact that radical milieus are often torn apart and upside down by the weight of history tells us how relevant such things are...

[crazyirish93]

Here is a recording of a golden dawn meeting where one of the speakers mentions the attack on the Syriza mp http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20838981

[Delenda Carthago]

They're not part of the 'labour movement', perhaps. And that's a good thing. But unless you think all who're labeled koukouloforoi are petit-bourgeois or whatever, they're sure as hell largely part of the proletariat. Confusing ideological sloganeering in the name of 'the working class' with the real movement of the class (which is composed of many different and often contradictory sections and practices) is only of interest to sect politics.

The following texts seem to confirm most of the general as sketched by Greek comrades of mine (both living in Greece and recent immigrants):

http://www.blaumachen.gr/2010/12/the-historical-production-of-the-revolution-of-the-current-period/

http://www.blaumachen.gr/2012/02/the-rise-of-the-non-subject/



Sure, I've heard this condescending ideological stuff being passed around in some anarchist circles (and some maoist circles too), but that only really matters if you think ideological veneer is what drives history, the fact that radical milieus are often torn apart and upside down by the weight of history tells us how relevant such things are...
I cannot answer to what others think I said, but what I said.

I said they are not part of the working class movement. That means that this thing, the rioting and stuff, does not produces politics for and by the working class. And thats what happens when you put the basic conflict of our society instead of the bipolar relation Capital- Labour, to Authority-Antiauthoritarians.

As for the participants backround, its imposible to determine it. But one cannot ignore the big percentage of people from the uper- middle class that have been participating on various activities that can be described as "insurectunary". For example, one can take a look to the class origins of the members of Conspiracy Cells of Fire to understand.

[Ravachol]

I said they are not part of the working class movement. That means that this thing, the rioting and stuff, does not produces politics for and by the working class.


No, but the production of 'politics for and by the working class' has nothing to do with communism either so that's neither here nor there. Struggles outside of the direct sphere of production (which is what the KKE get their dicks hard for, which is kinda weird in a country with such a low concentration of capital and in a post-fordist era where one of the prime axis of capital's restructuring is the erosion of the last bastions of fordist labor relations), which is where most young precarious proletarians are located, always take action on the level of the circulation of capital and commodities and within the sphere of reproduction, ie. through occupations, lootings and rioting. This is not the production of politics or a programme but the expression of class struggle from a radically different segment of the proletariat compared to the segment still located within the revindicative struggles of wage labor (this will change as the legitimacy of the wage demand is eroded even further in the future).



And thats what happens when you put the basic conflict of our society instead of the bipolar relation Capital- Labour, to Authority-Antiauthoritarians.


Capital-labor is hardly the basic conflict of our society, labor is only a category of capital anyway. The proletariat is only antagonistic to capital insofar as it stops being such, ie. when it negates itself and dissolves the capital-labor dichotomy through the dissolution of the proletarian condition.

Besides, the ideological veneer one uses is hardly relevant for the dynamics of the class struggle. Its not like the strikes and revindicative struggles you hold high are the product of thousands of workers 'understanding the capital-labor contradiction' and people engage in riots because they consider society to be a conflict of 'authority-antiauthority'. That's idealist nonsense. Certain ideas spring from and come to dominate certain sections of the struggle but they are not what gives rise to it.



As for the participants backround, its imposible to determine it. But one cannot ignore the big percentage of people from the uper- middle class that have been participating on various activities that can be described as "insurectunary". For example, one can take a look to the class origins of the members of Conspiracy Cells of Fire to understand.

There's a huge difference between the regular insurrectionary practices, the lootings of super markets, the smashy-smashy, etc., the confrontational practices during the mass mobilisations (of which active anarchists compose only a minority) and the urban guerrilla practices of CCF and the likes. The class backgrounds of most ML and trot cadres in most countries are largely upper-middle class too and union officials in north europe are increasingly leftish law students. Trying to conflate the background of the members of CCF with the practices of the anarchist milieu and in a broader context the confrontative practices is bullshit and you know it.

[Delenda Carthago]

which is what the KKE get their dicks hard for, which is kinda weird in a country with such a low concentration of capital and in a post-fordist era where one of the prime axis of capital's restructuring is the erosion of the last bastions of fordist labor relations



A. So Greece is not on the imperialist stage of capitalism?We dont have concentrated means of production? We should focus on struggles other than class struggles? Where exactly do you made that conclusion, if you may.:rolleyes:



Struggles outside of the direct sphere of production which is where most young precarious proletarians are located, always take action on the level of the circulation of capital and commodities and within the sphere of reproduction, ie. through occupations, lootings and rioting.

Says who? Because the only massive struggles and the ones that give another perspective, the one of the overthrow of the system, are always struggles that are in direct connection with the work places. And its no wonder that this is the strategy that seems to be more appealing to the working class itself, specially the parts of it that have a consciousness of their identity.



Capital-labor is hardly the basic conflict of our society, labor is only a category of capital anyway. The proletariat is only antagonistic to capital insofar as it stops being such, ie. when it negates itself and dissolves the capital-labor dichotomy through the dissolution of the proletarian condition.

You dont say. So when a strike happens at a factory with demands, lets say a raise, thats not antagonistic to the capital of their corporation? You have to deny yourself as a worker to do so? And, a simple question, if you are able to deny your position on capitalism, why are you anticapitalist? It gives you the priveledge to be whoever you want. What can it be better?




Besides, the ideological veneer one uses is hardly relevant for the dynamics of the class struggle. Its not like the strikes and revindicative struggles you hold high are the product of thousands of workers 'understanding the capital-labor contradiction' and people engage in riots because they consider society to be a conflict of 'authority-antiauthority'. That's idealist nonsense. Certain ideas spring from and come to dominate certain sections of the struggle but they are not what gives rise to it.

Yes, but, the way you analyse a situation is critical to what answers you are giving to it. It might always be the same question, but the type of answer varies. Thats what I m saying. I dont know what all these things you say have to do with it.



The class backgrounds of most ML and trot cadres in most countries are largely upper-middle class too and union officials in north europe are increasingly leftish law students. Trying to conflate the background of the members of CCF with the practices of the anarchist milieu and in a broader context the confrontative practices is bullshit and you know it.

I dont know why you are trying to disconnect CCF with the anarchist milieu. These kids where a part of it, a vital one, not just with their bombs, but they participated on many things. And I ask again the main question that runs our discusion:
Are the riots part of the working class struggle in Greece? And my answer is still no, for the biggest part, and specially for the most conscious and active part of it. Thats what I m saying.

[Sasha]

its so funny to see you rebelling this hard against your own former tendency, i remember you being the ultimate insurecto and CCF fanboy and you only been here 3 bloody years, born again Christian much... :lol:

[Ravachol]

A. So Greece is not on the imperialist stage of capitalism?


Its ridiculous, in this day and age where capital is so geographically diffused and its presence and mechanics are so fleeting, to see the world in terms of 'imperialist' and 'non-imperialist' "nations". Greek (and not only greek) national Capital plays second fiddle to international capital anyway. Also, this has nothing to do with what I said.



We dont have concentrated means of production?


Yes, but you know just as well as I do that the Greek (or European, for that matter) proletariat isn't concentrated en-masse in the great fordist strongholds of 'monopoly capital'.



We should focus on struggles other than class struggles? Where exactly do you made that conclusion, if you may.:rolleyes:


lolwat... what are you talking about man.



Says who? Because the only massive struggles and the ones that give another perspective, the one of the overthrow of the system, are always struggles that are in direct connection with the work places.


Says who? Since the late '70s, restructuring within Capital has tilted the overall balance of the composition of capital to constant capital to such a degree that a large part of the proletariat has become superfluous to capital's needs and as such its guaranteed reproduction (through integration in the wage relation) is being slowly dismantled. The destruction of the European welfare states, the permanent illegality and precarity in many of the European metropolitan suburbs and the increasing flexibilized labor relations are all starting signs of this restructuring.

Besides, the sphere of reproduction is no longer (and possibly never has been) so disconnected from the sphere of production as the 19th century 'trade unions, chimneys & conveyor belts' caricature you paint holds. When large segments of the proletariat are thrown out of the central production process, their practices will act upon other spheres of capital they are involved in. Remaining locked up in such as sphere is indeed a guaranteed road to defeat, but so is the debilitating focus on 'the workplaces'. If the proletariat has a communist essence, it is because it posses the potential to negate its own condition, and not because they can 'take over the means of production' and other fantasies of self-managed capitalism.



And its no wonder that this is the strategy that seems to be more appealing to the working class itself, specially the parts of it that have a consciousness of their identity.


This means literally nothing.



You dont say. So when a strike happens at a factory with demands, lets say a raise, thats not antagonistic to the capital of their corporation?


Yes, the crux being the part I bolded. Wage demands in and of themselves are not antagonistic to capital, in fact, the post-war fordist expansion thrived largely on rising wages and increased consumption. It seems you conceive of capital not as a social relation but as the collection of individuals who make up the bourgeoisie...



You have to deny yourself as a worker to do so? And, a simple question, if you are able to deny your position on capitalism, why are you anticapitalist? It gives you the priveledge to be whoever you want. What can it be better?


.... that's not what I said. The self-negation of the proletariat is not an individual act of voluntaristic 'dropping out'. Nobody can 'drop out' of Capital by personal choice, not even the bourgeoisie. The self-negation of the proletariat can only manifest itself as a series of converging collective practices escaping the reproduction of capital. Such practices might start within casual factory-floor class struggle but by definition transcend them. They have nothing to do with an accumulation of 'pro-revolutionaries', 'winning demands' or 'growing working class power', all of which are conceived of in terms and praxis that affirms the worker as a worker.



Yes, but, the way you analyse a situation is critical to what answers you are giving to it. It might always be the same question, but the type of answer varies. Thats what I m saying. I dont know what all these things you say have to do with it.


What's funny is that this is the typical line Stalinists all over Europe are taught in their 'schooling weekends' when talking about the importance of 'politics in command' or having 'the correct line', etc.

The fact that you ignore my questioning of your assumption that those who engage in strikes or those who engage in riots do so because of a particular ideological veneer is telling. Of course they don't as its not ideas that drive history but this seems to be your way of dismissing certain practices because they don't fit within your preferred ideological-political framework (or, more likely, subculture of choice, in this case life within the KKE).



I dont know why you are trying to disconnect CCF with the anarchist milieu.


I'm not.



These kids where a part of it, a vital one, not just with their bombs, but they participated on many things.


Only a few posts back you said its impossible to tell who's part of the makeup of the mass riots and insurgent practices. Now you cherry pick a set of individuals who went on with a different practice (regardless of whether this is good or bad or part of the anarchist milieu or all that) and extrapolate this to the entire anarchist milieu and, even more ridiculous, the entire praxis of 'rioting and looting'.



Are the riots part of the working class struggle in Greece? And my answer is still no, for the biggest part, and specially for the most conscious and active part of it. Thats what I m saying.

Not if you define 'working class struggle' the way you do, in terms typically clouded by ideological blinders where something is only 'working class struggle' if it fits the mold of "economistic, revindicative struggles on the factory floor, aimed at developing a politics that affirms the working class on a programmatic basis". So yeah, it doesn't fit your ideological mold big whoop. As I explained in the post you replied to and is elaborated upon in the texts I linked to, as well as in this text (http://www.blaumachen.gr/2011/07/the-transitional-phase-of-the-crisis-the-era-of-riots/) and this text (http://libcom.org/library/era-riots-update) these practices ARE part of the proletarian struggle. What is telling is that this is always denied when these practices conflict with the preferred political line, but the same practices are applauded when they happen far away and wave the appropriate banner of choice.

[Delenda Carthago]

its so funny to see you rebelling this hard against your own former tendency, i remember you being the ultimate insurecto and CCF fanboy and you only been here 3 bloody years, born again Christian much... :lol:
Yes I know. Luckily, the rise of the class struggle in Greece has made me make conclusions which in times of "class peace" I would never been able to make. And its no coincidence that this political milieu lived its golden era in times that class war was not so heated up.

[Delenda Carthago]

Besides, the sphere of reproduction is no longer (and possibly never has been) so disconnected from the sphere of production as the 19th century 'trade unions, chimneys & conveyor belts' caricature you paint holds. When large segments of the proletariat are thrown out of the central production process, their practices will act upon other spheres of capital they are involved in. Remaining locked up in such as sphere is indeed a guaranteed road to defeat, but so is the debilitating focus on 'the workplaces'. If the proletariat has a communist can 'essence, it is because it posses the potential to negate its own condition, and not because they take over the means of production' and other fantasies of self-managed capitalism.

Man, seriously, I m not in a mood to argue on these Theorie Communiste/ Blaumachen/ whatever positions. It would take us 3 days and nights of conversations just to make any common ground just on the last part of your last sentence. And to be honest, I m not that qualified to even have a serious argue, as I m not sure I have even enough knowledge to do so, on your positions I mean. Maybe in the future if I occupy myself to study that whole thing, we ll do it again.

I m just gonna ask you this: what perspective do you see on what you do? What do you call wining? I mean, for me, win is to see workers "take over the means of production' and other fantasies of self-managed capitalism". What do you see as wining? Destoying those means of production, "because nowdays they are designed like that so that the workers will never be able to take over" as Blaumachen say on one of their broschures?