this isn't what I signed up for with this whole anarchy shit [Archive]

BIXX

22nd May 2015, 04:18

You live in Portland, this is exactly what you signed up for.

I didn't choose this :( my parents did :(

Tbh I am moving away but its to Corvallis which I don't think will be fun.

They seemed to have formed a worker's cooperative which should provide a major reduction in hierarchy and an increase in dignity for the workers involved.

I'm not sure what specifically you're objecting to with what they're doing. What were you expecting exactly? Do you think there will only be glorious and exciting activities to do after the revolution? The shit still needs to be recycled.

The worker's cooperative, while not anarchism/communism yet, provides great training for how to get useful things done in a much less hierarchical and exploitative fashion. We've been trained to work in tyrannical capitalist enterprises, we're not just going to magically know how to cooperate when the time comes.

Congrats on making capitalism a little different and still alienating people good job keep up the hard work.
What this is is radicals creating the tools for capitalism to sustain itself in the future, not providing any sort of real livable alternative.

It means that we need to forge a new universe in which it is possible to take political organization further to the left.

Ugh. This is the problem- the belief that we are doing just dandy by crafting some society where everyone is expected to do the things capitalism wants them to do, "because they want to" (which in reality will just mean social coercion rather than economic coercion). Honestly that sounds like utter shit to me.

Great I still have to go to work yippee.

Os Cangaceiros

22nd May 2015, 04:58

You live in Portland, this is exactly what you signed up for.

Hahaha, yes!

I've met some decent anarchists in real life...I was actually just thinking of a few people in a group I was involved in briefly out of New York City. It's weird that I still remember a couple of their names but there's no way that I'd even recognize them if I bumped into them on the street. But it's been a good six years or so since I last had contact with those folks...

Anarchism as a social force is pretty much dead and has been so for quite some time. The legacy of certain anarchists has stayed with me, though, as far as the kind of society they wanted to move towards and their beliefs about how human beings should relate to one another. I hope I never become so jaded that I stop valuing those contributions to my belief system.

Scott Crow is a big dumb dumb poo poo head, though, I've known that for a while lol

Guardia Rossa

22nd May 2015, 10:05

Congrats on making capitalism a little different and still alienating people good job keep up the hard work.
What this is is radicals creating the tools for capitalism to sustain itself in the future, not providing any sort of real livable alternative.

After the revolution people will work on unicorns with their magic wands producing all sort of crazy stuff!!1!1!

If you fail to see a cooperative as better then a normal enterprise and call it a different capitalism, eventhou there is no capitalist there, you are just showing us your absurd exageration (or inversion) of the socialist theory and revealing to us once more your reactionary core.

The cooperative sistem is a viable sistem of worker organization and class conscientization in capitalism and a viable sistem of socialist organization aswell (with some obvious, natural, changes)

The Feral Underclass

22nd May 2015, 11:23

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/brent-perdue-and-scott-crow-ecology-action-recycling-education-and-cooperation

Seriously are you fucking kidding me. No wonder folks don't wanna get involved anymore when these are the alternatives we provide.

I can't be the only one who finds this pathetic and boring.

This shit has been happening since Proudhon's day. I don't understand what you're so surprised about.

oneday

22nd May 2015, 12:24

hexaune

22nd May 2015, 13:02

[QUOTE=Placenta cream;2831946 how anarchist action 99%/of the time mimics capitalist existence. [/QUOTE]

Considering we are living under capitalism its pretty much impossible to do anything that doesn't mimic capitalist existence. Not really sure how you can crticise what they are doing? By running a medium sized company without the usual corporate structure it can demonstrate to that hierarchy is not necessary, it can help to radicalise those that work there and other workers that get to witness it in action. Seems like a pretty good propaganda tool to me.

What do you think anarchists should be doing?

Sinister Intents

22nd May 2015, 13:20

As a faux-leftist, who doesn't believe in anything, you didn't sign up for anything. So, you're ok. Panic over.

I wouldn't call Echo a reactionary.

I usually identify to people as a communist even if I'm not because every single anarchist I've met irl has been trash.

#NotAllAnarchists

Rudolf

22nd May 2015, 13:41

What do you think anarchists should be doing?

Obvious answer is engaging in class struggle ffs not setting up shitty co-ops that have the effect of separating those workers from others and internalising the role of the bourgeoisie (i.e. 'representative of capital') into the rank and file.

oneday

22nd May 2015, 14:35

Obvious answer is engaging in class struggle ffs not setting up shitty co-ops that have the effect of separating those workers from others and internalising the role of the bourgeoisie (i.e. 'representative of capital') into the rank and file.

Isn't the point to make all of the workers representatives of capital thus doing away with the distinction between workers and capitalists? The idea of "workers exploiting themselves" is ridiculous as an argument against coops, workers are going to "exploit" their minds and bodies to turn raw materials into useful things in every society, unless there is fully automated production or something. What we are trying to move away from is one group doing the work and another group controlling the product of that labor.

The co-operative factories of the labourers themselves represent within the old form the first sprouts of the new, although they naturally reproduce, and must reproduce, everywhere in their actual organisation all the shortcomings of the prevailing system. But the antithesis between capital and labour is overcome within them, if at first only by way of making the associated labourers into their own capitalist, i.e., by enabling them to use the means of production for the employment of their own labour.

And why can't people set up a coop and also engage in class struggle by helping other workers?

Ele'ill

22nd May 2015, 14:41

As a faux-leftist

oh shit the real leftist makes an appearance, thread bookmarked

RedWorker

22nd May 2015, 14:47

oh shit the real leftist makes an appearance, thread bookmarked

Nobody is claiming to be a better leftist than anyone else. The point is that, judging objectively, that user is not a leftist at all. As a matter of fact s/he has admitted that s/he follows anti-civilization thought and wishes to abolish capitalism without a transition to communism, which refers to return to some pre-capitalist mode of production. Obviously, this is the definition of reactionary. I have sent several private messages to moderators explaining this and have received no replies which makes me think there is some favouritism at play.

Ele'ill

22nd May 2015, 14:58

Nobody is claiming to be a better leftist than anyone else. The point is that, judging objectively, that user is not a leftist at all.

When someone says you are a fake x it implies that you are either an imposter or bad at it. I am aware that they are not a leftist but for Invader Zim to claim that, and from many of their other posts, it comes across as if they feel like they are part of a silly tribunal. The leftist realness gate keeper crew.

As a matter of fact s/he has admitted that s/he follows anti-civilization thought and wishes to abolish capitalism without a transition to communism,

Really that's odd because I haven't gleaned that from their posts and through the lengthy talks we've had about this type of stuff I think they're not in opposition to communism at all. They've posted about this journal that they've been looking through that they find interesting as well:

http://sic.communisation.net/

which refers to return to some pre-capitalist mode of production.

I don't think you have invested any time what so ever in talking to them, or understanding anti-civ positions.

Obviously this is the definition of reactionary.

I have sent several private messages to moderators explaining this and have received no replies which makes me think there is some favouritism at play.

(yes, lots of users on this forum are critical of civ)

RedWorker

22nd May 2015, 15:06

I am aware that they are not a leftist

With this, everything is said. This is a site for leftists, and non-leftists of whatever political thought are restricted to the Opposing Ideologies forum according to the rules. Normally I wouldn't really care about this, but the fact that all the user posts is endless amounts of low quality posts and entering petty personal disputes with others, makes it quite useful to have this user restricted. I have him/her ignored so I can't view their posts but when I'm logged off I can see them which is annoying.

Additionally, the user is clearly an anti-communist, and has publicly admitted to either not be a communist or be against communism.

I do not know why Invader Zim may have said that, but his/her statement was true.

BIXX

22nd May 2015, 16:26

This shit has been happening since Proudhon's day. I don't understand what you're so surprised about.

I'm surprised that its still happening. Like, after nearly 200 years we are doing the same boring shit. And then acting like its radical.

Obvious answer is engaging in class struggle ffs not setting up shitty co-ops that have the effect of separating those workers from others and internalising the role of the bourgeoisie (i.e. 'representative of capital') into the rank and file.

Hell I don't even like that answer and its better than what these shits are doing.

Really that's odd because I haven't gleaned that from their posts and through the lengthy talks we've had about this type of stuff I think they're not in opposition to communism at all. They've posted about this journal that they've been looking through that they find interesting as well:

http://sic.communisation.net/

This is a point that I find interesting where it comes down to what leftists mean when they say communism vs what someone like Mari3L means when they say communism. When leftists say it, it is explicitly just capitalism with some minor changes. When Mari3L says it they (I think) mean something more in the vein of tiqqun or the sic journal's understanding of it. Which, while I would hesitate to call that communism (because of what I associate communism with), I agree with the general idea behind their communism.

However I really don't want this to be a discussion of bannings/restrictions. I really don't. Because the point of the thread is to find other things that anarchists could do that are better. But to to everyone whose calling for restrictions of everyone who isn't a leftist or criticizes civ- have fun getting rid of a large number of our mods, and if I remember correctly some of the admins.

Anyway, can we please talk about the topic?

hexaune

22nd May 2015, 16:53

Obvious answer is engaging in class struggle ffs not setting up shitty co-ops that have the effect of separating those workers from others and internalising the role of the bourgeoisie (i.e. 'representative of capital') into the rank and file.

Why can't it be a part of engaging in class struggle, if you provide workers somewhere to work where they have better job security, better conditions and maybe also see a different way of organising things, you are far more likely to get them engaged and involved in class struggle than if they are stuck working somewhere with a zero hour contract, management that will sack them at the slightest whiff of radicalism/work place organising...

The Feral Underclass

22nd May 2015, 17:01

I'm surprised that its still happening. Like, after nearly 200 years we are doing the same boring shit. And then acting like its radical.

Right, but I don't really understand how you can be surprised that liberal aspects of the anarchist movement are still doing the same liberal shit they have always been doing. I genuinely don't understand how that is in any way noteworthy or surprising. Surely this can't be the first time you've realised this?

To be honest, the whole of the left is guilty of doing the same boring shit for the last 200 years. It's not a position reserved for mutualists.

The Feral Underclass

22nd May 2015, 17:07

With this, everything is said. This is a site for leftists, and non-leftists of whatever political thought are restricted to the Opposing Ideologies forum according to the rules.

Well actually this forum is for those on the revolutionary left, not "leftists" exclusively. It's not called revolutionaryleftists.com is it?

For the record, the term "leftist" is being used by Placenta Cream and Mari3l (and myself) as a pejorative to describe those trad-socialists who are stuck in that turgid party building, paper selling, united front bullshit of the 1970s etcetera.

Leftism is literally the worst thing that exists on the revolutionary left.

oneday

22nd May 2015, 17:15

To be honest, the whole of the left is guilty of doing the same boring shit for the last 200 years. It's not a position reserved for mutualists.

How can we make recycling post-consumer and industrial waste more exciting for you?

The Feral Underclass

22nd May 2015, 17:23

How can we make recycling post-consumer and industrial waste more exciting for you?

I have no interest in being excited about your little co-operative projects, unless by exciting you mean watching them burn down around you.

oneday

22nd May 2015, 17:41

I have no interest in being excited about your little co-operative projects, unless by exciting you mean watching them burn down around you.

Ok, after you've had your fun burning down everything that makes modern human existence possible or whatever, how will you organize producing food and dealing with the shit that is produced from eating said food? Maybe a little cooperative project?

Invader Zim

22nd May 2015, 17:52

Graveyard is right. Not worth it.

Guardia Rossa

22nd May 2015, 17:57

Great, now I will watch them all kill each other and eat each other's limbs.

BIXX

22nd May 2015, 18:29

Right, but I don't really understand how you can be surprised that liberal aspects of the anarchist movement are still doing the same liberal shit they have always been doing. I genuinely don't understand how that is in any way noteworthy or surprising. Surely this can't be the first time you've realised this?

To be honest, the whole of the left is guilty of doing the same boring shit for the last 200 years. It's not a position reserved for mutualists.

I guess this particular project kisses me off because 1) I hate Scott crow and 2) in some ways it appears worse than your average organizational shit (usage of labour compelled by the state, for example- and they even say they're doing that person a favour).

Idk. I've noticed it for a long time but this particular project irritated me more than most.

The Feral Underclass

22nd May 2015, 18:42

Rudolf

22nd May 2015, 18:51

Isn't the point to make all of the workers representatives of capital thus doing away with the distinction between workers and capitalists?

No, the point is to destroy capital.

Why can't it be a part of engaging in class struggle, if you provide workers somewhere to work where they have better job security, better conditions and maybe also see a different way of organising things, While making it far more difficult to organise where the workers have the most structural clout: at the point of production, in our capacity as producers.

oneday

22nd May 2015, 18:53

What the fuck are you even talking about? I have no idea.

You and Placenta have are apparently critical of the the co-operative in the original link. I've repeatedly asked for your criticism and your ideas for doing it better but you have not put forth a single coherent critique of it besides it's "boring" and "I still have to work yippee."

So, I'm asking again - since you've apparently burnt down the original recycling plant in order to so something "exciting" - how do you propose to organize labor to recycle industrial and post-consumer waste? What specific criticisms do you level against the co-operative in the original link?

oneday

22nd May 2015, 19:07

No, the point is to destroy capital.

I thought it was to destroy capitalism.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

22nd May 2015, 19:07

Ok, after you've had your fun burning down everything that makes modern human existence possible or whatever, how will you organize producing food and dealing with the shit that is produced from eating said food? Maybe a little cooperative project?

Or maybe human society operating the means of production collectively, to produce for human need? Without private property (even workers' private property in cooperatives), sectorialism, commodity production, markets and wage labour? That is what communism means. Cooperatives are not communism, they're a way to run a capitalist business. Capitalist social relations don't require a stereotypical capitalist in a top hat, they concern the different relations various people have to the means of production. And it doesn't matter if the two positions are filled by the same person - people can exploit themselves, and that's what workers in cooperatives do. This isn't just some theoretical point, it's the historical experience about cooperatives and autogestion, from social-democratic experiments in Sweden to Algeria under Ben Bella.

BIXX

22nd May 2015, 19:23

I thought it was to destroy capitalism.

No.

Capital kills us, it is what enables the digestion of humans.

The Feral Underclass

22nd May 2015, 19:24

You and Placenta have are apparently critical of the the co-operative in the original link. I've repeatedly asked for your criticism and your ideas for doing it better but you have not put forth a single coherent critique of it besides it's "boring" and "I still have to work yippee."

Doing what better?

So, I'm asking again - since you've apparently burnt down the original recycling plant in order to so something "exciting" - how do you propose to organize labor to recycle industrial and post-consumer waste? What specific criticisms do you level against the co-operative in the original link?

Any workers' co-operative that exists under capitalism can only operate within the logic of capitalism. Even if you call it "non-profit" you still require private property and capital in order to exist; you still rely on the exploitation of other workers to function (including using slave labour from people forced by the state to go and work their). That exploitation is in everything they use, whether it's the people who make the machines they use to recycle the materials, to the people who use the recycled materials to build other things. Just because you don't make profit, doesn't mean profit doesn't exist; just because you claim you don't exploit your workers doesn't mean you are not benefiting from the exploitation of workers, and as long as wage-labour exists it is fundamentally a capitalist endeavour. I want to just point out that the money that this Ecology Action makes in order to pay wages comes from selling their recycled materials, but that can only happen if a company is using profits to acquire those materials. That means that workers somewhere were exploited in order for this business to exist.

A workers' co-operative cannot exist in isolation of exploitation and profit, irrespective of its moral principles. While private property exists, workers are exploited, and workers' co-operatives do not and cannot challenge that fundamental basis of capitalist economics. On the contrary, they maintain the existence of capitalism and as communists who seek to abolish private property and smash wage-labour, they should therefore be ruthlessly opposed.

oneday

22nd May 2015, 19:26

No, the point is to destroy capital.

I thought it was to destroy capitalism.

Rudolf

22nd May 2015, 19:26

I thought it was to destroy capitalism.

and what? you think capitalism can be destroyed by simply making sure no person is a boss?

oneday

22nd May 2015, 19:52

and what? you think capitalism can be destroyed by simply making sure no person is a boss?

No, I don't. Ok, yes, we have to destroy capital in the Marxian sense of buying shit to flip a profit by exploitation. But not destroying 'capital goods' in the sense of factories or machines or whatever, which is what I thought Feral meant when he spoke of burning things.

oneday

22nd May 2015, 19:57

Doing what better?

Moving towards communism.

Any workers' co-operative that exists under capitalism can only operate within the logic of capitalism. Even if you call it "non-profit" you still require private property and capital in order to exist; you still rely on the exploitation of other workers to function (including using slave labour from people forced by the state to go and work their). That exploitation is in everything they use, whether it's the people who make the machines they use to recycle the materials, to the people who use the recycled materials to build other things. Just because you don't make profit, doesn't mean profit doesn't exist; just because you claim you don't exploit your workers doesn't mean you are not benefiting from the exploitation of workers, and as long as wage-labour exists it is fundamentally a capitalist endeavour. I want to just point out that the money that this Ecology Action makes in order to pay wages comes from selling their recycled materials, but that can only happen if a company is using profits to acquire those materials. That means that workers somewhere were exploited in order for this business to exist.

A workers' co-operative cannot exist in isolation of exploitation and profit, irrespective of its moral principles. While private property exists, workers are exploited, and workers' co-operatives do not and cannot challenge that fundamental basis of capitalist economics. On the contrary, they maintain the existence of capitalism and as communists who seek to abolish private property and smash wage-labour, they should therefore be ruthlessly opposed.

I agree with all that except the part of ruthlessly opposing co-operatives. Communism is birthed within capitalism, of course the 'sprouts' will bear some resemblance to the tree at first. I think they are certainly a step in the right direction, while not communism yet as I mentioned.

But I am really interested in what you think we should do instead? Class struggle has failed (I guess), cooperatives have failed. What to do?

The Feral Underclass

22nd May 2015, 20:19

Moving towards communism.

How can something that perpetuates capitalist economics move towards communism?

I agree with all that except the part of ruthlessly opposing co-operatives. Communism is birthed within capitalism, of course the 'sprouts' will bear some resemblance to the tree at first. I think they are certainly a step in the right direction, while not communism yet as I mentioned.

If your objective is to abolish private property and wage labour, something that depends on private property and wage labour to exist cannot be a step in the right direction.

But I am really interested in what you think we should do instead? Class struggle has failed (I guess), cooperatives have failed. What to do?

People's war.

oneday

22nd May 2015, 20:40

it doesn't matter if the two positions are filled by the same person - people can exploit themselves, and that's what workers in cooperatives do.

I really don't understand this. Can a master and slave position also be filled by the same person? The person owns themselves and takes the full product of what they produced to themselves while only giving themselves enough to survive and reproduce?

cyu

22nd May 2015, 20:46

I think what he means is imagine if every company were taken over by their employees, but were still forced to compete against one another in a market-type environment. Sure the employees would be masters of their own companies, but yet they still fear bankruptcy, and if their companies fail, they still fall victim to poverty. And because of that poverty, it can't be real communism.

oneday

22nd May 2015, 20:48

If your objective is to abolish private property and wage labour, something that depends on private property and wage labour to exist cannot be a step in the right direction.

Didn't mercantalism depend on feudalism to get started?

The Feral Underclass

22nd May 2015, 20:48

I really don't understand this. Can a master and slave position also be filled by the same person? The person owns themselves and takes the full product of what they produced to themselves while only giving themselves enough to survive and reproduce?

Profit is created when a worker produces more value than what they are remunerated for. For example, a worker is paid £6.53 an hour (this is minimum wage in the UK). Every 10 minutes the worker produces something that is then sold for £25. That means in 1 hour that worker has created £150 of value, but has only received £6.53 for their labour. In turn the boss pockets the remaining £143.47 as profit. In an 8 hour a day the worker receives £52.24 in return for producing £1147.76 of value. This is what is meant by exploitation.

People exploit themselves by paying themselves less than the value they have produced. They are generating profit from themselves, yet paying themselves less than the value produced. This is important to recognise when we are talking about abolishing capitalism and creating communism. You cannot create radical, anti-capitalist challenges when you create a system whereby you voluntarily allow the logic of capital to govern your work.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

22nd May 2015, 20:53

I really don't understand this. Can a master and slave position also be filled by the same person? The person owns themselves and takes the full product of what they produced to themselves while only giving themselves enough to survive and reproduce?

Except in capitalism, most of the extracted surplus value does not go to the private consumption of the capitalist but to driving the M-C-M' cycle further. And in a cooperative, the workers are forced to deprive themselves of material goods, even more than in a "traditional" business, in order to remain on the market. Thus, they are forced to exploit themselves.

The Feral Underclass

22nd May 2015, 20:54

Didn't mercantalism depend on feudalism to get started?

That doesn't make any sense.

Guardia Rossa

22nd May 2015, 23:44

You must have a lack of Hobsbawm and Huberman to think the proletariat can take over the State relatively peacefully like the bourgeoisie did... Also, the Modern State depends on capitalism to function well.

Xhar-Xhar criticism of the cooperatives makes full sense.

Peacefull, cooperativist revolution is as utopic as owenists, fourerists and other utopians. They will not grow too much, and will eventually be absorbed. IF they do grow, expect the bourgeoisie destroying it through any means.

But I look foward to the idea of creating some cooperatives right before the revolution, for weapon and war supply producing, so we don't start from plain 0.

mushroompizza

22nd May 2015, 23:51

There are basically 2 types of "Anarchists" now.

1. The Punk
-Doesn't like parents
-Doesn't like government because he cant smoke weed
-Doesn't know what the history of Anarchism is, just knows it doesn't like rules
-Wears all black
-Owns a skate board
-Extremely prejudice even though Anarchism is against that

2. The Hippie
-Read some old time Anarchist literature
-The only anti-state action they have done is teaching ecology at a high school
-Became an anarchist in college

oneday

23rd May 2015, 00:02

If your objective is to abolish private property and wage labour, something that depends on private property and wage labour to exist cannot be a step in the right direction.

The point is, the development of industrial capitalism came about through a series of developments of the peasantry and bourgeoisie within the feudal and post-feudal systems. There were revolutions (or not) after the aristocracy served no purpose and only hindered development. They did not just wake up one day and have full on laissez-faire industrial capitalism or just randomly decide to have a revolution to do the same.

Or maybe human society operating the means of production collectively, to produce for human need? Without private property (even workers' private property in cooperatives), sectorialism, commodity production, markets and wage labour? That is what communism means. Cooperatives are not communism, they're a way to run a capitalist business.

Likewise we're not just going to wake up one day and find moneyless, classless world communism or stage one conquest of political power and it's done. Increasing agricultural output was a way to more efficiently work the feudal property, but it began the process of the transition from feudalism to capitalism.

A cooperative is operating the means of productive collectively by the people who work there. How do you expect the entire population to operate all of the means of production collectively if they haven't even run something relatively simple, like a recycling plant, yet.

Abolishing money and commodity production does not make everything magically work out, in fact I would see it as the end of a long process of figuring out how to collectively manage society. The cooperative could be a start.

People exploit themselves by paying themselves less than the value they have produced. They are generating profit from themselves, yet paying themselves less than the value produced. This is important to recognise when we are talking about abolishing capitalism and creating communism. You cannot create radical, anti-capitalist challenges when you create a system whereby you voluntarily allow the logic of capital to govern your work.

It's not voluntary any more than the average worker working for a capitalist is voluntary. If you do not do it you be jailed, killed or starve. While these types of sacrifices may be necessarily undertaken by certain courageous individuals for the cause at times, we need some kind of viable positive propaganda tool that attracts people to collective industry.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

23rd May 2015, 00:24

Likewise we're not just going to wake up one day and find moneyless, classless world communism or stage one conquest of political power and it's done. Increasing agricultural output was a way to more efficiently work the feudal property, but it began the process of the transition from feudalism to capitalism.

Without getting into the debate about the transition between late feudalism and capitalism, two things need to be pointed out here. First, cooperatives do not result in the development of the productive forces. In fact if you think that the productive forces can still develop qualitatively within capitalism, you're in opposition to nearly every existing communist group, and the actual development of capitalism in the last century seems to belie that notion. Second, bourgeois society could develop within the feudal one because the bourgeoisie was a possessing class and could coexist with the aristocracy, the patriciate and guildmasters. Socialism on the other hand involves the entire human society, most of it former workers (during the first decades of socialism), controlling the productive forces. Not simply power passing into the hands of another possessing class. So prefigurationism is a nonsensical notion, and it does nothing but make people think their vegan fair trade co-op coffeeshop is somehow revolutionary.

A cooperative is operating the means of productive collectively by the people who work there.

Not in the sense in which socialism involves collective administration of the processes of production. A cooperative is another form of private property, just as e.g. a joint-stock firm is.

How do you expect the entire population to operate all of the means of production collectively if they haven't even run something relatively simple, like a recycling plant, yet.

One of the things that makes socialism possible is that the actual labour involved in administering production for need comprises simple operations almost every modern worker can preform. Can you write, count and use a computer? Yes? Good, then you can preform the operations that are necessary for accounting in material terms, overseeing the production process and participating in production planning.

And managing a modern enterprise is fundamentally different. These enterprises compete on the market (there is no market in socialism), set their own production targets (production targets are set by society in socialism), and preform accounting in monetary terms (what accounting will exist in socialism will be done in material terms), with all the complications that entails.

Abolishing money and commodity production does not make everything magically work out, in fact I would see it as the end of a long process of figuring out how to collectively manage society. The cooperative could be a start.

And here is the crux of the issue, you want some kind of slow crawl toward socialism with coops and marketing and god and Michel Pablo know what else, but this approach has obviously never worked, and can't work by the logic of the situation.

oneday

23rd May 2015, 00:49

And here is the crux of the issue, you want some kind of slow crawl toward socialism with coops and marketing and god and Michel Pablo know what else, but this approach has obviously never worked, and can't work by the logic of the situation.

Well, I don't know what I want, except for the goal. I'm putting out these ideas to understand the criticism of them better more than anything, which you guys have been doing a good job of. I want to develop a praxis for myself.

Problem is, obviously no approach has worked thus far. All I know is I didn't sign up for this whole capitalism $hit.

Asero

23rd May 2015, 03:40

Tendency shitflinging: the thread.

motion denied

23rd May 2015, 04:08

I feel you, Echoshock. Makes me so frustrated to meet anarchists whose anarchy goes as far as AUTONOMOUS HORIZONTAL LIBERTARIAN ANTI-STATE plantation of lettuce...

cyu

23rd May 2015, 04:16

Not everyone who says he's an anarchist considers himself an anarchist.

Not everyone who says he's an FBI agent considers himself an FBI agent ;)

PhoenixAsh

23rd May 2015, 14:43

However I really don't want this to be a discussion of bannings/restrictions. I really don't. Because the point of the thread is to find other things that anarchists could do that are better. But to to everyone whose calling for restrictions of everyone who isn't a leftist or criticizes civ- have fun getting rid of a large number of our mods, and if I remember correctly some of the admins.

Anyway, can we please talk about the topic?

Really? You don't want this to be about restriction? Probably because you are the subject (again btw) rather than the one calling for it....as you were repeatedly doing in one liners in a thread perpendicular to this one.

And you want this to be about the subject? Really? So you do not like one liners and mere accusations to be posted in your (!!) thread? While again that is all you are doing in another thread?

:D

Yeah, I am going to call hyporcritical bullshit on this.

I think IZ and other have brought up a valid point about your self expressed politics and a-political status that is throughout your history expressed in anti communism, anti anarchism and anti civ sentiments even bordering on primitivism....when you attack methods and means being non leftwing and non revolitionary of other groups when yours have been pretty absent and questionable in the very least.

I think the posts are very valid given the subject. And it is a legit question to ask whether this is yet another attempt of b oder line trolling this forum.

Hiding behind flimsy excuses of "please get back on subject" when you are confronted with accusations and statements you yourself frequently and even perpendicular to this thread make is imo cowardly and hypocritucally trying to dodge the issue and question about your right to be on a revolutionary left board....when the topic of this thread is apparently how abhorrent and nonrevolutionary the entirety of anarchism is based on the methods of a small section of anarchists.

But sweeping generalisations seem to be your MO lately...

BIXX

24th May 2015, 04:57

Take it up with the rest of the mod team, PA. My restriction has been discussed before and been shot down, if you're so confident that it won't this time bring it up with them.

Palmares

24th May 2015, 08:18

LuÃs Henrique

24th May 2015, 14:03

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/brent-perdue-and-scott-crow-ecology-action-recycling-education-and-cooperation

Seriously are you fucking kidding me. No wonder folks don't wanna get involved anymore when these are the alternatives we provide.

I can't be the only one who finds this pathetic and boring.

What exactly is your criticism of these guys? Why do you think they are boring and/or pathetic?

Luís Henrique

cyu

24th May 2015, 14:10

I think it's the lack of weapons and attacks on authoritarian institutions of power =]

LuÃs Henrique

24th May 2015, 14:21

You must have a lack of Hobsbawm and Huberman to think the proletariat can take over the State relatively peacefully like the bourgeoisie did...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Anonymous_-_Prise_de_la_Bastille.jpg/800px-Anonymous_-_Prise_de_la_Bastille.jpg

The bourgeois relatively peacefully taking over the State.

Man, bourgeois revolutions were extremely violent.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

24th May 2015, 14:29

Seriously, I can understand the criticism that this is a completely inoffensive coop that won't be able to do anything else than extract surplus value while fancying revolution-through-education.

But this is the problem with any kind or level of littlethingism, from socialism-in-one-country to individualism (ie, "socialism in one soul"). It is hard to take on capitalism as a system, when you don't consider capitalism a system, or even, as probably is the case, don't believe in "systems" at all.

Luís Henrique

PhoenixAsh

24th May 2015, 14:43

Take it up with the rest of the mod team, PA. My restriction has been discussed before and been shot down, if you're so confident that it won't this time bring it up with them.

We are not talking about your restriction at the moment.

We are talking about your explicit double standard where you shamefully call for restriction and banning of other members by trolling a discussion you only participate in with one liners and blatant accusations, slander beyond the debate itself and consistently refuse to address the topic of the debate with content....and hypocritically try to dodge topic related issues when you yourself are the subject of them...in a thread, no less, running perpendicular to this debate.

The question about your a-political status and your explicit rejection of all forms of class politics is a concern given your posting history especially considering you are making thread after thread blasting criticism towards entire political groups and criticize them for not really belonging to the revolutionary left even based on small subsections of them.

Bringing up your, at the very least, questionable political status while you are actively questioning the legitimacy of the political status of other groups is very topic related and it is very legitimate to ask the question: on what legitimate ground do you actually have a right to do so based on your own politics?

Not to mention that you yourself have engaged in blatantly trying to get members restricted and banned recently and publicly trying to slander and shame them with your vile attempts at character assassination in the last few days....rather than taking it up with " the mods"....your favorite shield to hide behind when legitimate questions are raised as to your own political status.

Maybe instead of hiding like a two faced hypocritical coward you could actually address the issues a lot of members have here with your dubious political agenda of non leftists, anti-class politics and self professed a-political and anti revolutionary ideas?

PhoenixAsh

24th May 2015, 14:54

To be honest, I'm pretty sick of this conversation, as if it's never happened before. Like watching two gold fish having a debate.

But if it's to happen, it should be it's own thread in the mod forum (via a mod, obviously), rather than a sidetracked witch-hunt in this thread.

Witch hunt? Asking for clarification based on the thread topic and raising concerns is not a witch hunt.

What would be a witch hunt is trying to get members banned and or restricted based on slander, character assassination and unfounded accusations while trolling a thread. That would be what PC is doing right now in another thread the same day he is hypocritically hiding behind the phrase "bring it up with the mods" when they are the subject rather than being the one dishing it out. And because of that they apparently know how it should be done...but feel themselves above that guideline.

So no...it should not be in the mod forum. It should be in a related thread where the subject actually finally explains his political standings rather than dodging the issue repeatedly....after he just raised questions to the legitimacy of the political moniker of another group based on questioning their revolutionary credentials when the user in question has on more than one occasion stated they are neither revolutionary, nor accept class politics, and are a-political.

BIXX

24th May 2015, 15:29

You're a liar, I never actually called for a banning seeing as if a misogynist became a mod then obviously there was a rule change that I was unaware of where misogynists are allowed on this site.

Secondly, you in that thread are supporting a misogynist movement. Even though I never called on restrictions, I doubt it would be out of line.

Back on thread topic please.

PhoenixAsh

24th May 2015, 17:06

And there we are.

Not only are you purposefully and knowingly misrepresenting the arguments made in that thread but your entire contribution to the thread itself was limited to repeated and consistent attempts to paint IZ, and eventually me, as misogynists knowing full well that that is a bannable offense or at the very least restriction worthy. Your entire aim and purpose in that thread was not only to derail the discussion and shut down debate but your aim was to do so specifically by character assassination, smears, slander and trying to allude to events outside of the topic (months ago which you misrepresent in such a way that you actually elevate victim blaming to a whole new art form) in order to antagonize and undermine credibility. Hence why your entire contribution to that thread was limited to ad hominem attacks and contained no actual arguments nor addressed any arguments.

The issues brought forth in this thread however are not character assassinations, smears or slander. These are facts you yourself repeatedly and consistently stated over the years and are based on your own assertions of how you are anti-revolutionary, anti-class politics, anti-civ and a-political. These are not attempt to paint you in a negative light or attempts to undermine your credibility but these are your own consistently and repeatedly expressed ideas.

It is no wonder that when you create yet another thread in which you question the revolutionary credentials and legitimacy of yet another organization, group or individual(s) your own standing is legitimately being scrutinized. Especially with suggestive titles such as "I didn't sign up for this". The question naturally and legitimately should be asked, considering the above facts (and they are facts and not conjecture or smears), "what did you actually sign up for?".

Because that is a question needing answers given your post history which consists mainly of one liners more often than not aimed at antagonizing yet another tendency or poster and repeatedly questioning or undermining their credibility. Actual argumentative contribution is extremely limited and far and in between and you seem to be hell bent on proverbially stirring an flinging shit and running away.

However when your own credentials are legitimately (and based on facts rather than on smears and slander) being questioned (and on topic even) you hide behind "take it up with the mods" or "get back on topic". You apply this double standard to everybody who challenges you but feel you yourself are above such notions of "keeping it on topic" and "taking it up with the mods" rather than publicly and purposefully trying to shame people which you consistently do.

Exemplary of that is the above mentioned thread with more than 220 posts where, regardless of being repeatedly asked to " get on topic" and " address the arguments", your entire contribution is quoted here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2832187&postcount=220. You do this to such an extend that people are afraid or caution to get involved in debates (as did happen in that thread). But this is by no means the only example there is because you repeatedly do this. And I am far from the only member, or MOD, who is fed up with that shit.

So no, you do not get to hide behind tu quoque arguments this time and running away to shield yourself with platitudes of "take it up with the mods" or "get back on topic" after your umpth attempt of ad hominems and slander.

I have no idea how you came to the idea/knowledge that you were previously debated and that the issue was shot down. I find that an interesting topic in and of itself. But for now...see that purple name...and I am posing to you the question.

Find it unfair that I am doing this publicly? Then try to apply some integrity once and don't actually publicly shame and call out people yourself at the very same instance you are lecturing others about "taking it up with the mods" because it isn't much fun when it happens to you....and, well...hehehe....take it up with the mods.

LuÃs Henrique

24th May 2015, 17:07

Speaking of "this isn't what I signed up for", The Young Turks have this video about jihadists who have also not signed up for this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2In6BbhQsdQ

You see, even the most glamorous possible activity, war, has its not-so-glamorous aspects, too.

(Which, by the way, calls the lie on the conflation between "boring" and "ineffective"; those are very different problems.)

Luís Henrique

BIXX

24th May 2015, 20:12

Ele'ill

25th May 2015, 17:48

I think PA is derailing this thread tbh and good simple question by Luis Henrique about specifics on the original post that was pretty much not mentioned by anyone else despite 4 pages.

The Feral Underclass

25th May 2015, 17:56

What the shitsticks is happening in this thread? :ohmy:

PhoenixAsh

25th May 2015, 18:17

I think PA is derailing this thread tbh and good simple question by Luis Henrique about specifics on the original post that was pretty much not mentioned by anyone else despite 4 pages.

You had no problem with PC derailing threads...however

The thread title is "this isn't what I signed up for with this whole anarchy shit"

Since the user one more than one occasion and consistently stated that they are:

* not anarchist
* anti-revolutionary
* a-political
* anti-class politics
* anti-civ bordering on primitivism

The question what the user actually signed up for, asked on page 1 and summarily dismissed, is not only entirely legitimate but also incredibly on topic of the thread OP themselves started...and therefore can't possibly derail this thread at all.

On top of that the OP (not being an anarchist) is once again, as they do with all tendencies, tendency bating by questioning the revolutionary legitimacy of Anarchism based on a coop. The counter question: "what I your revolutionary legitimacy" is once again very much relevant given above statements consistently and repeatedly made by OP, and very much on topic.

Ele'ill

25th May 2015, 19:32

You had no problem with PC derailing threads...however

What does this even mean? What is this in reference to?

The thread title is "this isn't what I signed up for with this whole anarchy shit"

So what?

Since the user one more than one occasion and consistently stated that they are:

* not anarchist
* anti-revolutionary
* a-political
* anti-class politics
* anti-civ bordering on primitivism

Can you show me posts where they've said: "hey I'm anti-revolutionary and bordering on primitivism" because aside from that direct statement which I don't believe was ever posted there is nothing wrong with the other stuff you've posted here. Not an anarchist is fine, even if you are technically one I understand why distancing yourself from it makes sense sometimes, criticism of 'the working class' is not a new thing and is not anti revolutionary or anti communist, being critical of civilization is a thing woven into/throughout many texts of interest to communists, and being a-political doesn't make sense since their posts are political charged and they're on a political forum talking about political things: stretches of apathy are okay i.e. burnout and being overwhelmed by a fucked up world. Your attempt to mash all this together is baffling and dishonest.

The question what the user actually signed up for, asked on page 1 and summarily dismissed, is not only entirely legitimate but also incredibly on topic of the thread OP themselves started...and therefore can't possibly derail this thread at all.

When you bring up restrictions and such and engage in conversation about it through 2+ pages it is derailing you should know better but whatever.

On top of that the OP (not being an anarchist) is once again, as they do with all tendencies, tendency bating by questioning the revolutionary legitimacy of Anarchism based on a coop. The counter question: "what I your revolutionary legitimacy" is once again very much relevant given above statements consistently and repeatedly made by OP, and very much on topic.

I think they've addressed this a bit in a post on this page. I don't see it as tendency baiting but a valid criticism of anarchist practice and I am not saying whether or not I agree with the position here.

I think 100% of your problem with this thread should be brough up in the mod forum otherwise just get busy engaging with them without an overshadow of interrogation.

PhoenixAsh

25th May 2015, 19:59

What does this even mean? What is this in reference to?

This is in reference of you selectively pointing shit out and remaining silent when it suits other purposes. For example the consistent attempts at derailment by OP of an other thread you participated in

But sure Mari3l...whatever

So what?

Makes it on topic.

Can you show me posts where they've said: "hey I'm anti-revolutionary and bordering on primitivism" because aside from that direct statement which I don't believe was ever posted there is nothing wrong with the other stuff you've posted here. Not an anarchist is fine, even if you are technically one I understand why distancing yourself from it makes sense sometimes, criticism of 'the working class' is not a new thing and is not anti revolutionary or anti communist, being critical of civilization is a thing woven into/throughout many texts of interest to communists, and being a-political doesn't make sense since their posts are political charged and they're on a political forum talking about political things: stretches of apathy are okay i.e. burnout and being overwhelmed by a fucked up world. Your attempt to mash all this together is baffling and dishonest.

Try doing a search history in his user interface. That should clarify it for you. I am not going to do your home work.

Critical of the working class =/= anti class politics. That is a whole different beast.

And if you are a self described a-political nihilist who doesn't believe in revolution, is opposed to class politics and isn't an anarchist your politics can be legitimately questioned when you a). are on a site of the revolutionary left b). claim to having signed up for anarchism when you are not an anarchist c). call into question the revolutionary legitimacy of not only an entire tendency but of other groups, regardless of the legitimacy of your criticism

When you bring up restrictions and such and engage in conversation about it through 2+ pages it is derailing you should know better but whatever.

Placenta Cream brought that up before I even posted in this thread...I explicitly stated I wasn't talking about it in post #70. Perhaps you can be a little less selective in your reading.

And since it is on topic...it can't derail the thread. They claimed they signed up for anarchism contrary to repeated expressions the question what they did sign up for is legitimate and basically directly on thread title and OP.

I think they've addressed this a bit in a post on this page. I don't see it as tendency baiting but a valid criticism of anarchist practice and I am not saying whether or not I agree with the position here.

Irrelevant whether or not it is valid or legitimate. By starting the topic in the way they did the question about their own position, which by the way is widely questioned throughout the membership, is entirely valid and on topic.

And that is disregarding the hypocritical nature of PC's behaviour in dodging the issue.

I think 100% of your problem with this thread should be brough up in the mod forum otherwise just get busy engaging with them without an overshadow of interrogation.

I have no problem with this thread. I have a problem with PC's political position. A position which is legitimately and on topic questioned by several members. PC's own indication was to take it up with the mods. I am a mod. I am taking it up and asking clarification in the manner PC themselves seem to think is a legit way to bring up issues you have with members....in the relevant thread dealing with the topic of political legitimacy.

RedWorker

25th May 2015, 20:57

What does this even mean? What is this in reference to?

PhoenixAsh is pointing out your supposed hypocrisy about you not saying anything when 'placenta cream' is derailing threads, yet doing it here. If this is true then bringing 'derailing threads' up is just an excuse to defend the person.

So what?

So discussing what he signed up for and/or whether he signed up for 'anarchy' at all is relevant.

Can you show me posts where they've said: "hey I'm anti-revolutionary and bordering on primitivism"

Why should we limit ourselves to what people directly state when examining them? Some fascists state that they are revolutionary and not right-wing but 'third position'. Yet we do not judge them merely by such direct statements.

Not an anarchist is fine

Sure, but the user claimed to have 'signed up' for 'anarchy', so that is relevant to discuss here. And it is relevant that the user does not belong to any revolutionary tradition.

criticism of 'the working class' is not a new thing and is not anti revolutionary or anti communist

Of course not, given that criticism of the current politics of the working class are at the centrepiece of revolutionary ideas. Yet what this user does is not 'criticism of the working class', it is distancing from the working class entirely and not following class politics.

being critical of civilization is a thing woven into/throughout many texts of interest to communists

Being critical of the content of civilization in the present is obviously one of the centrepieces to communism. Being anti-civilization is reactionary and something else entirely. Bourgeois society is progressive in comparison to pre-civilization forms of organization.

Your attempt to mash all this together is baffling and dishonest.

On the opposite, it is the user who behaves in a completely dishonest fashion, creating masses of spam/low-quality posts and starting irrelevant personal disputes while not contributing any actual content.

When you bring up restrictions

It was the user who brought it up in post #9, not someone else.

Sewer Socialist

25th May 2015, 21:00

As far as "not belonging to a revolutionary tradition," that is different from not being revolutionary.

BIXX

25th May 2015, 21:49

As far as "not belonging to a revolutionary tradition," that is different from not being revolutionary.

This. I don't consider myself a revolutionary in that I don't belong in the revolutionary tradition.

Ele'ill

25th May 2015, 22:17

I have no problem with this thread. I have a problem with PC's political position. A position which is legitimately and on topic questioned by several members. PC's own indication was to take it up with the mods. I am a mod. I am taking it up and asking clarification in the manner PC themselves seem to think is a legit way to bring up issues you have with members....in the relevant thread dealing with the topic of political legitimacy.

members question each other's positions all the time that isn't inherently some great indicator of whether someone shouldn't be on the forum and yes you are a mod maybe next time instead of an open interrogation that derails a thread you either PM them or genuinely engage them in discussion to get to better understand what they are trying to illustrate with their posts.

PhoenixAsh is pointing out your supposed hypocrisy about you not saying anything when 'placenta cream' is derailing threads, yet doing it here. If this is true then bringing 'derailing threads' up is just an excuse to defend the person.

Yes, which is why I am asking what that comment is in reference to.

Why should we limit ourselves to what people directly state when examining them? Some fascists state that they are revolutionary and not right-wing but 'third position'. Yet we do not judge them merely by such direct statements.

I am questioning the context of the claims by PA, i.e. where have they stated those specific things in the way that PA is seeing them.

Sure, but the user claimed to have 'signed up' for 'anarchy', so that is relevant to discuss here. And it is relevant that the user does not belong to any revolutionary tradition.

I think it was a title/remark not meant to be taken that literally or, that they are undecided and this is another reason they won't participate in 'anarchist organizing' of that type. Not belonging to a revolutionary tradition doesn't mean a non belief in insurrection/revolution.

Of course not, given that criticism of the current politics of the working class are at the centrepiece of revolutionary ideas. Yet what this user does is not 'criticism of the working class', it is distancing from the working class entirely and not following class politics.

I still dont' think you understand what the position is. They might even not think 'the working class' exists at all hence why a tradition of class politics is viewed as inadequate. I am not stating their position here btw just throwing out info

Being critical of the content of civilization in the present is obviously one of the centrepieces to communism. Being anti-civilization is reactionary and something else entirely. Bourgeois society is progressive in comparison to pre-civilization forms of organization.

I dont' think this is the thread for it so I'm not going to further take it off topic but you have to understand what 'civilization' actually means/is before diving into this line of thought. Having anti-civ positions does not mean you are a reactionary/primitivist

On the opposite, it is the user who behaves in a completely dishonest fashion, creating masses of spam/low-quality posts and starting irrelevant personal disputes while not contributing any actual content.

I haven't seen that but they have not recieved any warnings or infractions afaik so if there is a sudden problem with it take it up with mods and don't go around derailing all of this user's threads because so far it looks like you and PA and maybe a few others are actually to blame for the derailment.

It was the user who brought it up in post #9, not someone else.

clearly because of the interrogation style responses from several other users

BIXX

26th May 2015, 01:07

Gonna ask for the thread to be closed or all off topic responses split into a different thread cause seriously all I wanted to do was talk about how fucking stupid this project is but apparently drama from one thread has to spill over into all the others.

What exactly is your criticism of these guys? Why do you think they are boring and/or pathetic?

Luís Henrique

To be a but more specific (cause I did post the other criticisms in a rush) I don't think these people are providing us with any way which we can break from capitalist society. They are just coming up with the ways in which it will save itself in the future. "We are not dogmatic, but use the ideas as foundations to create a just, healthy and sustainable workplace and, hopefully, models for other businesses."

Furthermore I take issue with the utilization of court enforced labour. "EA coordinates over 15,000 hours of court-appointed community restitution service." Now I don't believe they elaborate any further on this (and I wish they did) but I am willing yo bet that the labour goes unpaid, and even if it does it is still just state enforced labour.

They also seem to believe in an ethical capitalism... "We are creating functioning economic engines that are autonomous and operate ethically under a capitalist system and beyond."

Also I have a personal inclination towards troublemaking, tension- raising, etc... because I think it puts stress on weak points in capital and this project does none of that.

BIXX

26th May 2015, 01:12

PhoenixAsh

26th May 2015, 01:50

Sorry. When I say take it up with a mod, I mean take it up with someone who doesn't have personal shit with me (as you obviously do).

If you don't want shit...here is a suggestion and a novel idea: don't start shit.

But that is your entire purpose on this site, isn't it? Shamelessly trolling, tendency baiting, starting shit, antagonizing and shitting on everybody else, bailing from debates you are doing your level best to derail and then run and hide behind every little excuse, platitude and mod you can find when you yourself are subjected to legitimate scrutiny about your own ideological position which you seem to obfuscate at every corner.

So far you wanted this taken up with a mod when users asked you a legitimate and very reasonable question in this thread. You didn't specify which mod they should take it up with...so for better or worse...you are stuck with me.

You are given a very reasonable opportunity to explain your position which, as you yourself indicated, has been repeatedly questioned. Questioned I might add by several people who aren't me and questioned based on your own descriptors of yourself.

This can't be that hard for you to clarify....but it is illuminating that so far you have chosen the offensive and continue to display the same behavior you don't want used against you and which you feel you are entitled to display but others are not.

Again...it isn't much fun when it happens to you now is it?

So answer the question.

RedWorker

26th May 2015, 02:19

members question each other's positions all the time that isn't inherently some great indicator of whether someone shouldn't be on the forum

Why should non-revolutionary leftists, let alone reactionaries, be in a forum for revolutionary leftists?

I still dont' think you understand what the position is. They might even not think 'the working class' exists at all hence why a tradition of class politics is viewed as inadequate. I am not stating their position here btw just throwing out info

How can the working class not exist? Classes are a social scientific concept based on definitions which are not materially derived. It's like racial subdivisions - e.g. "Caucasians" - someone makes a subdivision, gives it a label, then it exists. In this case the idea of a Caucasian race is based on a social construct, yet it exists. Whether the subdivision is relevant or not is another question.

Which brings me to the next point: if this person thinks the working class is not relevant then why are they on this forum? In the case that this person even had a theory on how we're going to be led into some utopia, that still would not give him more reason to be here than e.g. an anarcho-capitalist who says we remove state intervention in the economy, and voila, everyone's quality of life will exponentially rise and we will usher into a world of freedom.

I dont' think this is the thread for it so I'm not going to further take it off topic but you have to understand what 'civilization' actually means/is before diving into this line of thought. Having anti-civ positions does not mean you are a reactionary/primitivist

That user starts up discussions about how enlightened his ideas are, and when there is any reply asking for information about them he simply mentions that "everyone should research them" (without ever explaining what they actually are), while reacting with "you know nothing" to people who show some interest and reply, having had to go on some assumption because no information is given.

Anti-civilization means anti-civilization. Standing against civilization is reactionary. So either 'civilization' is defined as something else or this is a reactionary idea. In which case give the definition and its context instead of permanently saying that people should research it. And yes, when you take up this kind of behaviour and start a personal defense of the user then this becomes your responsibility too. You can't just make these arguments in the same way that user does and then evade it because "oh, I'm not that user and I may or may not agree with his ideas".

I haven't seen that but they have not recieved any warnings or infractions afaik so if there is a sudden problem with it take it up with mods and don't go around derailing all of this user's threads because so far it looks like you and PA and maybe a few others are actually to blame for the derailment.

There is no derailing and this has been explained. When the user gives a link and says "this isn't what I signed up for with this whole anarchy shit" alone, then it begs the question: what did you sign up for? What else could be the topic? Come on, the user is making a lazy thread and not giving any serious critique while going on "oh, I'm so revolutionary and others aren't" (funnily because he isn't a revolutionary at all and even himself admits that). Well, the only possible topic is talking about the user in the way that is being done now. That is no derailing, that is the natural evolution of the thread.

clearly because of the interrogation style responses from several other users

What interrogation? The user claimed to have 'signed up' for some 'anarchy shit', Invader Zim stated the self-evident fact that the user never signed up for that, then I added that to the best of my information he is a reactionary. He brought up restrictions and mods.

Sinister Intents

26th May 2015, 02:22

PC, personally, I like you. I wish you would be more friendly towards me again. I'm sorry about the past. Honestly, you're NOT a terrible user and I don't think you necessarily deserve restricted. You don't seem to have any set position on anything other than either stark criticism or you just don't care. I hope you don't get restricted or banned.

cyu

26th May 2015, 02:55

What the shitsticks is happening in this thread?

Move along citizen, nothing to see here.

http://i.imgur.com/9dNk1Wj.png

http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/36mv51/a_discussion_about_outer_space_in_rsocialism

Ele'ill

26th May 2015, 03:05

Why should non-revolutionary leftists, let alone reactionaries, be in a forum for revolutionary leftists?

A lot/most/all of the tendencies that you are referring to, that distance themselves from 'leftist' and 'the broader socialist tradition', have come from within insurrectionary and revolutionary 'left' praxis but have ellaborated, split, criticised various aspects of 'the left' and moved on. Many of which have done so to the point that they are not leftist any longer however if you had to place those non-leftist tendencies on a chart they would still be left, revolutionary/insurrectionary.

How can the working class not exist? Classes are a social scientific concept based on definitions which are not materially derived. It's like racial subdivisions - e.g. "Caucasians" - someone makes a subdivision, gives it a label, then it exists. In this case the idea of a Caucasian race is based on a social construct, yet it exists. Whether the subdivision is relevant or not is another question.

I was referring to the relevance and existance of 'the working class' within leftist praxis, which hasn't changed, although the working class certainly has and I don't think it does exist as it did and I don't think it is as relevant as it is made out to be.

Which brings me to the next point: if this person thinks the working class is not relevant then why are they on this forum?

This is a good question and should be asked to them not to me but asked out of genuine curiosity and not out of an attempt to remove someone from a forum. I think I hold very similar views unless I am missing something with PC (I'm not) and I'm on the forum mainly because I discovered that there were other users who were not leftists but who were left and revolutionary/insurrectionary. I enjoy reading these user's posts.

In the case that this person even had a theory on how we're going to be led into some utopia, that still would not give him more reason to be here than e.g. an anarcho-capitalist who says we remove state intervention in the economy, and voila, everyone's quality of life will exponentially rise and we will usher into a world of freedom.

I don't think they and a lot of other even leftist users here want to be led into a utopia but since their interests tends to be in line with communisation and [email protected] with a healthy dose of nihilism mixed in I dont' see why they can't be. I think you're trying to state that your specific tendency is the only one allowed to post here and I don't think that's true.

That user starts up discussions about how enlightened his ideas are, and when there is any reply asking for information about them he simply mentions that "everyone should research them" (without ever explaining what they actually are), while reacting with "you know nothing" to people who show some interest and reply, having had to go on some assumption because no information is given.

I haven't experienced this in discussion here w/them so I am kind of removed from this point.

Anti-civilization means anti-civilization. Standing against civilization is reactionary. So either 'civilization' is defined as something else or this is a reactionary idea. In which case give the definition and its context instead of permanently saying that people should research it. And yes, when you take up this kind of behaviour and start a personal defense of the user then this becomes your responsibility too. You can't just make these arguments in the same way that user does and then evade it because "oh, I'm not that user and I may or may not agree with his ideas".

I think I illustrated the other points in my post enough that you'd understand why I wouldn't want to take this thread into an anti-civ direction. If you'd like to make a thread elsewhere asking what the difference is between reactionary anti-civ primitivism and stuff than go ahead. I think some primitivist writings make some good criticisms at times but that doesn't make me a primitivist and anti-civ is different than that.

There is no derailing and this has been explained. When the user gives a link and says "this isn't what I signed up for with this whole anarchy shit" alone, then it begs the question: what did you sign up for? What else could be the topic? Come on, the user is making a lazy thread and not giving any serious critique while going on "oh, I'm so revolutionary and others aren't" (funnily because he isn't a revolutionary at all and even himself admits that). Well, the only possible topic is talking about the user in the way that is being done now. That is no derailing, that is the natural evolution of the thread.

love the personal opinions riddled into this, nice

...then I added that to the best of my information he is a reactionary. He brought up restrictions and mods.

Because users who are not leftist often get mobbed by users who feel like their traditional tendency is the only one, or that traditional tendencies are the only ones, allowed to talk about politics on this forum. There is nothing reactionary about criticising genuine failures of or problems within the left/ultra-left etc.. This topic comes up frequently, there are a bunch of users in this thread who you haven't mentioned who hold similar positions.

I promised not to get involved in this, in this thread, so constructively moving out of this I am not going to post one-liners or anything like that if you have questions about any of the other tendencies and I'm not suggesting that you don't know what you're talking about or anything just new thread(s)/pm/visitor messages etc..

#FF0000

26th May 2015, 03:23

i think PC's politics are bad but the behavior in this thread is pathetic. Especially from folks who are supposed to be mods.

motion denied

26th May 2015, 03:40

In another life
I would be your girl
We'd keep all our promises
Be us against the world

In another life
I would make you stay
So I don't have to say
You were the one who got away

The Disillusionist

26th May 2015, 05:49

Ignoring this whole mess of useless text, I actually think the ecology project is pretty cool. Smashing windows, overturning cars, and spraypainting stuff is romantic, it gets the teeny-boppers all fired up, but if you are really serious about creating an anarchist society, sometimes you have to focus on the practical stuff as well... that's the true foundation of any society. And I think that sustainability is one important area that anarchists have excelled at. This kind of project is far more likely to get people interested in anarchism than the stereotypical "pay attention to me, I'm angry because my parents won't buy me a new car" teenage tactics that give so many anarchists a reputation that... honestly, I can't even say is bad. Anarchists are not taken seriously enough to have a bad reputation anymore... frankly, we're a running joke, and that's pretty pathetic. I don't think it's projects like this that have put us in that position, it was the pseudo-revolutionary violence-fetishizing punk movement that ended up turning anarchy into nothing more than an edgy teenage fad (I love punk music, by the way.)

BIXX

26th May 2015, 05:57

consuming negativity

26th May 2015, 06:15

i think they want it to be seen as something great that they're doing, when in reality, what they're doing is surviving within the capitalist system. but that's all i think we really can do. there won't be a revolution tomorrow, so while we're working on convincing people it's a good idea, what do we do? make things the best we can in the meantime. so instead of having to listen to some asshole, unaccountable boss and having to be a part of immediate hierarchical structures, these people have found a way to not have to deal with that shit. to make their circumstances better under the capitalist mode of production. i don't criticize them for it - i wish i could do the same thing.

the problem is that the very fact that they're able to do this kind of stuff is the "proof" that revolution is not necessary. rather than seeing this stuff and thinking "oh man, revolution and socialism are possible!", i think people are way more likely to see it and go "well see, they did it, so why doesn't everybody else do it? and then we could just keep things the way they are and all be happy!" because what they don't understand is that things like this are only possible within capitalism for certain members of western society precisely because of capitalist exploitation around the world.

ironically, i think these people who have the best intentions are leeches just the same as the worst businessmen, who think they're helping people by making an exploitative system more palatable, and gaining personally from doing so. our altruism has become so intertwined with the system of exploitation that we no longer even see activism as necessary because the consumption/production process itself has become our alleviation from it. we don't go out and plant trees, we buy coffee that's "fair trade" and so we get our release from the very acts of our consumption. they're not "going to work" like the rest of us - read what they said! they're doing something different. they've "created an alternative to capitalism" - or so they think. no, all they're really doing is lying to themselves and pretending that they believe it.

i forget where i read it, possibly in the soul of man under socialism, but somewhere i read that the worst slave owners were actually the ones who treated their slaves well, because they were the ones that people looked at and went "see! slavery really isn't so bad after all!" and i think that's basically all things like this do. the fact that people are able to make their conditions better - the fact that our slavery is not absolute - is used to justify it and say that things aren't "as bad" as we think they are - that we aren't actually slaves.

at the same time, though, this isn't a complete win for capital. the other side of the coin is that we're showing the unnecessary of hierarchy on a small level. egalitarianism and mutual respect for other people grows our awareness and makes us better people, which makes systems like capitalism all the more reprehensible to us. this is the process by which capitalism is digging its own grave: it isn't good and it isn't bad. it doesn't matter why we do what we do. we have to do the same things for the same reasons, and at the end of the day, we're going to be able to justify things however we want to. people will see what they want to see and i really think the only criticism to be made here is that they're trying to pretend they're being altruistic or that they're doing something good. they have a long way to go.

LuÃs Henrique

26th May 2015, 11:59

I have posted earlier in this thread that my criticism is that it doesn't provide a real break from institutions like work. Of course this only matters to those who actually oppose work so obviously a minority on this board but that is the minority I like to talk to.

Lots of things don't provide a real break from "institutions like work". I don't see you posting catilinaries against most of them.

Plus you made it sound like you had been somehow cheated by the existence of this coop. Have you wasted your personal money or time with those guys?

Also the utilization of state enforced labor (the community service thing) bothers me immensely.

Ah, I see. This seems a more important concern. But then there are probably thousands of NGOs profitting from this possibility; it would make more sence, in my opinion, to question the legal possibility of NGOs using penal labour.

Luís Henrique

PhoenixAsh

26th May 2015, 12:05

i think PC's politics are bad but the behavior in this thread is pathetic. Especially from folks who are supposed to be mods.

Really? Because I am merely using the methods Placenta Cream thinks are completely legitimate in how to deal with issues you have with users....and has done so 7 times in the past few months alone.

So I kind of disagree.

What is pathetic however is that a user gets away with (borderline) trolling, baiting, non contribution, derailing threads and repeatedly working towards the restriction or ban of other users and when called out on it gets shielded by the usual suspects who usually remain completely silent and conveniently always look the other way when the person they defend acts in such manners.

LuÃs Henrique

26th May 2015, 12:05

This. I don't consider myself a revolutionary in that I don't belong in the revolutionary tradition.

That's fine, but then exactly why are you so indignant at a bunch of reformists misusing the name of a revolutionary tradition?

It would seem as you would have no reason to care about either. Or, in your words, that you haven't "signed up" for either.

Luís Henrique

Cliff Paul

26th May 2015, 12:40

Really? Because I am merely using the methods Placenta Cream thinks are completely legitimate in how to deal with issues you have with users....and has done so 7 times in the past few months alone.

Yeh but we expect mods to act with more tact than Placenta Cream...

What is pathetic however is that a user gets away with (borderline) trolling, baiting, non contribution, derailing threads and repeatedly working towards the restriction or ban of other users and when called out on it gets shielded by the usual suspects who usually remain completely silent and conveniently always look the other way when the person they defend acts in such manners.

Like 90% of the posts on revleft are just shitty one liners, so your focus on Placenta Cream in particular comes off as personally motivated. Furthermore most of the other users in this thread don't even bother with the trolling/baiting accusation and just want PC (yes fuck you I'm not writing your name out anymore!!!!!!) banned/restricted for their politics, so anyone with remotely sympathetic political views are obviously bothered by this.

RedWorker

26th May 2015, 13:05

Like 90% of the posts on revleft are just shitty one liners, so your focus on Placenta Cream in particular comes off as personally motivated. Furthermore most of the other users in this thread don't even bother with the trolling/baiting accusation and just want PC (yes fuck you I'm not writing your name out anymore!!!!!!) banned/restricted for their politics, so anyone with remotely sympathetic political views are obviously bothered by this.

Bolding mine. Besides the contradiction here and the fact that you're personally defending PC merely because of similar political views (using the arguments "well, everyone does what he does anyway")... what arguments do you have that the user should not be banned/restricted for their politics or that the user is not a troll? Your argument about what the 'accusing' users really care about does not refute the accusations.

90% of posts in RevLeft are not one liners. There are many users who routinely contribute high quality content. But sure, this should have a wider consideration than just PC. We should have a debate on how to deal with users who constantly post low quality content.

PhoenixAsh

26th May 2015, 14:46

Yeh but we expect mods to act with more tact than Placenta Cream

I have never been a fan of this statement and it's many variations. Not because you should not expect civil conduct from Mods....but because you should expect it from all members including mods instead of using it in a one way direction. And that interestingly never happens.

As such the statement has over the years become a huge platitude for various members to hide behind as a shield and has become and excuse for all kinds of unwanted and disrespectful behaviour from various members of he general membership and shirk personal and communal responsibility.

What is basically said is that the standard of behaviour counts only for mods and that as long as you are a general member you're by default allowed to display behaviour that should not and could not be tolerated because you are not expected to keep to a high standard of conduct.

PC in particular is very appt in doing so and exploiting loopholes in the rules and restrictions placed on mods that enables them to borderline troll and disrupt this site and antagonise a lot of members including a number of mods and place themselves above the rules and applying a nasty double standard on themselves.

PC is not some innocent victim here, although they definitely love to play that part, but somebody who repeatedly and knowingly exploits the rules, guidelines and regulations to troll threads, debates and members. Evident that this is the case is their full statement made in this thread that personal issues with a user should be taken up with the mods mere hours after he made slanderous posts not merely accusing but stating as fact that other members are guilty of bannable and restriction worthy offenses in a thread where he spent the last few days doing nothing but that.

And rather than being a poor innocent victim here (although they love to play that part) PC repeatedly and consistently exploits the guideline that Mods can not issue warnings, infractions or bans in threads they themselves are involved in (to such an extent that I am far from the only mod being fed up with this shit and that most of the members having a gripe with him were subjected to this behaviour in the past).

And that fact that PC knowingly exploits this is more than evident from their statement that personal issues should be taken up with the mods the same instance after they have spend days violating exactly that principle they subjectively hide behind...for the umpteenth time in his poster history....finding it very legitimate, ethical, and conforming to a legitimate standard of behavior which they are entitled to.

While I am very loath to violate the principle to issue infractions, warnings and bans based on threads and discussions I am part of this avenue of dealing with this issue is blocked. I am however not blocked, as both a member and a mod, to inquire to legitimate issues raised based on thread topics the user themselves started...especially because they themselves also requested mods got involved.

So to recap that last part:

1). The issue is on topic the OP started
2). The issue is raised by the OP themselves
3). The issue is raised by a MOD on request of OP themselves (and no...you can't selectively and retroactively pick and chose a MOD...because that is hypocritical)
4). Several members brought up the issue and not the MOD
5). The method conforms with what OP thinks is legitimate and acceptable behaviour based on their conduct perpendicular to this and in the entire past of their membership. How can this be a problem?
6). So far other than requesting answers to the issue and requesting an explanation + accountability for unacceptable behavior there have been no threats what so ever made about infractions, bans or restrictions and they have so far been explicitly exempted from being part of the discussion at hand.

RedWorker

26th May 2015, 15:38

The most annoying thing about this is we're giving that troll the attention he desperately craves. I was prepared to just ignore PC forever but since it was brought up... :crying:

consuming negativity

26th May 2015, 16:30

do you realize that making massive posts like this as character attacks against particular users is pathological behavior?

why has nobody on the moderation team put a stop to this yet?

do you not get that placenta cream is purposefully not engaging with you people and that you've spent the better part of over 5 pages shitting all over them for no reason?

like what the actual fuck is wrong with you that you think this is acceptable behavior in any venue, ever?

and now i'm part of the problem. wonderful. sigh.

PhoenixAsh

26th May 2015, 16:47

I
do you realize that making massive posts like this as character attacks against particular users is pathological behavior?

why has nobody on the moderation team put a stop to this yet?

do you not get that placenta cream is purposefully not engaging with you people and that you've spent the better part of over 5 pages shitting all over them for no reason?

like what the actual fuck is wrong with you that you think this is acceptable behavior in any venue, ever?

and now i'm part of the problem. wonderful. sigh.

The "for no particular reason" is purely a subjective blind spot you hold and articulate.

The "purposefully not engaging" is completely laughable since that is exactly the opposite what they actually have been doing perpendicular to this thread...and repeatedly in the past.

But yeah...you are part of he problem I have addressed in my post above applying double standards and shielding people who misuse forum etiquette rather than applying any form of actual integrity.

Because:

"omg poor members being so very much wronged by evil mods...no matter they themselves harass just about everybody (irl or on the forum itself) by doing worse and with less basis than that which you subjectively shield them from"

Cry me a fucking river....and come back when you are actually consistent. The reason why no mod has stepped in is because there is no rule violation what so ever here, no thread derailment and no witch hunt.

What is happening here is as outlined above:

1). On OP started topic
2). On request of the OP
3). Based on the words of OP themselves
4). Asked by members
5). Within the scope of what OP finds acceptable behavior
6). Without any threats of infractions, banns or warnings against OP and explicitly excluded from the subject of the debate so far.

There is an on topic, legitimate issue being brought up and the OP is dodging the hell out of it. That enforces the concept that there really is no actual answer OP can provide or is willing to provide and that means OP is probably trolling....as is evident from their consciously stated effort to duplicitous subjective application of standards to everybody else and themselves.

The issue could have been easily avoided by OP answering the question of what they signed up for and the OP actually showing some integrity rather than character assassinating several members and trying to get them either banned or restricted.... perpendicular to this thread. For now OP gives off every appearance to be yet again tendency baiting.

BIXX

26th May 2015, 16:58

Lots of things don't provide a real break from "institutions like work". I don't see you posting catilinaries against most of them.

Plus you made it sound like you had been somehow cheated by the existence of this coop. Have you wasted your personal money or time with those guys?
So, because ITT I haven't critiqued those things means I don't? In fact, I do, this to me just seems like a perfect example of the kind of project I hate.

Also, no, I have not been personally cheated by EA, however I do have issues with scott crow (victim blaming, for one).

Ah, I see. This seems a more important concern. But then there are probably thousands of NGOs profitting from this possibility; it would make more sence, in my opinion, to question the legal possibility of NGOs using penal labour.

Luís Henrique

The thing is we already know NGOs are gonna be shit. But when anarchists claim to oppose this sort of this they should actually follow through with their opposition.

#FF0000

26th May 2015, 17:18

The reason why no mod has stepped in is because there is no rule violation what so ever here, no thread derailment and no witch hunt.

Another mod (Palmares) did step in, called this a witch-hunt, and said this should be brought to the mod forum instead of talked about here.

What is happening here is as outlined above:

1). On OP started topic
2). On request of the OP
3). Based on the words of OP themselves
4). Asked by members
5). Within the scope of what OP finds acceptable behavior
6). Without any threats of infractions, banns or warnings against OP and explicitly excluded from the subject of the debate so far.
This is flatly untrue because you did make threats about restrictions here in this post:

I think IZ and other have brought up a valid point about your self expressed politics and a-political status that is throughout your history expressed in anti communism, anti anarchism and anti civ sentiments even bordering on primitivism....when you attack methods and means being non leftwing and non revolitionary of other groups when yours have been pretty absent and questionable in the very least.

I think the posts are very valid given the subject. And it is a legit question to ask whether this is yet another attempt of b oder line trolling this forum.

Hiding behind flimsy excuses of "please get back on subject" when you are confronted with accusations and statements you yourself frequently and even perpendicular to this thread make is imo cowardly and hypocritucally trying to dodge the issue and question about your right to be on a revolutionary left board....when the topic of this thread is apparently how abhorrent and nonrevolutionary the entirety of anarchism is based on the methods of a small section of anarchists.

If we're going to discuss PC's political positions we should do it here in relation to the subject. If you want to talk about whether or not PC should still be allowed on this site, you should bring it to the mod forum so it can be shot down again, instead of derailing a thread about politics into a thread about someone's posting style.

BIXX

26th May 2015, 17:35

That's fine, but then exactly why are you so indignant at a bunch of reformists misusing the name of a revolutionary tradition?

It would seem as you would have no reason to care about either. Or, in your words, that you haven't "signed up" for either.

Luís Henrique

It has nothing to do with misusing the name of a revolutionary tradition but the fact that I think they cause active harm.

PhoenixAsh

26th May 2015, 19:42

Another mod (Palmares) did step in, called this a witch-hunt, and said this should be brought to the mod forum instead of talked about here.

Before they were aware of the facts...and then vanished from the debate entirely.

Now...not withstanding your subjective application of rules, behavioral etiquette and when and when not to actually speak up against real and perceived transgressions...

There are several non disputable facts here:

1). OP started a thread about political legitimacy
2). OP was asked for their political legitimacy based on repeated and consistent statements in the past
3). OP referred to the MODs
4). OP is being addressed in an fashion which OP finds normal and acceptable over the last few days (and in fact over the course of their entire membership) for themselves to uphold and display.
5). OP was addressed on self expressed facts rather than conjecture and character assassination as they themselves are consistently applying to other members.

There is NO logical, reasonable and ethical argument for you to be defending OP against methods they themselves apply regularly and shielding them from the consequences of their own actions other than as I stated above: subjectively applying double standards towards members and shielding them from any and all responsibility for said actions athe nd freeing the general membership from any and all communal responsibility for addressing these issues with fellow members.

In other words...while PC is free to slander, character assassinate victim blame, accuse and call for restriction and then run away from the threads and hide behind a shameful level of double standards applied by members of the general membership while consciously using loopholes and cross mod positions...that behavior is free from public scrutiny and members should absolutely not interfere...except of course when that behavior actually has consequences and they are called out on it...in that case you should definitely shield them from the consequences because they are obviously the victim and MODs are evil and should definitely be held to a far higher standard :rolleyes:

Here is a novel idea...instead of policing the MOD who so far has not pushed the infraction or ban button...but applied the same methods YOU specifically among others personally didn't feel warranted a comment, slap, stern comment about witch hunting (or...in fact any reaction of applying a certain level of behavior at all :rolleyes:) when PC did them...should perhaps use your membership status to help maintain a civil manner of conduct among other members transgressing them...and perhaps we wouldn't have had this debate at all.

In other words...you are attacking the wrong person exclusively and only IF and WHEN that behavior is considered completely unacceptable at ALL times regardless of WHO displays it and needs to be addressed by everybody AT ALL TIMES....I reject the notion there is a legitimate argument to make that this is wrong behavior when previously you left such, and worse, behavior unchecked. So I feel no obligation to listen to anybody who subjectively wants to apply double standards and pretends to be a voice of reason while shielding somebody for far worse....and let me do my job as I see fit.

So far nobodies rights have been trampled on and the person in question is entirely confronted simply with an exact mirroring of the impact of their own behavior on people which they had NO issue with whatsoever a few days ago. Again...that can't therefore be an argument against me.

This is flatly untrue because you did make threats about restrictions here in this post:

I didn't make any threats.

I referred to the post at the start of this thread made by another user and thanked by several others which alleged that they are reactionary and therefore have no place on the forum as a legit question to be asked in a thread which OP started about the legitimacy of two entire tendencies and gave OP the opportunity, repeatedly, to clarify their position.

Subjectively bolding partial information does not alter that reality.

If we're going to discuss PC's political positions we should do it here in relation to the subject. If you want to talk about whether or not PC should still be allowed on this site, you should bring it to the mod forum so it can be shot down again, instead of derailing a thread about politics into a thread about someone's posting style.

I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that it was ever shot down in the first place other than the statement PC made about it. Nor do I understand why they say that their political position was either the sole reason or the reason at all for them being debated. And in fact I find it an interesting assertion PC makes, have openly expressed surprise at how they could make it and find it a very interesting topic for expanding upon separately.

I will not comment on issues of the Mod forum beyond that statement...and that should say enough.

RedWorker

26th May 2015, 19:45

do you realize that making massive posts like this as character attacks against particular users is pathological behavior?

Massive post? It takes 2 minutes to read it.
Are you suggesting that someone is mentally ill merely for criticizing an user's trolling behavior and politics? Now, that is unacceptable behavior.

why has nobody on the moderation team put a stop to this yet?

Why should it be put a stop to?

do you not get that placenta cream is purposefully not engaging with you people and that you've spent the better part of over 5 pages shitting all over them for no reason?

So what? It's easy to behave maliciously all the time and when others finally act on you for it play the little victim. Spend 99% of the time starting irrelevant personal fights with others based on low quality posts - frequently even one-liners - then when someone finally explains elaborately and without insults why your behavior is shit completely ignore it because "oh, I'm going to stay on topic and prove I'm the better person". If anything this only shows how double-faced and childlike the user is. We've not "shit on him" - we've made elaborate critiques of his behavior, unlike his constant trolling and attacks against other users - and obviously we have not one but several good reasons to post what we've posted.

like what the actual fuck is wrong with you that you think this is acceptable behavior in any venue, ever?

How is this not acceptable behavior?

PhoenixAsh

26th May 2015, 20:02

Boy punches girl. Tries to run away. Girl punched back. "OMG LETS PUNISH THE GIRL FOR BEING VIOLENT and focus excessively on their actions and completely ignore the other party"

BIXX

26th May 2015, 20:12

I referred to the post at the start of this thread made by another user and thanked by several others which alleged that they are reactionary and therefore have no place on the forum as a legit question to be asked in a thread which OP started about the legitimacy of two entire tendencies and gave OP the opportunity, repeatedly, to clarify their position.

I have demonstrated my position repeatedly throughout this board. It is not my fault that people have chosen to ignore my explanations over and over again, eventually leading me to realize its not worth the effort to explain my position.

I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that it was ever shot down in the first place other than the statement PC made about it. Nor do I understand why they say that their political position was either the sole reason or the reason at all for them being debated. And in fact I find it an interesting assertion PC makes, have openly expressed surprise at how they could make it and find it a very interesting topic for expanding upon separately.

I believe you are questioning how I knew about the fact that I was discussed in the mod forum because that's against the rules or some shit. Is this correct?

Boy punches girl. Tries to run away. Girl punched back. "OMG LETS PUNISH THE GIRL FOR BEING VIOLENT and focus excessively on their actions and completely ignore the other party"

Except this is a false narrative.

Invader Zim

26th May 2015, 20:16

Except this is a false narrative.

Hmm... didn't seem like that when you repeatedly tried to troll me in another thread. But whatever. I think everybody has had their say on this and we should all move on.

PhoenixAsh

26th May 2015, 20:16

I have demonstrated my position repeatedly throughout this board. It is not my fault that people have chosen to ignore my explanations over and over again, eventually leading me to realize its not worth the effort to explain my position.

Perhaps that is because you repeatedly take up different mantles and when questioned about it make platitudes.

I believe you are questioning how I knew about the fact that I was discussed in the mod forum because that's against the rules or some shit. Is this correct?

It is not directly against the rules but, aside from a specific message, against guidelines.

Except this is a false narrative.

No actually that is exactly in line with what you did, were doing and have repeatedly done as has been demonstrated...the last part did not refer to you however but to the position others are taking.

#FF0000

26th May 2015, 20:17

I didn't make any threats.

aight. i'll just leave your own words there (w/ my selective emphasis of course lol) n let folks decide for themselves.

So I feel no obligation to listen to anybody who subjectively wants to apply double standards and pretends to be a voice of reason while shielding somebody for far worsethe thing is that you do exactly that. the rules on this site have always been selectively enforced. as for all this "you" business, I'm not sure if you're talking about me in my tenure as a mod, but I always advocated for a more uniform application of forum rules and even then I preferred hands-off methods of moderating, as opposed to trying to throw my weight around and acting like an authority over them.

And all of this talk of fairness and uniform application of rules is v. rich coming from someone who was banned, unbanned and then modded by admin dictat anyway. v:mellow:v

PhoenixAsh

26th May 2015, 20:30

aight. i'll just leave your own words there (w/ my selective emphasis of course lol) n let folks decide for themselves.

Fine by me.

the thing is that you do exactly that. the rules on this site have always been selectively enforced. as for all this "you" business, I'm not sure if you're talking about me in my tenure as a mod, but I always advocated for a more uniform application of forum rules and even then I preferred hands-off methods of moderating, as opposed to trying to throw my weight around and acting like an authority over them.

I was directly referring to your absence in the other threads when it came to this behavior as a general member.

But regarding your position of hands off modding...this is ONLY possible if the forum at large takes communal responsibility to maintain a level of behavior and applies that level of behavior equally....as you should very well know....rather than what you are doing in this instance: shielding somebody from far worse than they are receiving. given your reference to your tenure you of all people should understand that that is counter productive to your stated goal.

Now obviously you have your method and I have mine. So far I am confrontational and rarely ban or infract unless on behest of BA request, as a results of BA vote or when the transgression is so very obvious that it can't be any other way. I never ban, infract or warn when I am involved in a debate with the sole exception when specifically as the result of BA vote.

And all of this talk of fairness and uniform application of rules is v. rich coming from someone who was banned, unbanned and then modded by admin dictat anyway. v:mellow:v

Small correction:

* Resigned mod-ship.
* Banned on request.
* Asked to come back.
* Refused for a couple of months.
* Un-banned after persistent requests....as have been many other users.
* And then both nominated from the general membership for mod candidacy in an open thread
* Elected in general mod nomination votes....more than a year after I had returned.

So nothing sinister here....and all openly discussed and debated at the time....save for the restrictions placed on divulging information from the previous BA forum debate that resulted in me resigning and requesting a ban. Ironically...that incident while spiraling heavily out of control and becoming hugely loaded and triggerig...was about the uniform application of rules.

LuÃs Henrique

26th May 2015, 20:42

It has nothing to do with misusing the name of a revolutionary tradition but the fact that I think they cause active harm.

But what (or whom) exactly do they harm?

Revolution? Anarchy or anarchism? The workink class? People on penal labour?

And why should we care?

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

26th May 2015, 20:47

So, because ITT I haven't critiqued those things means I don't? In fact, I do, this to me just seems like a perfect example of the kind of project I hate.

So, are you asking us to share your hate? Why would any of us do such thing?

Also, no, I have not been personally cheated by EA, however I do have issues with scott crow (victim blaming, for one).

I see. Thanks for the disclosure.

The thing is we already know NGOs are gonna be shit. But when anarchists claim to oppose this sort of this they should actually follow through with their opposition.

Else the Unified International Comittee of United Anarchism will purge them?

And do "anarchists" (in such a general and unspecified way) really claim to oppose this sort of thing? That's not the impression I get - perhaps some brands of anarchism oppose it, but other subspecies (someone mentioned "mutualism" in connection to them) don't?

Luís Henrique

blake 3:17

26th May 2015, 20:52

For everybody's sanity, the downtown recycling drop off centre that they run is closing this September. Their duplicitous attack on The Revolution has been thwarted!

http://www.ecology-action.org/blog/2015/5/1/press-release-ecology-action-to-close-its-downtown-recycling-center

PhoenixAsh

26th May 2015, 21:01

Capitalism saves the day....for the revolution once again...

BIXX

26th May 2015, 21:12

But what (or whom) exactly do they harm?

Revolution? Anarchy or anarchism? The workink class? People on penal labour?

And why should we care?

Luís Henrique

The project harms all who do not benefit from capital, by providing capital with another escape route.

I would hope you care at least for yourself, I know that (as well as my friends) is what makes me pissed when I see shit that strengthens capital.

So, are you asking us to share your hate? Why would any of us do such thing?
I'm asking for the development of ways to resist that tactically and theoretically interact with this project and ones like it as enemies who work alongside capital. So yeah I'm asking for folks to share my hate.

Else the Unified International Comittee of United Anarchism will purge them?

And do "anarchists" (in such a general and unspecified way) really claim to oppose this sort of thing? That's not the impression I get - perhaps some brands of anarchism oppose it, but other subspecies (someone mentioned "mutualism" in connection to them) don't?

Luís Henrique

It is my impression through my interactions with scott crow and what he has written that he opposes compliance with the state. Of course practically he has not followed through, but the point stands. I highly doubt the other claim to comply with the state as well- however if you called them on this they'd probably say its tactics or some other bullshit.

PhoenixAsh

26th May 2015, 21:59

The project harms all who do not benefit from capital, by providing capital with another escape route.

I would hope you care at least for yourself, I know that (as well as my friends) is what makes me pissed when I see shit that strengthens capital.

And how actually does it provide capital with another escape route and how does it strengthen capital? And does it do so on a class relevant level? Does it strengthen the bourgeoisie? How does it damage the working class more...if at all?

I'm asking for the development of ways to resist that tactically and theoretically interact with this project and ones like it as enemies who work alongside capital. So yeah I'm asking for folks to share my hate.

Why should we spend our energy on attacking workers who self manage in a capitalist economic system that limits their available options to function and remain functioning? Rather than attacking the foundations of that economic system itself? In other words...why are you specifically targeting workers and shifting attention away towards relatively nonsensical issues and why does that specifically elicit strong emotions such as hate?

It is my impression through my interactions with scott crow and what he has written that he opposes compliance with the state. Of course practically he has not followed through, but the point stands. I highly doubt the other claim to comply with the state as well- however if you called them on this they'd probably say its tactics or some other bullshit.

Well you should perhaps be a little more detailed about why he hasn't followed through and what you actually expect of him considering the fact that the guy has been under continuous FBI and Terrorist Task Force investigation over the last few decades and remained very active throughout that period.

LuÃs Henrique

26th May 2015, 22:01

The project harms all who do not benefit from capital, by providing capital with another escape route.

I think this is in a twin-enemy relation with what you are trying to criticise.

They think they are saving the world. You think they are saving capitalism.

Both you and them are under the dellusion that they are waaaaaaaay more important than they actually are, or could be.

I would hope you care at least for yourself, I know that (as well as my friends) is what makes me pissed when I see shit that strengthens capital.

Well, for me to care for myself in an anti-capitalist way, I would need to believe that a non-capitalist future is possible. Which means having at least some faith at the possibility of a revolution. And since I am not under the impression that I am The Founding Father of something, this would mean tying myself to some revolutionary tradition.

Without this, I am still not sure of why should I care.

I'm asking for the development of ways to resist that tactically and theoretically interact with this project and ones like it as enemies who work alongside capital. So yeah I'm asking for folks to share my hate.

Mkay.

But this requires that we share your analysis of this project. Which requires that you actually explain what your analysis of this project is.

In what I am involved, I don't see this project as an enemy, but as a rival. They are another manifestation of working class reformism; they should be fought against as a political line that disarms the working class in its struggle against capital. Not as an instrument of capital against us, but as a symptom of capital in our minds.

But this again requires some kind of concept of "working class" and "class struggle".

It is my impression through my interactions with scott crow and what he has written that he opposes compliance with the state. Of course practically he has not followed through, but the point stands. I highly doubt the other claim to comply with the state as well- however if you called them on this they'd probably say its tactics or some other bullshit.

Then perhaps he doesn't see his project as a compliance with the State. Or, in your words, he probably thinks that this is tactics or other bullshit. Which is probably mistaken, as I fail to see how such project will bring us closer to anything post-capitalist, be it tactically or strategically.

But you know, people believe in their fantasies; hypocrites are only the ones who don't.

On the other hand, it would be interesting to discuss how his stated beliefs about the State and resistance against the State would mislead him into thinking that running a recycling facility is a tactical step on our fight against capital and the State. I am under the impression that this, and not his crooked soul and pathological dishonesty, is the reason he defends such a bankrupt project.

Luís Henrique

Ele'ill

26th May 2015, 23:59

I can't quote atm dunno why and I have only talked about the text in the OP I haven't actually read it, but to Luis Henrique's point on this being viewed as a rival and not an enemy-

Is that simply because it is being viewed as a flawed project specifically a radical one? I can think of a handful of things although some different than this like green movements, conservation, community leader activist movements usually countering 'unrest', utilization of unions and their various initiatives, where it is all intentionally used not neccessarily by those in those positions but by power to perpetuate capitalism or at the least a status quo and sometimes/often within the movements or organizations people benefit from this too. Would you say that these are still simply rivals?

I know I am looking at this through a very different tendency lense than you but at what point do these symptoms become collaboration as a minor facet and then become a major one within the 'leviathan' that warrants conflict and action? It seems like one of the only advantages is that a lot of these things are actually in reach as opposed to the normal super complex and distant inner workings. I am not suggesting that this project warrants anything other than discussion and criticism btw

Invader Zim

27th May 2015, 00:01

Small correction:
...
* Banned on request.
* Asked to come back.
* Refused for a couple of months.
* Un-banned after persistent requests....as have been many other users.

Hey, maybe not the place to ask this (please respond by PM if you want or just tell me to mind my own business), but I always wanted to know what your reaonsing to do this way - because I remember the thread in question (in which I was intimately involved as you might recall) and the admins (as was typical in that period) were appauling, nepotistic and generally shitty, and refused to discuss the issue as I recall. So what happened? If you don't mind my asking, that is.

The Modern Prometheus

27th May 2015, 01:02

I have always found some Anarchists to be uppity. They can be pretty holier then though when it comes to what they consider a real revolutionary movement and such. That and they tend to disregard any writings or movements even by left Communists. Granted the Anarchists of today are alot different in attitude then the ones during the Spanish civil war era and before that.

BIXX

27th May 2015, 01:18

I think this is in a twin-enemy relation with what you are trying to criticise.

They think they are saving the world. You think they are saving capitalism.

Both you and them are under the dellusion that they are waaaaaaaay more important than they actually are, or could be.
I don't think this singular project is saving capitalism, rather, the whole scene/milieu/tradition from which this project hails (leftism) is developing the next steps in capital's reformation. Its not exclusively this tradition, but they are taking part in the process.

Well, for me to care for myself in an anti-capitalist way, I would need to believe that a non-capitalist future is possible. Which means having at least some faith at the possibility of a revolution. And since I am not under the impression that I am The Founding Father of something, this would mean tying myself to some revolutionary tradition.

Without this, I am still not sure of why should I care.
I don't think you need to believe a revolution is possible to oppose capital. It just means that new ways to resist that make life worth living need to be developed.

But this requires that we share your analysis of this project. Which requires that you actually explain what your analysis of this project is.
The analysis is that it simply is a next step for capital. Coops in general do this. I thought this had been explained.

In what I am involved, I don't see this project as an enemy, but as a rival. They are another manifestation of working class reformism; they should be fought against as a political line that disarms the working class in its struggle against capital. Not as an instrument of capital against us, but as a symptom of capital in our minds.
I actually agree with yiunto an extent here, regarding the fact that capital is in our minds. However I fail to see why the project can't be seen as both an instrument of capital against us and a symptom of capital in our minds.

But this again requires some kind of concept of "working class" and "class struggle".
I don't see how you got that conclusion honestly, that we need class struggle to cause us to understand why it makes sense to oppose capital in all its forms.

Then perhaps he doesn't see his project as a compliance with the State. Or, in your words, he probably thinks that this is tactics or other bullshit. Which is probably mistaken, as I fail to see how such project will bring us closer to anything post-capitalist, be it tactically or strategically.
Well furthermore judging by statements in that piece abiutbhow this project allowed them to operate ethically under capitalism I kinda doubt that at this point they wanted to oppose capitalism.

On the other hand, it would be interesting to discuss how his stated beliefs about the State and resistance against the State would mislead him into thinking that running a recycling facility is a tactical step on our fight against capital and the State. I am under the impression that this, and not his crooked soul and pathological dishonesty, is the reason he defends such a bankrupt project.

Luís Henrique

Belinskyism, I think- twisting radical logic in such a way that you can justify damn near anything.

consuming negativity

27th May 2015, 11:59

Massive post? It takes 2 minutes to read it.
Are you suggesting that someone is mentally ill merely for criticizing an user's trolling behavior and politics? Now, that is unacceptable behavior.

Why should it be put a stop to?

So what? It's easy to behave maliciously all the time and when others finally act on you for it play the little victim. Spend 99% of the time starting irrelevant personal fights with others based on low quality posts - frequently even one-liners - then when someone finally explains elaborately and without insults why your behavior is shit completely ignore it because "oh, I'm going to stay on topic and prove I'm the better person". If anything this only shows how double-faced and childlike the user is. We've not "shit on him" - we've made elaborate critiques of his behavior, unlike his constant trolling and attacks against other users - and obviously we have not one but several good reasons to post what we've posted.

How is this not acceptable behavior?

wait, so we can't point out that behavior is indicative of mental illness (which is not a bad thing, by the way), but we can go around giving unsolicited "elaborate critiques" of their behavior, accusing them of being malicious, of "playing the victim", and telling them (to others) that they're "double-faced and childlike", while derailing their thread?

this website is beyond parody

PhoenixAsh

27th May 2015, 14:51

wait, so we can't point out that behavior is indicative of mental illness (which is not a bad thing, by the way),

And yet there you were using it as a means to discredit the arguments. Not on validity or by addressing them but by attacking the supposed mental illness of the poster...tsk tsk tsk.

In your expert opinion on mental illnesses...what exactly
is the diagnosis?

but we can go around giving unsolicited "elaborate critiques" of their behavior, accusing them of being malicious, of "playing the victim", and telling them (to others) that they're "double-faced and childlike", while derailing their thread?

We all know you love to white knight and I am sure your heart is in the right place and you are acting on the best of intentions...it is just such a shame that you always seem to get involved without knowing all the facts (which is giving you the benefit of the doubt about not actually knowingly and subjectively ignoring the facts to suit your purposes) and therefore as per usual take an incredibly wrong position.

I won't drag up old cases...but what you seem to ignore here is that:

- at the same time as crying foul over being addressed about their own words the user in question was bussy slandering and character assassinating and derailing dicussons and calling for restriction and/or bans in another thread.
- Rather than applying their own words: taking it up with a mod they felt themselves exempt from that...at the very same time they were hiding behind the argument themselves.
- The user themselve opened up the debate by starting a topic on revolutionary legitimacy in which they all edged contrary to their previous statements to belong to a tendency to explicitly incite indignation against that tendency
- The user themselves asked for mod involvement.
- The original post I made on topic of this thread in this thread was reacted to... making it very legitimate to expand upon.
- Everything I posted was in line with the topic of legitimacy and as such can't be considered derailing the thread.
- Everything posted is based on the user's own words and intentional obfuscation (as admitted) of their position and/or a reply to replies.

But I am not harboring any illusions that any of that matters to you...nor that you understand what is actually happening or are even willing to attempt to understand what is actually happening... nor that you will ever apply your position equally...rather I think you are taking a position to score Internet points and pick sides regardless of facts. Correct me if I am wrong and I am certainly open for you showing otherwise ... but I am not holding my breath for it.

this website is beyond parody

Maybe that is because of what I outlined to #ff and in previous posts of people functioning as shields for people who continuously antagonize, fling shit and then try to put on an innocent face...while subjectively applying double standards.

LuÃs Henrique

27th May 2015, 15:13

I can't quote atm dunno why and I have only talked about the text in the OP I haven't actually read it, but to Luis Henrique's point on this being viewed as a rival and not an enemy-

Is that simply because it is being viewed as a flawed project specifically a radical one? I can think of a handful of things although some different than this like green movements, conservation, community leader activist movements usually countering 'unrest', utilization of unions and their various initiatives, where it is all intentionally used not neccessarily by those in those positions but by power to perpetuate capitalism or at the least a status quo and sometimes/often within the movements or organizations people benefit from this too. Would you say that these are still simply rivals?

Probably.

I know I am looking at this through a very different tendency lense than you but at what point do these symptoms become collaboration as a minor facet and then become a major one within the 'leviathan' that warrants conflict and action? It seems like one of the only advantages is that a lot of these things are actually in reach as opposed to the normal super complex and distant inner workings. I am not suggesting that this project warrants anything other than discussion and criticism btw

I would say that if does not warrant anything other than discussion and criticism, then it is a rival, not an enemy.

And I do think that Scott Crow and Co. are too irrelevant a phenomenon for me to worry about them, or waste my time "hating" them.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

27th May 2015, 15:32

I don't think this singular project is saving capitalism, rather, the whole scene/milieu/tradition from which this project hails (leftism) is developing the next steps in capital's reformation. Its not exclusively this tradition, but they are taking part in the process.

So you want us, leftists, to hate this particular project because... it is part of leftism.

I am not sure whether you fell into a contradiction, or whether you were trying to trap us into one, but yes, the result is funny.

I don't think you need to believe a revolution is possible to oppose capital. It just means that new ways to resist that make life worth living need to be developed.

Well, defeating capitalism is a revolution by definition. Unless you want to oppose it without defeating it, which I would say it is what Scott Crow is probably trying to do.

The analysis is that it simply is a next step for capital. Coops in general do this. I thought this had been explained.

Coops are a next step for capital?

I don't believe in this. I do think coops are entirely compatible with capital and capitalist rule, but if capital can chose its future, that won't be coops.

I actually agree with yiunto an extent here, regarding the fact that capital is in our minds. However I fail to see why the project can't be seen as both an instrument of capital against us and a symptom of capital in our minds.

It could be both things, I guess - but I very much doubt it is the former. It is - it was, it would seem - a botched attempt at resistence.

I don't see how you got that conclusion honestly, that we need class struggle to cause us to understand why it makes sense to oppose capital in all its forms.

Perhaps we don't need class struggle, but we do need some actual perspective. If there is no social force that can defeat capital, then capital is undefeatable, and if capital is undefeatable, then it is useless to fight it at all. Well, perhaps it would make sence to fight it in a mere defensive way, but anyway we wold lack any measure of effectiveness of our efforts. If all we can do is to resist capital with no hopes of destroying it, then Scott Crow's coop is as good or as bad as the RCP or the Labour Party.

Well furthermore judging by statements in that piece abiutbhow this project allowed them to operate ethically under capitalism I kinda doubt that at this point they wanted to oppose capitalism.

My mind reading machine is broken, so I cannot actually know what they want. But does it matter? Suppose they fervently want to oppose capitalism, and that they are under the impression that they will do that by recycling garbage, or by spreading Bob Avakian's word (not that there is any metaphysical difference between these things) - what good does their earnest resolve to fight capitalism do, if they have elected unidoneous methods?

Is it impossible to operate ethically under capitalism?

Belinskyism, I think- twisting radical logic in such a way that you can justify damn near anything.

Who is Belinsky?

Of course, you can "justify" pretty much damn anything, from inaction to psychopathic crime. But in order to dispell such reasonings as misjustifications of the unjustifiable, what kind of external standard do you oppose to them? If I think that running a recycling facility, or that being totally inactive, or that flying a plane through a commercial building isn't the best course of action, what do I have to propose, instead of those?

Luís Henrique

BIXX

27th May 2015, 18:08

And I do think that Scott Crow and Co. are too irrelevant a phenomenon for me to worry about them, or waste my time "hating" them.

Luís Henrique

I only hate them I'm relation to my hatred of capital.

So you want us, leftists, to hate this particular project because... it is part of leftism.

I am not sure whether you fell into a contradiction, or whether you were trying to trap us into one, but yes, the result is funny.
I wasn't trying to trap anyone. My problem is I find leftism ineffective and oftentimes harmful. I would hope that there are people here who see that.

Well, defeating capitalism is a revolution by definition. Unless you want to oppose it without defeating it, which I would say it is what Scott Crow is probably trying to do.
This is a misinterpretation of what I said. You don't need to believe you can, that isn't a reason not to try. I want to defeat capital, but I doubt its actually possibility.

Coops are a next step for capital?

I don't believe in this. I do think coops are entirely compatible with capital and capitalist rule, but if capital can chose its future, that won't be coops.
A next step. Not the next step. The fact is that capital will take any route necessary to survive. Coops surely will be one of its many routes.

It could be both things, I guess - but I very much doubt it is the former. It is - it was, it would seem - a botched attempt at resistence.
You still haven't demonstrated why a bothced attempt at resistance can be a tool of capital against us and a symptom of capital in our minds. Again, I think they are all compatible.

Perhaps we don't need class struggle, but we do need some actual perspective. If there is no social force that can defeat capital, then capital is undefeatable, and if capital is undefeatable, then it is useless to fight it at all. Well, perhaps it would make sence to fight it in a mere defensive way, but anyway we wold lack any measure of effectiveness of our efforts. If all we can do is to resist capital with no hopes of destroying it, then Scott Crow's coop is as good or as bad as the RCP or the Labour Party.
I think the problem is social forces that can be assimilated or recuperated.

My mind reading machine is broken, so I cannot actually know what they want. But does it matter? Suppose they fervently want to oppose capitalism, and that they are under the impression that they will do that by recycling garbage, or by spreading Bob Avakian's word (not that there is any metaphysical difference between these things) - what good does their earnest resolve to fight capitalism do, if they have elected unidoneous methods?
I suppose what they want only matters inasmuch as someone who wants other things might try to work with them.

Is it impossible to operate ethically under capitalism?
I would argue that the answer is no, but that it doesn't really matter whether it is of not- I oppose it on the basis of its harm to my friends and myself.

Who is Belinsky?
He and Bakunin had debates about rationality and reality meant. Belinsky ended up using it to justify working in the tsarist army (I can't remember the story in such detail, crimethinc will help you there).

Of course, you can "justify" pretty much damn anything, from inaction to psychopathic crime. But in order to dispell such reasonings as misjustifications of the unjustifiable, what kind of external standard do you oppose to them? If I think that running a recycling facility, or that being totally inactive, or that flying a plane through a commercial building isn't the best course of action, what do I have to propose, instead of those?

Luís Henrique
I don't think you really need to be able to offer an alternative to oppose one situation or action. For example, if you don't know what 2+2 is, but you're positive it isn't 5, you can still say "no that ain't right".

LuÃs Henrique

27th May 2015, 19:01

My problem is I find leftism ineffective and oftentimes harmful. I would hope that there are people here who see that.

I doubt very much that we don't realise that. At least in relation to the leftism of others. The problem however is that "leftism" is probably a too broad concept. Scott Crow's coop is leftist, and so are or were the EZLN, the CWI, the TUSC, Syriza and the KKE, the CNT/FAI, the IRA, the PFLP, the CPUSA and the CPSU.

It is difficult to blame leftism because it is not too probable that two of these organisations would agree on anything. So it would be necessary to point out what they actually have in common, that makes them both mistaken and leftist, in order to illuminate us on your point.

This is a misinterpretation of what I said. You don't need to believe you can, that isn't a reason not to try. I want to defeat capital, but I doubt its actually possibility.

I must disagree. If it is impossible, that is a reason not to try; and if I am not sure whether it is possible or not, I will try to make myself sure that it is, before staking my life at the possibility.

A next step. Not the next step. The fact is that capital will take any route necessary to survive. Coops surely will be one of its many routes.

I am not so sure that they will be one of those routes, much on the contrary. I think it is by far more probable that the capitalist States will try to ban coops - and that anyway they will be destroyed by capitalist competition, as they usually are small companies.

You still haven't demonstrated why a bothced attempt at resistance can be a tool of capital against us and a symptom of capital in our minds. Again, I think they are all compatible.

Yeah, I don't think that something can't be both. I merely doubt that it is the case of the coop under debate. If capital was counting so much on it as a weapon or tool against us, it would take greater care not to destroy it in competition.

I think the problem is social forces that can be assimilated or recuperated.

Well, everything can be assimilated or recuperated, and to an extent, everything is going to.

There are no exceptions, and attempts to rely on pure "hate" or voluntarism at large are as prone to be recuperated or assimilated as anything else.

I suppose what they want only matters inasmuch as someone who wants other things might try to work with them.

Then I don't see much of the point. It isn't likely that such intiatives will raise too much enthusiasm except among those already inclined to lifestylism.

I would argue that the answer is no, but that it doesn't really matter whether it is of not- I oppose it on the basis of its harm to my friends and myself.

So?

If it is not possible to operate ethically under capitalism, then Scott Crow is wrong, and trying to do something impossible. But so are you, or how can you keep your small fraternity from selling each others to the system, if it is impossible to be ethical under capitalism?

He and Bakunin had debates about rationality and reality meant. Belinsky ended up using it to justify working in the tsarist army (I can't remember the story in such detail, crimethinc will help you there).

Still, who is Belinsky? Vissarion Grigorievitch Belisnky?

What exactly does "working in the tsarist army" mean? Working for it, or working against it from the inside? Or do you believe the latter is impossible and necessarily a cover up for the former?

I don't think you really need to be able to offer an alternative to oppose one situation or action. For example, if you don't know what 2+2 is, but you're positive it isn't 5, you can still say "no that ain't right".

Maybe, but it carries way less authority.

Luís Henrique

BIXX

27th May 2015, 20:46

I doubt very much that we don't realise that. At least in relation to the leftism of others. The problem however is that "leftism" is probably a too broad concept. Scott Crow's coop is leftist, and so are or were the EZLN, the CWI, the TUSC, Syriza and the KKE, the CNT/FAI, the IRA, the PFLP, the CPUSA and the CPSU.

It is difficult to blame leftism because it is not too probable that two of these organisations would agree on anything. So it would be necessary to point out what they actually have in common, that makes them both mistaken and leftist, in order to illuminate us on your point.

I must disagree. If it is impossible, that is a reason not to try; and if I am not sure whether it is possible or not, I will try to make myself sure that it is, before staking my life at the possibility.

I am not so sure that they will be one of those routes, much on the contrary. I think it is by far more probable that the capitalist States will try to ban coops - and that anyway they will be destroyed by capitalist competition, as they usually are small companies.

Yeah, I don't think that something can't be both. I merely doubt that it is the case of the coop under debate. If capital was counting so much on it as a weapon or tool against us, it would take greater care not to destroy it in competition.

Well, everything can be assimilated or recuperated, and to an extent, everything is going to.

There are no exceptions, and attempts to rely on pure "hate" or voluntarism at large are as prone to be recuperated or assimilated as anything else.

Then I don't see much of the point. It isn't likely that such intiatives will raise too much enthusiasm except among those already inclined to lifestylism.

So?

If it is not possible to operate ethically under capitalism, then Scott Crow is wrong, and trying to do something impossible. But so are you, or how can you keep your small fraternity from selling each others to the system, if it is impossible to be ethical under capitalism?

Still, who is Belinsky? Vissarion Grigorievitch Belisnky?

What exactly does "working in the tsarist army" mean? Working for it, or working against it from the inside? Or do you believe the latter is impossible and necessarily a cover up for the former?

Maybe, but it carries way less authority.

Luís Henrique

I will respond to this whole thing later, but I just want to say that I believe part of what is preventing us from understanding each other is that when two tendencies discuss a topic, there has to be a certain ideological common ground from which to build the rest of the discussion- its like how its nearly impossible to discuss shit (in any useful way) with liberals or right wingers or any of that because there is no common ground for discussion. I think that is what is going on here. We start from such massively different positions that it prevents us from ever reaching a point where we can properly understand each other, let alone ever come to full agreement. This isn't really a judgment on you but on the realistic ability for us to have a discussion that leads to anything other than ridicule or confusion.

BIXX

27th May 2015, 21:51

- at the same time as crying foul over being addressed about their own words the user in question was bussy slandering and character assassinating and derailing dicussons and calling for restriction and/or bans in another thread.

Stopped reading here because you're a liar. That is not the case. I explained my actions, about how I didn't think explaining to you why the position you take is misogynist would work because users in the past had tried, and you refuse to try to listen. I never called for restrictions. I just feel that maybe we should be allowed to collectively put you on ignore or something (maybe every thread dealing with women's issues automatically edits out your replies for anyone but you and your supporters? That'd make everyone happy. Wed practically be on different forums.)

If you demonstrated that you'd be willing to actually listen to someone when they explain to you why you're a misogynist but until then I'm not gonna bother because the result is always, always, you trying to bully people into submission.

The Modern Prometheus

27th May 2015, 22:19

I will respond to this whole thing later, but I just want to say that I believe part of what is preventing us from understanding each other is that when two tendencies discuss a topic, there has to be a certain ideological common ground from which to build the rest of the discussion- its like how its nearly impossible to discuss shit (in any useful way) with liberals or right wingers or any of that because there is no common ground for discussion. I think that is what is going on here. We start from such massively different positions that it prevents us from ever reaching a point where we can properly understand each other, let alone ever come to full agreement. This isn't really a judgment on you but on the realistic ability for us to have a discussion that leads to anything other than ridicule or confusion.

This is one problem i find with some (by no means all) Anarchists. I wouldn't lump them all together by all means but i generally find more of them to be harder to have a conversation with then most tendencies of Marxism. I just consider myself to be a Marxist really and although i agree with what much of Lenin wrote and did i wouldn't call myself a Marxist-Leninist as i don't like pigeonholing myself into just one branch of Marxism. I would also be somewhat of a Marxist-Humanist as well i guess. Some Anarchists can be hard to meet on common ground with even though Marxists and Anarcho-Communists are fighting for the same thing in the end. We just have different ways in which we want to go about it. I have read much of what Kropotkin wrote and i prefer him over Bakunin who although had some points didn't have the best framework on how to build a revolution in my opinion atleast.

I think Marxists and Anarchists can coexist so as to be a less splintered far left or atleast that is what i would like to see. In today's world with all the Liberals, Conservatives and the further right wing nutters it would be a good idea to focus on our common goals for a Communist society as opposed to always focusing on our differences.

I was for a brief time a Anarchist Communist but i quickly found out that i clashed with most Anarchists on some ideas such as National Liberation among others so i just call myself a Marxist these days.

BIXX

27th May 2015, 22:39

Well to be fair I don't consider myself an anarchist. There is, I have observed, a difference between trying to achieve anarchy and being an anarchist.
I feel the modern currents of communism (communisation) would be a more accurate representation of what anarcho-communism should be (it just makes more sense). I do share a lot of common ground with some modern currents of communism and anarchism but not enough for me to really call myself either of them.

Ele'ill

27th May 2015, 23:22

Probably.

I would say that if does not warrant anything other than discussion and criticism, then it is a rival, not an enemy.

When do you think it crosses over the line and what types of things do it? I know you may have mentioned it earlier but I don't think I can pull off a reread of this thread quite yet.

And I do think that Scott Crow and Co. are too irrelevant a phenomenon for me to worry about them, or waste my time "hating" them.

Luís Henrique

I personally agree with that in regards to this specific example mainly because there are so many mini groups/projects that last a short period of time if at all but when organizations, movements, projects take off, I think it's sometimes alright to watch and respond. I also don't like that though because I feel like I am giving it relevance.

Decolonize The Left

31st May 2015, 22:58

The project harms all who do not benefit from capital, by providing capital with another escape route.

NB: I did not read the 7 pages of comments, but I did read the OP link.

I think your claim here is half correct. Capital gets another escape route insofar as capital is a social production relation (accumulated labor vis-a-vis wage labor) but not insofar as capital is the function of surplus value.

The former is the case as cooperatives, non-profits, etc... still operate under the capitalist social production relation, which is to say that wage labor still confronts accumulated labor as alien. But the latter is also the case in that the production of surplus value is pulled out of circulation by directing it back into the hands of the workers.

So it's not all totally fucked. I think the real question is only this: would you rather work for the cooperative or for XYZ major recycling corporation? As a worker you need to follow your class interest which is obviously the cooperative given the limited options. Hence I think it's one thing to critique a cooperative for maintaining capitalist social production relations; it's another to do so without a viable alternative. What we mean by "viable alternative" is obviously an open and tendentious point and is probably the crux of the whole thing...

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

1st June 2015, 19:25

The former is the case as cooperatives, non-profits, etc... still operate under the capitalist social production relation, which is to say that wage labor still confronts accumulated labor as alien. But the latter is also the case in that the production of surplus value is pulled out of circulation by directing it back into the hands of the workers.

Well, that's the point, it isn't. The cooperative still exists on the market, and the owners of the cooperative have to keep the business competitive, which means directing funds from personal consumption to expansion of the business. That the owners are the same people as the workers being exploited is besides the point.

So it's not all totally fucked. I think the real question is only this: would you rather work for the cooperative or for XYZ major recycling corporation?

The major corporation, without a thought. I've seen enough eco-friendly trendy small businesses squeeze people dry to work for them.

Decolonize The Left

2nd June 2015, 01:05

Well, that's the point, it isn't. The cooperative still exists on the market, and the owners of the cooperative have to keep the business competitive, which means directing funds from personal consumption to expansion of the business. That the owners are the same people as the workers being exploited is besides the point.

"Directing funds from personal consumption to expansion of the business"? You mean that instead of raising wages/salaries to consume all profits, cooperatives have to put money back into the business itself? Well, that's a pretty obvious and unenlightened point as if the former happened the business would collapse (how would they repair a water heater, roof, or replace a door?). In fact, Marxists have terms for these and they're called constant capital vs. variable capital.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

2nd June 2015, 01:09

"Directing funds from personal consumption to expansion of the business"? You mean that instead of raising wages/salaries to consume all profits, cooperatives have to put money back into the business itself? Well, that's a pretty obvious and unenlightened point as if the former happened the business would collapse (how would they repair a water heater, roof, or replace a door?). In fact, Marxists have terms for these and they're called constant capital vs. variable capital.

This "obvious and unenlightened point" means that the surplus value extracted is not "directed back into the hands of the workers", and it's not "pulled out of circulation" as you alleged. In fact the capital of the cooperative is used in the only way in which capital can be productively used in the capitalist society, to drive the M-C-M' cycle. Nowhere does the surplus value extracted accrue to workers.

oneday

2nd June 2015, 03:05

This "obvious and unenlightened point" means that the surplus value extracted is not "directed back into the hands of the workers", and it's not "pulled out of circulation" as you alleged. In fact the capital of the cooperative is used in the only way in which capital can be productively used in the capitalist society, to drive the M-C-M' cycle. Nowhere does the surplus value extracted accrue to workers.

Though surely there is some benefit in that the workers will most likely elect for a more equitable distribution of wages than the standard arrangement where the CEO gets 400:1 the average worker. I have read that large cooperatives limit it to 8:1. They can also democratically decide how to invest the surplus vs a standard corporation where the board does so, and certainly not always in the workers interest.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

2nd June 2015, 03:16

Though surely there is some benefit in that the workers will most likely elect for a more equitable distribution of wages than the standard arrangement where the CEO gets 400:1 the average worker. I have read that large cooperatives limit it to 8:1. They can also democratically decide how to invest the surplus vs a standard corporation where the board does so, and certainly not always in the workers interest.

The workers' interest as workers is to be paid as much as possible. But the interest of the company is for the workers to be paid as little as possible. And if that doesn't happen, a small company will be ejected from the market. Large companies are actually more likely to give their workers a raise, because they can afford it. Cooperatives are usually small businesses that have to bleed their workers dry, even though these workers are the same physical persons as the owners. (Exploitation does not arise out of individual greed but out of the logic of the market.)

I also don't think workplace democracy means anything as long as capitalist relations of production are still in place. It just means people voting on how they are going to squeeze surplus value out of themselves (and if they vote wrong they go bankrupt).

oneday

2nd June 2015, 03:42

The workers' interest as workers is to be paid as much as possible. But the interest of the company is for the workers to be paid as little as possible. And if that doesn't happen, a small company will be ejected from the market. Large companies are actually more likely to give their workers a raise, because they can afford it. Cooperatives are usually small businesses that have to bleed their workers dry, even though these workers are the same physical persons as the owners. (Exploitation does not arise out of individual greed but out of the logic of the market.)

I also don't think workplace democracy means anything as long as capitalist relations of production are still in place. It just means people voting on how they are going to squeeze surplus value out of themselves (and if they vote wrong they go bankrupt).

Understood, but you are glossing over the very large disparities in pay that happen in normal corporations. The pay of the upper management is part of the wages, not the surplus.

For small cooperatives that are in competition with other small businesses, I don't see how it could be worse than working in a company of similar size. There are also large cooperatives in existence as well.

I'm not under any illusions that it's some transcendence of capital to work in a cooperative, but I see it as a sort of social welfare for workers. I also don't see it as 'the enemy', as others in the thread have claimed, cooperatives will probably remain on the fringe and unimportant in the larger scheme as they always have been. The idea that working in cooperatives is a relief valve for capital doesn't make sense to me.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

2nd June 2015, 04:13

Understood, but you are glossing over the very large disparities in pay that happen in normal corporations. The pay of the upper management is part of the wages, not the surplus.

I don't think I am glossing over these disparities, they just aren't that relevant to the issue of cooperatives. After all, if the worker barely has enough money to cover their bills, it is all the same to them if their manager makes eight or four hundred times as much money as they do (plus proceeds from ownership in most cases).

And large companies can afford to pay their proletarian workers more, as well. In fact that is often the least painful option for them, economically, when it comes to quelling labour discontent.

For small cooperatives that are in competition with other small businesses, I don't see how it could be worse than working in a company of similar size. There are also large cooperatives in existence as well.

But these large cooperatives are only able to be large by restricting their ownership to a small group of workers and ruthlessly exploiting neocolonial labour. In effect they are joint stock companies whose owners take on a somewhat more active role.

And I agree that, in general, a cooperative is just as good for workers as any other small business. But people don't generally sing the praises of small businesses.

Well most people don't at any rate.

I'm not under any illusions that it's some transcendence of capital to work in a cooperative, but I see it as a sort of social welfare for workers. I also don't see it as 'the enemy', as others in the thread have claimed, cooperatives will probably remain on the fringe and unimportant in the larger scheme as they always have been. The idea that working in cooperatives is a relief valve for capital doesn't make sense to me.

I don't think cooperatives are "the enemy" in any special way - they are the enemy inasmuch as they are capitalist enterprises, nothing more, nothing less. But at the same time, the bourgeoisie has achieved some astonishing feats of recuperation through cooperatives - as in Argentina for example, where cooperatives took over for the failing bourgeoisie and kept labour productivity and the GDP high, enabling more traditional bourgeois formations to sweep in and continue with business as usual after the crisis had passed.

BIXX

2nd June 2015, 05:20

870 why are we agreeing on things
Are u OK
Are you high

But seriously I just wanna say thanks for providing some more concrete examples to what I was talking about earlier.

oneday

2nd June 2015, 12:36

I don't think I am glossing over these disparities, they just aren't that relevant to the issue of cooperatives. After all, if the worker barely has enough money to cover their bills, it is all the same to them if their manager makes eight or four hundred times as much money as they do (plus proceeds from ownership in most cases).

It matters if the manager makes eight or four hundred times as much money as they do, because the portion going to four hundred times can be redistributed to the rest of the workers. Then they will have more towards paying their bills.

I don't think cooperatives are "the enemy" in any special way - they are the enemy inasmuch as they are capitalist enterprises, nothing more, nothing less. But at the same time, the bourgeoisie has achieved some astonishing feats of recuperation through cooperatives - as in Argentina for example, where cooperatives took over for the failing bourgeoisie and kept labour productivity and the GDP high, enabling more traditional bourgeois formations to sweep in and continue with business as usual after the crisis had passed.

Can you provide links for bourgeois sweeping in afterwards in Argentina? Not saying it didn't happen, but I can't find anything on that part of the story. Most of what I see is that the occupation of their factories and turn to coops prevented the workers from dying or becoming cardboard scavengers digging through garbage.

cyu

2nd June 2015, 14:13

I think what XXB is getting at, is that anarchism isn't just getting rid of government, then everybody kills each other. Democracy isn't just everybody voting on which weapons and strategies to use when attacking other nations. If it's a world of war, everyone still loses. Similarly with companies - if they are still "at war" with one another post-revolution, everyone still loses.

LuÃs Henrique

2nd June 2015, 17:28

870 why are we agreeing on things
Are u OK
Are you high

In any theorethical discussion about coops, you will be "agreed with" by most people on the M-side of the M-A divide - it is in the A side that there is going to be more dissent.

That's not to say that we disbelieve in the "coop way to socialism" in the same way, or for the same reasons that you do; but pro-coop Marxists are not a common sight anywhere (and even the few ones that might be so called tend to reject the identification between coops and "socialism", and to attribute a tactical - rather than strategic - role to coops).

Luís Henrique

PhoenixAsh

2nd June 2015, 18:29

Yes...All this about coops is nice and true. But that still does not clarify why the coops should be met with specifically directed hatred or viewed as worse than capitalism in its entirety.

The arguments also do not address a previous point that was made about the primacy of capitalism and what the alternatives are within a capitalist system.

Another point isn't addressed either. Seeking alternatives within the current possibilities...isn't a system of direct involvement, self management and non hierarchocal or slim hierarchical means of organization and actual advantage over traditional employment? And if that is the case...then why should it be met with specific hatred and dissent?

Nor have we dealt with the fact that in OPs article the coop is actually presented as an alternative within capitalism rather than an alternative for capitalism.

PhoenixAsh

2nd June 2015, 18:32

@Xhar-Xhar

The interest of the worker is indeed to get paid more. That is however offset by the equal interest of having long term stable income. That would lead to the reality that within an economic context where pay is involved in order to survive the interest of the worker is to get as much income as possible. To this can be added..." while offering the largest possible amount of freedom and influence over their own situation".

Basically this means that the interests of the worker lies in dissolving capitalism...but barring that...The short term interest are as above.

LuÃs Henrique

11th June 2015, 18:36

Yes...All this about coops is nice and true. But that still does not clarify why the coops should be met with specifically directed hatred or viewed as worse than capitalism in its entirety.

Perhaps it has to do with what the Islamic fundamentalists call "close" enemy. The capitalist company is the "far away enemy", that is taken for granted; the coop is the "close enemy" that must be destroyed first, to ensure unity against the final enemy.

The arguments also do not address a previous point that was made about the primacy of capitalism and what the alternatives are within a capitalist system.

If we depart from a bogus standpoint - that the confrontation is between "capital" and "me and my friends" it is difficult to draw any valid conclusions, much less a coherent strategy.

Another point isn't addressed either. Seeking alternatives within the current possibilities...isn't a system of direct involvement, self management and non hierarchocal or slim hierarchical means of organization and actual advantage over traditional employment? And if that is the case...then why should it be met with specific hatred and dissent?

I think that the "self-management" and "non-hierarchical" aspects of the initiative are delusional. If the coop is to effectively compete within the market, it will be firmly pressed into evolving a hierarchy; the supposedly technical aspects of management will be quickly superceded by political functions, and the democratical processes of election of officers will be eroded and replaced by cooptative processes and the formation of a nomenklatura.

The above seems to me valid in all cases of workers' self-management of market-oriented enterprises in a capitalist society, even in those cases where the self-management is the result of class struggle (for instance, where the bosses attempt to dismantle the company in order to sell it for scrap, and the workers occupy the factory in order to retain their jobs). But it seems more evident in coops started from scratch, in the hopes of circumventing capitalist exploitation.

In that precise sence (and in no other one), a hippie commune is a more sound initiative, in that it at least attempts to elude the whole market problem through self-sufficiency.

Nor have we dealt with the fact that in OPs article the coop is actually presented as an alternative within capitalism rather than an alternative for capitalism.

This makes it more realistic, of course; but in my opinion, any "alternative within capitalism" must relate very strongly to class struggle, or it won't be much of an alternative in any case. I am not sure that we have explored all data about how this initiative was related, or intended to be related, to class struggle. If it was providing jobs for black-listed activists, for instance, it would deserve more respect from revolutionaries.

But the whole issue very much sounds as people that are at a loss complaining about other people who are at a loss for being at a loss.

Luís Henrique