Yo, Anarchist! [Archive]

Elect Marx

16th August 2005, 05:43

Originally posted by Clarksist+Aug 15 2005, 08:17 PM--> (Clarksist @ Aug 15 2005, 08:17 PM) The state is basically the machinery created to oppress.

In current capitalism, the state is created to oppress the proletariat. Policemen, military, bureacracy, etc. is all created as a way to force the proletariat down. [/b]
Under the system of class oppression, I agree but I don't really see the issue as "state = bad"; I am not so sure it is really that black and white.

Who knows what you mean
state (st³t) n. Abbr. st. 1. A condition or mode of being, as with regard to circumstances. 2. A condition of being in a stage or form, as of structure, growth, or development. 3. A mental or emotional condition. 4. Informal. A condition of excitement or distress. 5. Physics. The condition of a physical system with regard to phase, form, composition, or structure. 6. Social position or rank. 7. Ceremony; pomp. Starting here->8.a. The supreme public power within a sovereign political entity. b. The sphere of supreme civil power within a given polity. 9. A specific mode of government. 10. A body politic, especially one constituting a nation. 11. One of the more or less internally autonomous territorial and political units composing a federation under a sovereign government. --state adj. 1. Of or relating to a body politic or to an internally autonomous territorial or political unit constituting a federation under one government.

Basically, when I talk about the state, I am referring to the institutions that sustain a system of governing.
Any more, I avoid using "the state" for the most part in political discussion when possible because people get confused and this tends to dodge the core issues we need to address.
"Abolish the state," may make for a nice mantra but there is very little concrete action associated with it and "the state" too often seems like a target of convenience that while often valid, tends to block further analysis.

Under Anarchism, the idea is for no one to be oppressed by the government, and for complete democracy to take hold. In this way, no one is being oppressed and there is thus, no state.

You seem to be reducing the state to the presence of oppression and the absence of democracy; that doesn't seem to really cover the definition.

From that, people have included all sorts of additions to their form of anarchism.

Do you mean the concept of a classless society or the method of political action?

Anarchists simply want a revolution and a straight jump to Communism, without an industrializing socialist midsection.

That seems to be the historical development of that ideology but I don't really see the inherent implementation of the "jump" in the anarchist model.

JazzRemington

16th August 2005, 06:31

Anarchists aren't necessarily against government. Government is simply how people either govern themselves or are governed. The State (i.e. external government, a thing which governs) is not wanted because it simply oppresses people.

But what is the State then? Put in simple terms: a State is an institution that has the supreme and ultimate monopoly on force over a given area or people.

As for laws, it depends. Laws such as those of science and/or nature, we have nothing against. But laws that are inacted upon us without our consent by a third party is something to be resisted. There are laws that some types of anarchists want, mainly ones that are agreed upon by contract or free agreement, such as Individualist anarchists.

Clarksist

16th August 2005, 06:52

Under the system of class oppression, I agree but I don't really see the issue as "state = bad"; I am not so sure it is really that black and white.

Neither do I, I was simply explaining the most common Anarchist position.

"Abolish the state," may make for a nice mantra but there is very little concrete action associated with it and "the state" too often seems like a target of convenience that while often valid, tends to block further analysis.

The saying "Smash the state" or any variations upon that statement has actually been detrimental to the Anarchist cause, as they catch far too much undeserved flak for that statement.

It is easy to wrap yourself up in it, but it just isn't useful anymore. As the "state" has convieniently told us that the State is... what it isn't.

You seem to be reducing the state to the presence of oppression and the absence of democracy; that doesn't seem to really cover the definition.

I am simply relegating the explanation to the most common Anarchist thread of ideal.

Almost all Anarchists would agree that the State is, a bureacratic oppressive force which is there to spread class antagonism.

Now many Anarchists go out from there, I am simply explaining the common Anarchist ideal.

Do you mean the concept of a classless society or the method of political action?

Both. There are a ridiculous number of "anarchos" floating around. However, they almost all have a similar base of their beliefs.

Anarchists aren't necessarily against government. Government is simply how people either govern themselves or are governed. The State (i.e. external government, a thing which governs) is not wanted because it simply oppresses people.

Exactly, the State is only the State when there is a Government made up of bureacracies.

Mutual Aid by Peter Kropotkin made the base of the claim that evolutionary wise, all throughout his zoologist studies he found altruism to be the defining survival trait.

You can read Mutual Aid at www.Marxist.org.

Nothing Human Is Alien

16th August 2005, 07:52

As you'll find with your inquiry, anarchists have yet (after all these years), come up with even a basic platform that they can rally around. This has historically been one of their biggest (theoretical) problems.

Elect Marx

16th August 2005, 07:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 12:10 AM

Under the system of class oppression, I agree but I don't really see the issue as "state = bad"; I am not so sure it is really that black and white.

Neither do I, I was simply explaining the most common Anarchist position.

...

Do you mean the concept of a classless society or the method of political action?

Both. There are a ridiculous number of "anarchos" floating around. However, they almost all have a similar base of their beliefs.
Dammit... you make it difficult to respond when you agree with me so much :P :hammer:

saint max

16th August 2005, 08:10

Wow you so-called anarchists are the most leftist politicians in waiting I have ever seen. Granted, anarchy is a very incoherent and diverse politics and anti-politics, but you kids is ridiculous. Perhaps an ideological 'anarchism' does'nt reject Law or Morality, but that is one of its downfalls.

Anarchists aren't necessarily against government. Government is simply how people either govern themselves or are governed.

An anarchist society would be free from political constraints, not moral constraints.

Almost all will say yes, there will be laws.

Yall sound like a bunch of fucking social-dem liberals.

It's one thing to argue causation, and another to argue morality and Law and "justice."

Put down the Chomsky for minute.

Anarchy is the negation of all systems of oppression, the more complex social order got, the more our negation has to as well. Stop diggin up graves, and vomiting the 1890s. Anarchy needs rebellion, not a fucking platform, or a PR campaign to make it pretty.

-max

Nothing Human Is Alien

16th August 2005, 08:18

Originally posted by saint [email protected] 16 2005, 07:28 AM
Anarchy needs rebellion, not a fucking platform, or a PR campaign to make it pretty.

Ah yes, that's why it's worked so well in the past!

saint max

16th August 2005, 09:06

max: Anarchy needs rebellion, not a fucking platform, or a PR campaign to make it pretty.

comp: Ah yes, that's why it's worked so well in the past!

Are you really using the 'anarchy has never worked so it never will" card? might as well make fun of primitivism.com. Serriously I don't see any "workers-utopias" through out any small bit of history (besides the anarchist/anti-state communist influences). At least anarchists can claim pre-history. Remember primitive-communism? thats us, sucka.

We could go down the list of Leftisms abject failures, if you wanted to?

-max

Nothing Human Is Alien

16th August 2005, 09:38

Without at least some basic principles that a majority can agree on the chances of success are very minimal indeed (not withstanding the utopian "smash the state" insta-paradise idea).

ARE YOU denying the accomplishments (though it goes without saying there have been many failures) of the workers movement?

How ironic that you claim primitive-communism (communalism) as your own, since it was the first stage of human society you are openly admitting you advicate reaction! And no, I don't "remember" it, that stage was sometime before I came into being.

Elect Marx

16th August 2005, 09:57

Originally posted by saint [email protected] 16 2005, 01:28 AM
Wow you so-called anarchists are the most leftist politicians in waiting I have ever seen.
Okay... are you talking about everyone on this thread? Any basis for this statement or just taking a cheep shot?

Granted, anarchy is a very incoherent and diverse politics and anti-politics, but you kids is ridiculous.

What? Those statements make no sense together, let alone by themselves. You need to specify reasoning if you expect us to have the slightest clue what you are trying to say.

Perhaps an ideological 'anarchism' does'nt reject Law or Morality, but that is one of its downfalls.

How so? Did anyone even mention morality?

Anarchists aren't necessarily against government. Government is simply how people either govern themselves or are governed.
An anarchist society would be free from political constraints, not moral constraints.
Almost all will say yes, there will be laws.

Yall sound like a bunch of fucking social-dem liberals.

What point are you trying to make? The idea is that an anarchist society is self-regulating, there are no external powers.

It's one thing to argue causation, and another to argue morality and Law and "justice."

What point are you making here?

Anarchy is the negation of all systems of oppression, the more complex social order got, the more our negation has to as well.

Anarchy is opposition to oppression? That is your whole definition?
I think people are looking for a little more than Anarchism = Struggle.

Stop diggin up graves, and vomiting the 1890s. Anarchy needs rebellion, not a fucking platform, or a PR campaign to make it pretty.

Sure; people don't need to understand anarchism and they don't need to empathize with the struggles. So, um... let me know when you have five people for your cause and your "act without thinking" plan really gets rolling.

The Feral Underclass

16th August 2005, 14:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 07:10 AM
The saying "Smash the state" or any variations upon that statement has actually been detrimental to the Anarchist cause, as they catch far too much undeserved flak for that statement.
I think that depends on the historical conditions of society. The call to "smash the state" has also been a very popular one during different periods of history.

Of course now, in the age of neo-liberalism, left-reformist politics and the anarchist movement being so small we are attacked for even mentioning the possibility of smashing the state. The bourgeoisie and the marxists do well to undermine our message.

It is easy to wrap yourself up in it, but it just isn't useful anymore. As the "state" has convieniently told us that the State is... what it isn't

Are you saying that the anarchist movement should moderate its politics because our rhetoric might upset people?

The Feral Underclass

16th August 2005, 14:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 09:56 AM
Without at least some basic principles that a majority can agree on the chances of success are very minimal indeed (not withstanding the utopian "smash the state" insta-paradise idea).
Are you actually arguing that the anarchist movement don't have basic prinicples other than "smash the state"?

black

16th August 2005, 17:57

Without at least some basic principles that a majority can agree on the chances of success are very minimal indeed (not withstanding the utopian "smash the state" insta-paradise idea).

Well you dont know a whole lot about anarchism, do ya?

The majority of anarchists are;
against the state
capitalism
illegitimate authority
and hierarchy.

We are for communism
councils/
syndicates
and bottom-up federation

The whole syndicalist/communist split doesn't really exist -the two representing the most organised elements of Anarchism. Mainly because there aren't that many anarcho-syndicalists on the ground these days, but also because anarcho-communists accept syndicalism as a viable way to organise the workplace anyway (in conjunction with communities). So you see there's a massive amount we agree on, what needs to happen is for our numbers to increase and for anarchism to become more active and organised within the practical sphere.

Perhaps an ideological 'anarchism' does'nt reject Law or Morality, but that is one of its downfalls.

The Law of Morality? Libertarians, individualists especially, have made the greatest attacks on the so-called sanctified law of Morality that allows for social conformity and individual repression. We do not accept the Judeo-Christian view of the world and our need to submit to others, and authority. We do think the concept self-governance, and self-discipline has a vital part to play human life and society but that, put simply, is unlike most associated Morality.

Elect Marx

16th August 2005, 19:13

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 16 2005, 07:24 AM
Of course now, in the age of neo-liberalism, left-reformist politics and the anarchist movement being so small we are attacked for even mentioning the possibility of smashing the state. The bourgeoisie and the marxists do well to undermine our message.
Hey! What is that all about Joe? :P

Nothing Human Is Alien

16th August 2005, 21:31

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 16 2005, 01:26 PM
Are you actually arguing that the anarchist movement don't have basic prinicples other than "smash the state"?
No, I'm not "acually arguing that".

What I am arguing is that the Anarchists lack a basic platform from which to base their practice. A rallying point if you will. In my opinion, this has been one of their largest problems.

There are SO MANY different variations of anarchism that advocate SO MANY different things.

No doubt, there are many variations of "communists," BUT, the large majority of Marxists, whether Marxist, Leninist, Trotskyist, Maoist or otherwise have certain principles that they all (at least in theory) subscribe to. Communism is based on a scientific analysis of class struggle throughout human history.

I'll be the first to admit I'm no scholar on anarchism, though I have read a number of things, but I fail to see the scientific basis for anarchism, besides of course the things borrowed from Marx.

If anarchists accepted class struggle that would be somthing, but not all, and probably not even not most, do.

I don't think much can get done. And since anarchists reject authority and leaders (even though in most anarchist organizations I've come across some sort of defacto-leadership almost always arises), then what exactly do anarchists do? Hand out leaflets advising the "people" of their interests in anarchism? Or "direct action," which I'm affraid has never won over many people to "the cause".

Well you dont know a whole lot about anarchism, do ya?

Enlighten me, by all means.

The majority of anarchists are;
against the state
capitalism
illegitimate authority
and hierarchy.

We are for communism
councils/
syndicates
and bottom-up federation

Anyone who's even glanced at the basics of anarchism knows these things, but the question remains, where does that get us? What do we do next? Do we dress in tight black jeans and spike our hair? Do we join the IWW? Do we seperate from society and "squat" and steal things and have DIY punk rock concerts? Do we wait around for the crisis of capitalism to occur -- and the workers to instantly and in sufficient numbers gain the conciousness required to not only destroy the state aparatus and disperse the capitalists, but maintain the level of 'revolutionary' conciousness to prevent them from returning to power?

I'm not "out right" dismissing anarchism without thought, although I obviously don't subcribe to it, I'm being critical.

The Feral Underclass

16th August 2005, 21:54

Elect Marx

16th August 2005, 22:07

Originally posted by 313C7 iVi4RX+Aug 16 2005, 12:31 PM--> (313C7 iVi4RX @ Aug 16 2005, 12:31 PM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 16 2005, 07:24 AM
Of course now, in the age of neo-liberalism, left-reformist politics and the anarchist movement being so small we are attacked for even mentioning the possibility of smashing the state. The bourgeoisie and the marxists do well to undermine our message.
Hey! What is that all about Joe? :P [/b]
Seriously; what was the meaning behind this?

The Feral Underclass

16th August 2005, 22:11

Surely that's clear. I'm saying that Marxists do well to undermine the politics of anarchists.

Elect Marx

16th August 2005, 22:30

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 16 2005, 03:29 PM
Surely that's clear. I'm saying that Marxists do well to undermine the politics of anarchists.
Who? All marxists? Undermine how? You couldn't have made a more baseless assertion.

The Feral Underclass

16th August 2005, 22:37

Originally posted by 313C7 iVi4RX+Aug 16 2005, 10:48 PM--> (313C7 iVi4RX @ Aug 16 2005, 10:48 PM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 16 2005, 03:29 PM
Surely that's clear. I'm saying that Marxists do well to undermine the politics of anarchists.
Who? All marxists? Undermine how? You couldn't have made a more baseless assertion. [/b]
It's a wonderfully empirical observation

Genoa, ESF, Stirling, Stop the War Coalition etc etc

And yes, most Marxists do undermine anarchist politics by attacking our tactics and distorting our ideas.

Elect Marx

16th August 2005, 22:48

Most anarchists have no functional model for social change; aren't generalizations great?

Sectarianism sucks :P

saint max

16th August 2005, 22:55

sorry I had to sleep...

ARE YOU denying the accomplishments (though it goes without saying there have been many failures) of the workers movement?

Yeh...kind of. I mean the whole 8 hour work day was nice, and that wet-dream we shared in Spain, and the other orgasms...but, hunny, i think we should see other people.

Leftism has done quite the job of reform, but has pretty much failed misserably to create any real liberatory, sustainable, society. (at least in the last 200 yrs or so...)

max: Wow you so-called anarchists are the most leftist politicians in waiting I have ever seen.

Okay... are you talking about everyone on this thread? Any basis for this statement or just taking a cheep shot?

I am talking about the so-called anarchists. The marxists are absaint from my crushing wit (for now, you dirty little reds, you) But a cheap shot is a punch to the gut, and I'm hitting below the belt, but don't worry i expect a few blows too.

max: Granted, anarchy is a very incoherent and diverse politics and anti-politics, but you kids is ridiculous.

What? Those statements make no sense together, let alone by themselves. You need to specify reasoning if you expect us to have the slightest clue what you are trying to say.

anarchy is very incoherent (read: not coherent). Diverse (read: not homogenous). politics to some, and anti-politics to others. That is to say, contemporary anarchy encompases the ideological, classical, syndicalist, communist, the post-left, insurrectional, individualist, national-anarchists (weird!), nihilist, primitivist, UFO-enthusiast, and Mason-hattin weirdos...etc.It's pretty across the board.

How so? Did anyone even mention morality?

Yes. Read below, in your own post...

Anarchists aren't necessarily against government. Government is simply how people either govern themselves or are governed. An anarchist society would be free from political constraints, not moral constraints. Almost all will say yes, there will be laws.

max: It's one thing to argue causation, and another to argue morality and Law and "justice."

What point are you making here?

Causation is cause and effect, action and reaction. Morality is objective right and wrong designed by something above the individual. Justice is an implementation of morality. I am not interested in God, any of his aftermath, anything seeking to replace his omnipresence. There is a huge difference between the intent and motives. Some one does something fucked up to me, I'll probably do something fucked up back, but we don't need 12 assholes who don't know us pretending to be objective, or anyone who has no emotional connection to our affair deciding the prefered outcome. If I submit/consent to anything it will be on my own terms, and through my own will.

max: Anarchy is the negation of all systems of oppression, the more complex social order got, the more our negation has to as well.

Anarchy is opposition to oppression? That is your whole definition?
I think people are looking for a little more than Anarchism = Struggle.

I didn't say opposition, did I? I said negation (read: destruction, deconstruction...) Opposition, is like an opinon. Or speaking 'truth to power.' I am not interested in this, only Power total, universal destruction. Perhaps, you don't understand the term "social order" eh? Read the bearded guys yall seem to dig at all? Furthermore I said "systems of oppression." as in all hierearchy.

Sure; people don't need to understand anarchism and they don't need to empathize with the struggles. So, um... let me know when you have five people for your cause and your "act without thinking" plan really gets rolling.

"If it speaks with one voice, it aint the people" (name that quote!)
I am not interested in a Mass, but rather a multitude. I'm not involved with these struggles to make it better for everybody. I am intersted in my freedom and freedom in general. Whatever way this takes form is interesting, and desirable. I am not interested in making material conditions better. I am interested in destroying The World of materal conditions, class, race, gender, objectification of life (reification)...etc. I am not interested in a movement, but a momentum all free-acts against authority and domination. dig?

To the rest of yall anarchists, Stop speaking for everyone. We did'nt all consent. Save that shit for the general secretariat committee internationale (blablabla).

cheers,
-max

The Feral Underclass

16th August 2005, 23:07

Originally posted by 313C7 [email protected] 16 2005, 11:06 PM
Most anarchists have no functional model for social change; aren't generalizations great?

Sectarianism sucks :P
Yeah, but what you said isn't true. What I said is.

Elect Marx

16th August 2005, 23:15

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Aug 16 2005, 04:25 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Aug 16 2005, 04:25 PM)
313C7 [email protected] 16 2005, 11:06 PM
Most anarchists have no functional model for social change; aren't generalizations great?

Sectarianism sucks :P
Yeah, but what you said isn't true. What I said is. [/b]
but my generalization is true! :lol:

That sounds like something RS2K would say... If you don't have any valid reasons for your generalization, you can just say so.

Aren't you undermining Marxist politics by attacking our tactics and distorting our ideas?

What did the kettle ever do to you?

Nothing Human Is Alien

16th August 2005, 23:27

The problem with anarchism is not that we don't have a "platform" or "rallying point" it's that our actions go unnoticed or censored in the mainstread media, so unless you are actually involved in the struggles or within communities where those struggles are happening, you won't know what is going on.

Ah yes, and us communists get tons of exposure on CNN :lol:

Anarchists advocate community based and practical direct action - That's our rallying point and there are hundreds of open and closed groups who work within communities or against corporations/governments.

A handful of petit-bourgeoise college students throwing molotov cocktails at recruitment stations and boycotting McDonald's hasn't brought any revolutions lately. What makes you think it will ever work?

Just because you have no specific action to talk about does not mean the anarchist movement has no "rallying point" You ask, "what now" and the answer is, go into your community, speak to people, identify with the struggles of working class people and help them fight back!

Oh, but our organization DOES have MANY actions to talk about, our Hartford, CT, USA branch is even actively working with some anarchist groups. If you really want to know what we do check our website (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org), but my guess is that you don't, because according to you, we're not a legitimate organization, LOL!

The questions I posed were obviously aimed towards you anarchists, ie. what do you suggest be done?

I've heard nor seen anything practical, and I'm still wondering what you feel the scientific basis of anarchism is.

I'm saying that Marxists do well to undermine the politics of anarchists.

And for good reason.

The Feral Underclass

16th August 2005, 23:32

Originally posted by 313C7 iVi4RX+Aug 16 2005, 11:33 PM--> (313C7 iVi4RX @ Aug 16 2005, 11:33 PM)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 16 2005, 04:25 PM

313C7 iVi[email protected] 16 2005, 11:06 PM
Most anarchists have no functional model for social change; aren't generalizations great?

Sectarianism sucks :P
Yeah, but what you said isn't true. What I said is.
but my generalization is true! :lol:

That sounds like something RS2K would say... If you don't have any valid reasons for your generalization, you can just say so.

Aren't you undermining Marxist politics by attacking our tactics and distorting our ideas?

What did the kettle ever do to you? [/b]
This doesn't make what I've said any less true.

The Feral Underclass

16th August 2005, 23:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 11:45 PM

The problem with anarchism is not that we don't have a "platform" or "rallying point" it's that our actions go unnoticed or censored in the mainstread media, so unless you are actually involved in the struggles or within communities where those struggles are happening, you won't know what is going on.

Ah yes, and us communists get tons of exposure on CNN :lol:
Not really relevant to the point.

Anarchists advocate community based and practical direct action - That's our rallying point and there are hundreds of open and closed groups who work within communities or against corporations/governments.

A handful of petit-bourgeoise college students throwing molotov cocktails at recruitment stations and boycotting McDonald's hasn't brought any revolutions lately. What makes you think it will ever work?

Oh that old chestnut.

This is precisley my point about Marxists. They are so eager to side with the ruling class when it benefits them. You spew their stereotypes better than they do.

Just because you have no specific action to talk about does not mean the anarchist movement has no "rallying point" You ask, "what now" and the answer is, go into your community, speak to people, identify with the struggles of working class people and help them fight back!

Oh, but our organization DOES have MANY actions to talk about, our Hartford,

I wasn't talking about you or your group. What I meant was, just because you can't list the actions of anarchists, does not mean there aren't any to list.

The questions I posed were obviously aimed towards you anarchists, ie. what do you suggest be done?

Building direct action within communities, geographic and ideological and also workplaces. This is what needs to be done in order to build a genuine active resistance to capitalism and the state, and this is what we're doing.

I've heard nor seen anything practical,

But what significance does that really have on anything?

[Highlight added]

I'm still wondering what you feel the scientific basis of anarchism is.

Anarchism has always been a historical materialist, class struggle based ideology.

I'm saying that Marxists do well to undermine the politics of anarchists.

And for good reason.

Yes, the threatening of your control over the working class.

saint max

17th August 2005, 00:10

Anarchism has always been a historical materialist, class struggle based ideology.

That's not true and Proudon knows it.

at: I'm saying that Marxists do well to undermine the politics of anarchists.

And for good reason.

at: Yes, the threatening of your control over the working class.

So we can 'control' the working class? You anarcho-commies, really do show you're true face sometimes.

I've heard nor seen anything practical, and I'm still wondering what you feel the scientific basis of anarchism is.

Are you really asking the scientific validity of anarchy? I know you really believe in sacred cows and all, but just because you think scientific socialism uses superior empirical logic to deduce "the oppressed resist oppressions," that does'nt mean everyone else needs a 'struggle 101' class. you're totally in college.

comp, perhaps you should read my above post in responce to you and elect marx guy...

cheers,
-max

Elect Marx

17th August 2005, 00:26

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Aug 16 2005, 04:50 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Aug 16 2005, 04:50 PM)
Originally posted by 313C7 [email protected] 16 2005, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 16 2005, 04:25 PM

313C7 [email protected] 16 2005, 11:06 PM
Most anarchists have no functional model for social change; aren't generalizations great?

Sectarianism sucks :P
Yeah, but what you said isn't true. What I said is.
but my generalization is true! :lol:

That sounds like something RS2K would say... If you don't have any valid reasons for your generalization, you can just say so.

Aren't you undermining Marxist politics by attacking our tactics and distorting our ideas?

What did the kettle ever do to you?
This doesn't make what I've said any less true. [/b]
Just like it doesn't make it valid in any way. Frivolous claims are great for idealist arguments.

Nothing Human Is Alien

17th August 2005, 00:28

Not really relevant to the point.

It's actually EXACTLY relevant. I was being critical of the fact that anarchism lacks a basic platform -- in contrast to communism. So by you denying this, and instead placing the blame on a lack of media coverage (slight vulgarization I know), I was simply pointing out that we've never had that luxury either.

Oh that old chestnut.

This is precisley my point about Marxists. They are so eager to side with the ruling class when it benefits them. You spew their stereotypes better than they do.

You say chestnut, I say truth. I'm my years I, nor my comrades, have come across many proletarian anarchists. Are you denying that the majority of anarchists are of a petit-bourgeois background?

I wasn't talking about you or your group. What I meant was, just because you can't list the actions of anarchists, does not mean there aren't any to list.

Point taken. But my question, if I didn't make it clear, was how do these things bring about the revolution?

Building direct action within communities, geographic and ideological and also workplaces. This is what needs to be done in order to build a genuine active resistance to capitalism and the state, and this is what we're doing.

How long is that going to take? Had any progress so far?

But what significance does that really have on anything?

All the significance in the world. Shouldn't have some resources available to counter our arguments and prove me (and others) wrong?

Anarchism has always been a historical materialist, class struggle based ideology.

Oh yeah? Which brand are we speaking of now.. and like I said, what wasn't borrowed from Marx?

Yes, the threatening of your control over the working class.

Ah yes, and that was our plan from the outset.. the red flags and may days were just a diversion so that Marx and his followers could take over the world!

It's actually because we communists fight as workers for the interests of our class..

The Feral Underclass

17th August 2005, 01:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 12:46 AM

Not really relevant to the point.

It's actually EXACTLY relevant. I was being critical of the fact that anarchism lacks a basic platform -- in contrast to communism. So by you denying this, and instead placing the blame on a lack of media coverage (slight vulgarization I know), I was simply pointing out that we've never had that luxury either...
But the point wasn't whether communism had the same coverage as anarchism. The point was that anarchism didn't have any coverage, so for someone like you, who has nothing to do with anything remotely relating to anarchism, how would you know about what we did?

You say chestnut, I say truth. I'm my years I, nor my comrades, have come across many proletarian anarchists.

So? Are you saying because you've never met any working class anarchists, that means there aren't any?

I'm working class, so is Donnie who's a member of the same organisation as me.

Are you denying that the majority of anarchists are of a petit-bourgeois background?

I think it's pretty much divided equally.

Point taken. But my question, if I didn't make it clear, was how do these things bring about the revolution?

Why is this question only aimed at anarchists? How does the actions of Marxists bring about the revolution?

It's an abstract question. No one can answer such an question with any confidence. Building up resistance to capitalism and the state, by engaging in struggles and propagating an ideal you develop confidence and understanding within the working class. How else do you expect to achieve a revolution?

Building direct action within communities, geographic and ideological and also workplaces. This is what needs to be done in order to build a genuine active resistance to capitalism and the state, and this is what we're doing.

How long is that going to take? Had any progress so far?

This is an impossible question to answer. We have no way of telling what will happen in the next 10 years, there isn't a flip chart or tick box which we can follow. It's not as if we have any real solid indicators of how we are progressing. [There is a thread on this somewhere]

There are times of struggle and times of "nothing happening." We are less close to a revolution than we were 10 or 20 years ago. Struggle is starting to emerge again though. Pre-G8 the atmosphere was pretty stale, but post-G8 things have started moving. People are more active and community based resistance seems to be picking up momentum.

Last week in a community centre meeting the interest in what happened at the G8 was massive. People were interested to know what happened, why it happened and this led onto other debates. The opportunity to use direct action is becoming more and more possible, People, normal average people are actually becoming more militant.

Now I'd like to see you answer your question?

But what significance does that really have on anything?

All the significance in the world. Shouldn't have some resources available to counter our arguments and prove me (and others) wrong?

How can I prove you wrong? So you haven't "heard nor seen anything practical" that anarchism is doing. I accept that you haven't. I still don't see what significance that has?

Anarchism has always been a historical materialist, class struggle based ideology.

Oh yeah? Which brand are we speaking of now..

We're speaking about the brand of Anarchism :unsure:

and like I said, what wasn't borrowed from Marx?

We didn't borrow it. Bakunin read Marx, understood it, agreed with it. End of story.

Ah yes, and that was our plan from the outset.. the red flags and may days were just a diversion so that Marx and his followers could take over the world!

Pretty much. I mean, if we look at any contemporary Marxist organisation of any significance we can see plainly [they don't hide it] there ambition to control the working class.

It's actually because we communists fight as workers for the interests of our class..

Yeah, but you're doing it wrong.

The Feral Underclass

17th August 2005, 01:12

Originally posted by 313C7 iVi4RX+Aug 17 2005, 12:44 AM--> (313C7 iVi4RX @ Aug 17 2005, 12:44 AM)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 16 2005, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by 313C7 [email protected] 16 2005, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 16 2005, 04:25 PM

313C7 [email protected] 16 2005, 11:06 PM
Most anarchists have no functional model for social change; aren't generalizations great?

Sectarianism sucks :P
Yeah, but what you said isn't true. What I said is.
but my generalization is true! :lol:

That sounds like something RS2K would say... If you don't have any valid reasons for your generalization, you can just say so.

Aren't you undermining Marxist politics by attacking our tactics and distorting our ideas?

What did the kettle ever do to you?
This doesn't make what I've said any less true.
Just like it doesn't make it valid in any way. Frivolous claims are great for idealist arguments. [/b]
What do you mean it doesn't make it valid? If you don't think it's a valid fact that Marxists undermine anarchist politics then so be it, but I don't care, providing you accept its a fact.

The Feral Underclass

17th August 2005, 01:14

Originally posted by saint [email protected] 17 2005, 12:28 AM

Anarchism has always been a historical materialist, class struggle based ideology.

That's not true and Proudon knows it.
Anarchism didn't actually form into a coherent ideology until Bakunin.

at: I'm saying that Marxists do well to undermine the politics of anarchists.

And for good reason.

at: Yes, the threatening of your control over the working class.

So we can 'control' the working class? You anarcho-commies, really do show you're true face sometimes.

Ah, more of the cryptic.

What face would that be exactly?

Elect Marx

17th August 2005, 01:21

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Aug 16 2005, 06:30 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Aug 16 2005, 06:30 PM)
Originally posted by 313C7 [email protected] 17 2005, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 16 2005, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by 313C7 [email protected] 16 2005, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 16 2005, 04:25 PM

313C7 [email protected] 16 2005, 11:06 PM
Most anarchists have no functional model for social change; aren't generalizations great?

Sectarianism sucks :P
Yeah, but what you said isn't true. What I said is.
but my generalization is true! :lol:

That sounds like something RS2K would say... If you don't have any valid reasons for your generalization, you can just say so.

Aren't you undermining Marxist politics by attacking our tactics and distorting our ideas?

What did the kettle ever do to you?
This doesn't make what I've said any less true.
Just like it doesn't make it valid in any way. Frivolous claims are great for idealist arguments.
What do you mean it doesn't make it valid? If you don't think it's a valid fact that Marxists undermine anarchist politics then so be it, but I don't care, providing you accept its a fact. [/b]
Facts are valid by definition. You haven't established it as a fact or even tried.

I don't accept rhetoric as fact. You can pretend you have validated your statement but as you refuse to provide proof, your argument is a baseless assertion.

The Feral Underclass

17th August 2005, 01:24

No, it's empirical. In every experience I've ever had of anything concerning Marxists, at some point they have attempted to belittle and undermine our politics by claiming us to be violent thugs, unorganised idealists, angry middle class teenagers, idle utopians etc etc etc

Research Genoa, the ESF, Stirling or Stop the War Coalition.

Now if you're telling me my experiences aren't real, then go right ahead, but to be honest: what would you know?

saint max

17th August 2005, 05:35

Anarchism has always been a historical materialist, class struggle based ideology.

That's not true and Proudon knows it.

Anarchism didn't actually form into a coherent ideology until Bakunin.

So what? Come on, your name is "the anarchist tension." I take it you've read bonanno's critques, yeh? Anarchy is less about coherent ideology and obviously more about a tension, a social phenomona, a problem not an answer. You can't just reject a long anarchist tradition and begin at the point of the certain western ideological strains. Like I said before, anarchy is incoherent and very diverse. We did'nt start with anarchist-communism, we don't end there either. It's all the anarchism you like, a lot of anarchy you disagree with, and a whole bunch of fucking weirdos who believe in UFOs too.

So we can 'control' the working class? You anarcho-commies, really do show you're true face sometimes.

Ah, more of the cryptic.

What face would that be exactly?

Marx's, or perhaps Lenin's, honestly I don't know. It changes so often. You desire to manage the 'working class' and their struggle. Leftists are always vying for power over these "masses" they keep talking about. I don't trust any politician or representative, Marxist, anarchist or otherwhise, to make decisions for me.

cheers,
-max

Nothing Human Is Alien

17th August 2005, 08:38

But the point wasn't whether communism had the same coverage as anarchism. The point was that anarchism didn't have any coverage, so for someone like you, who has nothing to do with anything remotely relating to anarchism, how would you know about what we did?

How would you know I had "nothing to do with anything remotely relating to anarchism"? Do you know anything about my political work or life?

How do people know about things communists have done? Ah yes that's right, we made major accomplishments!

So? Are you saying because you've never met any working class anarchists, that means there aren't any?

Don't misquote me. I said MANY, not ANY.

I'm working class, so is Donnie who's a member of the same organisation as me.

That's two.

I think it's pretty much divided equally.

Highly debatable.

Why is this question only aimed at anarchists? How does the actions of Marxists bring about the revolution?

It's an abstract question. No one can answer such an question with any confidence. Building up resistance to capitalism and the state, by engaging in struggles and propagating an ideal you develop confidence and understanding within the working class. How else do you expect to achieve a revolution?

Marxists know that revolution emerges from class struggle. We simply aggitate to speed that process up, and put out the path to the best interests of our fellow proletarians.

Many actively fight (guerrilla warfare or otherwise) in national liberation movements against imperialism. How do anarchists fight imperialism? By boycotting McDonald's and sabatoging factories?

This is an impossible question to answer. We have no way of telling what will happen in the next 10 years, there isn't a flip chart or tick box which we can follow. It's not as if we have any real solid indicators of how we are progressing. [There is a thread on this somewhere]

There are times of struggle and times of "nothing happening." We are less close to a revolution than we were 10 or 20 years ago. Struggle is starting to emerge again though. Pre-G8 the atmosphere was pretty stale, but post-G8 things have started moving. People are more active and community based resistance seems to be picking up momentum.

Last week in a community centre meeting the interest in what happened at the G8 was massive. People were interested to know what happened, why it happened and this led onto other debates. The opportunity to use direct action is becoming more and more possible, People, normal average people are actually becoming more militant.

Now I'd like to see you answer your question?

Of course progress can be measured!

But, maybe I should have phrased the questions differently. How has/is what you're doing bringing about (or helping to) revolution, practically? How will it, how has it ever?

How can I prove you wrong? So you haven't "heard nor seen anything practical" that anarchism is doing. I accept that you haven't. I still don't see what significance that has?

If you don't want to uphold the "work" of your comrades that's fine by me. But if a person like me, who is very active, hasn't seen these things, what makes you think John Q. Worker has?? More importantly, do you care?

We're speaking about the brand of Anarchism unsure.gif

Please. By many anarchists' own admission it's hard to get enough anarchist folks to agree about things to even do political work.

We didn't borrow it. Bakunin read Marx, understood it, agreed with it. End of story.

Semantics. Marx was the first to point much of it out, therefor Bakunin, borrowed it.

Pretty much. I mean, if we look at any contemporary Marxist organisation of any significance we can see plainly [they don't hide it] there ambition to control the working class.

I won't even attempt to this nonsense. And, actually judging by your ideas on just which organizations are 'of any significance,' you're probably right.

Yeah, but you're doing it wrong.

Says, YOU? :lol:

concerning Marxists, at some point they have attempted to belittle and undermine our politics by claiming us to be violent thugs, unorganised idealists, angry middle class teenagers, idle utopians etc etc etc

AND? Did you counter their accusations? What do anarchists claim about Marxists?

This post is so ironic, you're claiming that Marxists claim things! :lol:

I said before, anarchy is incoherent

We're in full agreement then.

What I originally pointed out has been illustrated perfectly in this thread by the anarchists themselves. They can't even agree if their theory is based on materialism!

Marx's, or perhaps Lenin's, honestly I don't know. It changes so often. You desire to manage the 'working class' and their struggle. Leftists are always vying for power over these "masses" they keep talking about. I don't trust any politician or representative, Marxist, anarchist or otherwhise, to make decisions for me.

Last time I checked (real) communists don't talk about any faceless 'masses,' it's the proletariat that will make the revolution. We fight, as communists and workers, so that the PROLETARIAT can take power, not so that someone can take power OVER them.. we already have that!

Even in "leaderless" uprisings, leaders do emerge. Maybe not one LEADER, but leaders.

You're theory is that everyone should make their own descissions and reject everyone else? That sounds like it will lead to a revolution any day now..

The Feral Underclass

17th August 2005, 11:00

Originally posted by CompaneroDeL[email protected] 17 2005, 08:56 AM

But the point wasn't whether communism had the same coverage as anarchism. The point was that anarchism didn't have any coverage, so for someone like you, who has nothing to do with anything remotely relating to anarchism, how would you know about what we did?

How would you know I had "nothing to do with anything remotely relating to anarchism"? Do you know anything about my political work or life?
I'm merely assuming from what your saying you have little contact with anything "remotely anarchist."

How do people know about things communists have done? Ah yes that's right, we made major accomplishments!

I'm quite happy to accept that if you can tell me what these accomplishments are? And when you say communists can you be clear about what communists you're talking about.

I think it's pretty much divided equally.

Highly debatable.

Apparently you think so, but debates usually require facts at some point.

Marxists know that revolution emerges from class struggle. We simply aggitate to speed that process up,

But agitating what? Agitating isn't going to really make any difference to anyone. Standing on a soap box preaching is not how you inspire confidence.

In Burngreave community centre, the local council are trying to tare down loads of housing to "re-develop" it, in other words gentrify it. If we went into this community "agitating" about some abstract thing no one would pay any attention to us.

Going into the community, discussing concerns and showing a way for people to take action is what develops confidence, and that is what the working class need. Confidence to fight back.

Of course agitating is also a useful thing, but that's not what you call class struggle. Class struggle usually requires struggle at some point.

put out the path to the best interests of our fellow proletarians.

Precisely the attitude I've come to expect from authoritarian Marxists.

Many actively fight (guerrilla warfare or otherwise) in national liberation movements against imperialism.

The idea of "national liberation" only encourages nationalism and should be rejected as a concept. Fighting imperialism requires people to fight against ruling class hegemony and capitalism. Fighting for your "national" interests is in fact antithetical to fighting for your "class" interests.

How do anarchists fight imperialism? By boycotting McDonald's and sabatoging factories?

The British anarchist movement has been attempting to radicalise the anti-war movement from the beginning. We accept the root causes of imperialism and attack the centre of it, rather than for some nationalist ideas.

Of course progress can be measured!

How?

But, maybe I should have phrased the questions differently. How has/is what you're doing bringing about (or helping to) revolution, practically?

Building confidence and resources, there's nothing more we can do.

How can I prove you wrong? So you haven't "heard nor seen anything practical" that anarchism is doing. I accept that you haven't. I still don't see what significance that has?

If you don't want to uphold the "work" of your comrades that's fine by me. But if a person like me, who is very active, hasn't seen these things, what makes you think John Q. Worker has?? More importantly, do you care?

I don't know that your active, you could just be lying for all I know.

I'm not interested in justifying the actions of American anarchists to someone I don't know. You claim to not see what anarchists are doing and if that's so, fine. There's nothing I can do about that.

We don't go around the city saying "we're anarchists, look at the great stuff we're doing." We go into communities and we just do stuff. People notice that yes and they get involved, the ask questions; eventually they feel inspired, especially when they see they can make a difference.

We're speaking about the brand of Anarchism unsure.gif

Please. By many anarchists' own admission it's hard to get enough anarchist folks to agree about things to even do political work.

Stop shifting the points. You're all over the fucking place with your arguments. yes, that's true it can be frustrating to get consensus on things, but that's besides the point.

Anarchism is and has always been a historical materialist class struggle ideology, regardless of the variations now.

I said before, anarchy is incoherent

We're in full agreement then.

I think that's largely because you're a sectarian idiot who doesn't pay anarchism the time of fay. How you will you ever understand it if you refuse to.

What I originally pointed out has been illustrated perfectly in this thread by the anarchists themselves. They can't even agree if their theory is based on materialism!

But it is, and no one can disagree with that. I mean they can try, but the facts are glaring. Have you ever actually read a classical book about anarchism?

The Feral Underclass

17th August 2005, 11:11

Originally posted by saint [email protected] 17 2005, 05:53 AM
So what? Come on, your name is "the anarchist tension." I take it you've read bonanno's critques, yeh? Anarchy is less about coherent ideology and obviously more about a tension,
In terms of tactics possibly but the ideology has been thought through long before Bonanno was a gleam in his fathers ball sack.

The ideology is defined by people who brought the idea together. It's is coherent and has been since the 19th century.

You either subscribe to it or not.

a social phenomona, a problem not an answer

In the contemporary [post-modern] cultural add ons.

You can't just reject a long anarchist tradition and begin at the point of the certain western ideological strains.

What "long anarchist tradition" is this?

Like I said before, anarchy is incoherent and very diverse

Not because the ideology is incoherent but because of deviations, yes deviations and the rise of middle class variations to anarchism i.e Individualism.

We did'nt start with anarchist-communism

Granted, it was only after Bakunin's death that the term anarcho-communist started to be used but it was a logical class based follow on from Bakunin's mutualism.

You desire to manage the 'working class' and their struggle.

Wait wait wait!

How have you concluded this?

I don't trust any politician or representative, Marxist, anarchist or otherwise, to make decisions for me.

And neither should you. I know I don't.

bombeverything

17th August 2005, 11:35

There are SO MANY different variations of anarchism that advocate SO MANY different things.

So what? All real forms of anarchism oppose the state and capital. This automatically eliminates individualism and obviously capitalism from the picture because these ideologies have nothing to do with anarchism.

Yet with this clear distinction aside, most anarchists recognise that there is no such thing as a "perfect" or "ideal" society where everyone agrees. An anarchist society will be based upon co-operative conflict which is necessary for development. Anarchists wish to embrace diversity, rather than eliminate it. Debate is healthy.

I'll be the first to admit I'm no scholar on anarchism, though I have read a number of things, but I fail to see the scientific basis for anarchism, besides of course the things borrowed from Marx

And this is why TAT mentioned Bakunin.

What [b]do we do next? Do we dress in tight black jeans and spike our hair? Do we join the IWW? Do we seperate from society and "squat" and steal things and have DIY punk rock concerts?

Why does the idea of making your own decisions frighten you so much?

bombeverything

17th August 2005, 11:39

The ideology is defined by people who brought the idea together.

Exactly, and this is the way it should be.

Nothing Human Is Alien

17th August 2005, 11:45

I'm merely assuming from what your saying you have little contact with anything "remotely anarchist."

When you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME.

I'm quite happy to accept that if you can tell me what these accomplishments are? And when you say communists can you be clear about what communists you're talking about.

I'm a Marxian-communist, not a sectarian.

I know you are not ignorant to the huge strides that have occured under the banner of socialism.

Have their been many mistakes and grievous errors? YES! Do I uphold all the "socialist" revolutions? NO! But objectively their were major accomplishments made.

And we must support, critically or otherwise, all objectively anti-imperialist revolutions, such as the one going on in Nepal today, because 1. they contribute to the overall fight against imperialism, and hasten the crisis of capitalism and revolution in developed nations, which will lead to world revolution 2. the people of that country, and those like it, have a right to determine their own path

Apparently you think so, but debates usually require facts at some point.

That's just silly. You can't provide facts to your side of the argument eiher. So basically it's all based on personal experience. The only debate that can be had is my person experience vs. yours. Obviously it's impossible to get "to the bottom of it" then, so it remains debatable.

But agitating what? Agitating isn't going to really make any difference to anyone. Standing on a soap box preaching is not how you inspire confidence.

In Burngreave community centre, the local council are trying to tare down loads of housing to "re-develop" it, in other words gentrify it. If we went into this community "agitating" about some abstract thing no one would pay any attention to us.

Going into the community, discussing concerns and showing a way for people to take action is what develops confidence, and that is what the working class need. Confidence to fight back.

Of course agitating is also a useful thing, but that's not what you call class struggle. Class struggle usually requires struggle at some point.

I obviously wasn't saying we should only "talk" about change!

Agitation can mean many things and take on many forms. Ever heard of armed propaganda?

put out the path to the best interests of our fellow proletarians.

Precisely the attitude I've come to expect from authoritarian Marxists.

Funny that you call me an authoritarian, since our organization has been attacked as "ultra-leftist" more than once! We advocate complete workers' control over society for the duration of the socialist epoch -- we are not a "Leninist" organization.

And the "absolutely no leaders" fetishism that you anarchists stand by is idealist. Is there not an objectively correct path to take in most situations? Isn't it likely that someone or group of people is more advanced theoretically and knows the best path to take? No one's saying the working class should be forced to do anything. But knowledge is not spread out evenly, no one is always right, but in every situation some people are correct while others aren't.

And what do you anarchists do, if not lead? Aren't you actually leading the people you talk to by telling them about anarchism and recommending the tactics you think are right?

The idea of "national liberation" only encourages nationalism and should be rejected as a concept. Fighting imperialism requires people to fight against ruling class hegemony and capitalism. Fighting for your "national" interests is in fact antithetical to fighting for your "class" interests.

Typical nonsense. Are you saying the people in oppressed countries do not have the right to struggle to throw off the chains of imperialism, of foreign domination? Doesn't this struggle by definition objectively contribute to the down fall of world capitalism?

The British anarchist movement has been attempting to radicalise the anti-war movement from the beginning. We accept the root causes of imperialism and attack the centre of it, rather than for some nationalist ideas.

And your doing a great job! Your attempts are working marvelously. In fact I smell a Brittish revolution any day now... :rolleyes:

How?

You're now arguing that there's know way to know -- through analysis of current events in the class struggle -- if the working class is gaining class conciousness?

I don't know that your active, you could just be lying for all I know.

I'm not interested in justifying the actions of American anarchists to someone I don't know. You claim to not see what anarchists are doing and if that's so, fine. There's nothing I can do about that.

We don't go around the city saying "we're anarchists, look at the great stuff we're doing." We go into communities and we just [b]do[b] stuff. People notice that yes and they get involved, the ask questions; eventually they feel inspired, especially when they see they can make a difference.

1. I'm not American, stop making assumptions.
2. You don't know the majority of the proletariat. Are you interested in justifying anarchism to them?
3. Make a difference how? Name one thing anarchists have done to make a change for the better in the last 50 years?

Stop shifting the points. You're all over the fucking place with your arguments. yes, that's true it can be frustrating to get consensus on things, but that's besides the point.

The point remains as the original. There is no real unity in anarchism, because by your own methods there can't be! Your ideology is chock full of idealist petty-bourgeois currents, so much so that you can't even get together to do common work on any sustained large scale basis!

I think that's largely because you're a sectarian idiot who doesn't pay anarchism the time of fay. How you will you ever understand it if you refuse to.

Think again! When I first got interested in politics and leftism the very first thing I studied was syndicalism. In those earlier days I spent a great deal of time going over piece after piece on syndicalism, the IWW, anarcho-communism, etc. etc.

But it is, and no one can disagree with that. I mean they can try, but the facts are glaring. Have you ever actually read a classical book about anarchism?

Nope, never, all of this is coming directly out of my ass.. :rolleyes:

Nothing Human Is Alien

17th August 2005, 11:52

So what? All real forms of anarchism oppose the state and capital. This automatically eliminates individualism and obviously capitalism from the picture because these ideologies have nothing to do with anarchism.

Okay. You're against the state and capital. Now what? How is that practically born out?

Anarchists wish to embrace diversity, rather than eliminate it.

Does that include "class diversity", :lol:

Debate is healthy.

Indeed, that's why we're all here, no?

And this is why TAT mentioned Bakunin.

Ah yes, but he did deny that he borrowed from Marx!

Why does the idea of making your own decisions frighten you so much?

It doesn't. It bothers me, because it's bourgeois in origin. Collective decision making is what I'm fighting for, so society can be run in the benefit of all.

Why does the working class taking power frighten you?

bombeverything

17th August 2005, 12:13

And the "absolutely no leaders" fetishism that you anarchists stand by is idealist. Is there not an objectively correct path to take in most situations? Isn't it likely that someone or group of people is more advanced theoretically and knows the best path to take? No one's saying the working class should be forced to do anything. But knowledge is not spread out evenly, no one is always right, but in every situation some people are correct while others aren't.

"We" do not have to support anything.

And the "absolutely no leaders" fetishism that you anarchists stand by is idealist. Is there not an objectively correct path to take in most situations? Isn't it likely that someone or group of people is more advanced theoretically and knows the best path to take? No one's saying the working class should be forced to do anything. But knowledge is not spread out evenly, no one is always right, but in every situation some people are correct while others aren't.

There is nothing idealist about this. In fact, it is quite the opposite. This process is possible without any leaders. For instance, following someone’s advice voluntarily because they are more educated on an issue is not the same as forcing someone else to accept your "truth" through force. When you go out with your friends, for instance, someone might know the direction of the place you are all going. Clearly it would be stupid to ignore this advice. Official authority is what we are opposed to.

Typical nonsense. Are you saying the people in oppressed countries do not [b]have the right to struggle to throw off the chains of imperialism, of foreign domination? Doesn't this struggle by definition objectively contribute to the down fall of world capitalism?

Understanding and supporting something are two different things.

bombeverything

17th August 2005, 12:18

Does that include "class diversity", :lol:

If it did, it wouldn't be anarchism.

It doesn't. It bothers me, because it's bourgeois in origin. Collective decision making is what I'm fighting for, so society can be run in the benefit of all.

By representatives? How is anarchism "bourgeois in origin"? You are joking right?

The Feral Underclass

17th August 2005, 13:02

I'm feeling you have some personal issue here which is making you unnecessarily confrontational. This isn't E-G. If you can't debate in a civil way, don't debate at all.

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 12:03 PM
And your doing a great job! Your attempts are working marvelously. In fact I smell a Brittish revolution any day now... :rolleyes:
I don't see why you need to be so sarcastic about it. We're doing what we can and hopefully as we get bigger we can do more.

Your ideology is chock full of idealist petty-bourgeois currents, so much so that you can't even get together to do common work on any sustained large scale basis!

Erm...Stirling G8.

Nope, never, all of this is coming directly out of my ass

I'm interested to know what books by Bakunin you've read?

bombeverything

17th August 2005, 21:11

The comments about TAT's group were rude, and unrelated to the main arguments.

Think about what you are saying.

Forward Union

17th August 2005, 21:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 11:10 AM
It doesn't. It bothers me, because it's bourgeois in origin. Collective decision making is what I'm fighting for, so society can be run in the benefit of all.

Why does the working class taking power frighten you?

The classic 'What gives one group of people the divine ability to know how best to govern others?'

I believe Redstar2000 done a brilliant essay about the main problems with socialism that can be read here (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1116781433&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Forward Union

17th August 2005, 21:38

Your ideology is chock full of idealist petty-bourgeois currents, so much so that you can't even get together to do common work on any sustained large scale basis!

Are you serious? :blink:

Donnie

17th August 2005, 22:18

Typical nonsense. Are you saying the people in oppressed countries do not have the right to struggle to throw off the chains of imperialism, of foreign domination? Doesn't this struggle by definition objectively contribute to the down fall of world capitalism?
What you seem to be suggesting is that both bourgeois and proletariat have a common interest, national liberation. We need to challenge imperialism on an international level not on a national level. If we fight for national liberation we are only creating another class based system that has fairer exploitation. I will not fight off oppression next to a bourgeois individual to gain national liberation I and my class have nothing in common with him or her. I will fight off against oppression alongside my working class comrades.

Why does the working class taking power frighten you?
Where for that, what we are against is a leadership taking control of everything. The revolution should be driven by the proletariat and the peasants not some party leadership. If we are to seize control of the means of production it should be us not some party leadership in government; that’s how you Marxists create alienation and resentment among the working class.

The proletariat is not in the bourgeois sea of politics and it's not interested in it, that’s why we as class struggle anarchists target our own communities to gain consciousness again among our class.

We are not a party; we are the working class, we organise ourselves through collective decision making. We as working class anarchists sabotage the workplace's and confront the state face to face instead of handing out party newspapers and frolicking in the idea's of a revolution coming. Handing out papers and towing the party line does not make revolution! Targeting and working with working class communities does that something I’m doing with my local group. :)

Nothing Human Is Alien

18th August 2005, 00:39

I'm feeling you have some personal issue here which is making you unnecessarily confrontational. This isn't E-G. If you can't debate in a civil way, don't debate at all.

Did I hit a nerve? I don't post on E-G, never have, one visit to that place was enough to insure I'd never return. And what gives you the right to tell me how to debate? Shouldn't I be free to make my own decission? :lol:

I don't see why you need to be so sarcastic about it. We're doing what we can and hopefully as we get bigger we can do more.

I'm sarcastic by nature. So was Marx. Does that matter at all?

Erm...Stirling G8.

The beauty of anarchism, since it has no organized line of march and "no leaders" is that you can claim any spontanious uprising as your own. Not to say Stirling G8 was completely spontanious, but what was seriously done there? What real political work? It's easy to tell bunch of angry anti-capitalists "riot if you hate capitalism"! That's like saying "honk if you like sex" to teenage drivers.

I'm interested to know what books by Bakunin you've read?

Do you really want a list? I'm looking at some things by him I have right on my bookshelf as well as remembering things in boxes, but I'll try:

"Power Corrupts The Best", "Solidarity in Liberty: The Workers' Path to Freedom", (ps. why can Bakunin point out 'the path to freedom'? Does he have some sort of pass?), "The Class War", "God and the State", "Memories of Marx and Engels", "Stateless Socialism: Anarchism"

I've also read a good number of things by Marx and his supporters on Anarchism, want that list to?

The comments about TAT's group were rude, and unrelated to the main arguments.

Which comments specifically?

The classic 'What gives one group of people the divine ability to know how best to govern others?'

No one said anything about divinity, and the only idealism I see is coming from you anarchists. And I never said anything about anyone 'governing others'. My question remains unanswered, in any given situation, objectively, will there be some people that are qualified to make better decisions then others?

Are you serious? blink.gif

As a heart attack.

What you seem to be suggesting is that both bourgeois and proletariat have a common interest, national liberation. We need to challenge imperialism on an international level not on a national level. If we fight for national liberation we are only creating another class based system that has fairer exploitation. I will not fight off oppression next to a bourgeois individual to gain national liberation I and my class have nothing in common with him or her. I will fight off against oppression alongside my working class comrades.

There does exist oppression outside of class oppression. Certain nations exploit other weaker nations -- that IS imperialism.

Objectively, are a black petty-bourgeois and a black proletariat in the U.S. not oppressed, at least to some extent? Would it not be in BOTH their interests to be liberated from that oppression?

Another example, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in a country like Nicaragua are both objectively oppressed to some extent by imperialism, are they not? Wouldn't the bourgeoisie be better off without imperialism dominating their country economically and otherwise? Would not the proletariat? Not to mention a blow against imperialism is in the interest of the ENTIRE proletariat!

Now, another question. Using your own logic, who are you to tell oppressed people they shouldn't fight for their national liberation?

Not to mention, if you uphold class struggle, than you would know that even a bourgeois revolution in semi-fuedal third world nations are not only progressive but inevitable!

Where for that, what we are against is a leadership taking control of everything. The revolution should be driven by the proletariat and the peasants not some party leadership. If we are to seize control of the means of production it should be us not some party leadership in government; that’s how you Marxists create alienation and resentment among the working class.

Hey, at least we create somthing among the working class! :P

But seriously, who said anything about leadership taking control of everything? Are you going to have no representation? Is each individual person going to weigh in on ever single decission ever made? If you are going to have representation, what are they other than leaders? Won't they make decissions "for" people?

Who said anything of the revolution being "driven" by the party leadership? When did Marx say that?

As I've said, if you put representatives in charge of anything, what are they but leaders themselves?

The proletariat is not in the bourgeois sea of politics and it's not interested in it, that’s why we as class struggle anarchists target our own communities to gain consciousness again among our class

I think I agree, you do target your own communities.

We are not a party; we are the working class, we organise ourselves through collective decision making. We as working class anarchists sabotage the workplace's and confront the state face to face instead of handing out party newspapers and frolicking in the idea's of a revolution coming. Handing out papers and towing the party line does not make revolution! Targeting and working with working class communities does that something I’m doing with my local group. smile.gif

That's funny, who exactly are you speaking for there? Who is we? I'm a proletariat and I don't remember authorizing you to speak for me!

Our organization has collective decision making as well.

And more fetishism of tactics. Sabotaging in and of itself is worthless. How do you "confront the state"? Throwing rocks at police stations? How can you help "your" class increase its conciousness with out education?

You think a worker sees a A with a circle around it and decides its time to "get down?"

saint max

18th August 2005, 01:29

This is the most riduclous class-reductionist pissing match I have ever had the displeasure to witness. None of you are prol, and you know it. Marx knows it, Proudon knows it, Bakunin knows it, Emma knows it, LeninStalinMao Knows it...All the old heads know it, and I know it. Some of yall are in collage for fucks sake demanding to know A "a scientific basis" for struggle. Please. Sure you're commies and 'anarchists' but you aint convincing anyone you're Prol.

cheers,
-max

ps: scotland was a goodtime. But none of us throught we'd really stop the meetings right? besides what good would that have actually done, besides symbolism? And then hey, other symbolic acts are more fun, and might get me some new kicks.

Nothing Human Is Alien

18th August 2005, 01:52

Now you're asking me to prove my class background? LOL!

Wait, let me get my prol membership card

The Feral Underclass

18th August 2005, 08:58

Originally posted by CompaneroDeLibertad
what gives you the right to tell me how to debate? Shouldn't I be free to make my own decission?

I have a responsability as an admin to make sure that people debate properly and don't escalate into a flame war between opinion.

If you don't stop with this confrontational attitude towards posters you will recieve a warning point.

I'm not going to respond to you until you start treating people with a little more respect. That goes for everyone.

The Feral Underclass

18th August 2005, 09:00

Originally posted by Additives Free+Aug 17 2005, 09:56 PM--> (Additives Free @ Aug 17 2005, 09:56 PM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 17 2005, 12:20 PM
Your ideology is chock full of idealist petty-bourgeois currents, so much so that you can't even get together to do common work on any sustained large scale basis!

Are you serious? :blink: [/b]
I didn't say that!

You have the wrong persons name on that quote.

I just think that people who say things loike this are obviously unaware of anarchism, have bad experiences with it or read the bourgeois press and assume that every anarchist or anarchist group is like that. It's not their fault really, it's the nature of ruling class oppression.

The Feral Underclass

18th August 2005, 09:07

Originally posted by saint [email protected] 18 2005, 01:47 AM
None of you are prol, and you know it.
I'm on the dole and do part-time labouring, although I'm trying to be a post man but royal mail wont have me :(

Does that not qualify me as working class?

Nothing Human Is Alien

18th August 2005, 09:55

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Aug 18 2005, 08:16 AM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Aug 18 2005, 08:16 AM)
CompaneroDeLibertad
what gives you the right to tell me how to debate? Shouldn't I be free to make my own decission?

I have a responsability as an admin to make sure that people debate properly and don't escalate into a flame war between opinion.

If you don't stop with this confrontational attitude towards posters you will recieve a warning point.

I'm not going to respond to you until you start treating people with a little more respect. That goes for everyone. [/b]
Oh I see. So then, the main questions and points I raised will go without response because my style of debate is too "confrontational" and "sarcastic"?

:rolleyes:

I'm sure with very little searching I could find a mod (and I have one particular in mind) arguing in a very comparable style.

Forward Union

18th August 2005, 11:00

I didn't say that!

You have the wrong persons name on that quote.

Sorry, my mistake, It wasn't directed at you.

I just think that people who say things loike this are obviously unaware of anarchism, have bad experiences with it or read the bourgeois press and assume that every anarchist or anarchist group is like that. It's not their fault really, it's the nature of ruling class oppression.

I would have to agree with this, based on personal experience. Many peoples perceptions of Anarchism are horribly misplaced. And this causes a debate, that automatically puts you in a bad place of convincing any one of anything.

I've found it easy to win debates, though, very hard to get people to drop the stigma attached to Anarchism. One of the biggest problems facing Anarchism in the 21st century is that, it is one of the most misunderstood terms in human Civilisation.

None of you are prol, and you know it.

I'm on the dole and do part-time labouring, although I'm trying to be a post man but royal mail wont have me

Does that not qualify me as working class?

Like TAT, I too am Working class. I will soon be a volunteer worker for a local shop/cafe/political meeting place, called RISC (Readign-International Solidarity Centre), but I also do paper delivering for a newspaper company, and get money for free from a group called EMA (Education Maintenance allowance) I qualify for this as my parents income is below the national average (middle class income) My dad is a factory worker, and my mom does work for a charity, thus, I have lived in a working class family my whole life.

saint max

18th August 2005, 11:54

Perhaps, I'm being a bit too harsh, and projecting the experience in the US to yall. But, If it's not their now, it will be soon, with the neoliberal economy. Marx, a man who I would'nt share my ice cream cone with, uses a particular definition of Prol, and historically it has meant: Worker-producer, not-servicer. Because most (if not all, depending on where you are) work done in the 1st world, is not production, but rather serivice-industrial, that seems to disqualify us as Marx's "prol."

To say that only the prol-propper, can get they thing on, and destroy capitalism, or The World, is one of my beefs with Marx and most Classical and Modern Leftism.

Since most of yall I am directing this at are ideologically communist and or anarchist, this critique should create a problematic. You can identify all you want-- hell my dad was 'working class' too, and I service, but Prols through Marx's glasses, we am not.

The real question should be does being poor really mean anything than probabaly having an experience that forces you to conceptualize your own surivival, positionality, and desire for freedom, or are there other positionalities, experiences, ontologies that do this as well?

cheers,
-max

OleMarxco

18th August 2005, 13:01

This topic's such an bullshit-discussion ;)
I never became involved with Radical-Left politic's myself to prove anythin', that I could -DO- somethin'. O'course I will, but it's mostly the realization's that it's perhaps an good idea for the workin' class and regular people like you an'me. "Why the hell not?" was my deducation after learnin' a bit. Everythin' else is just semantic's - detail's - What matter's are not the pattern of the revolution...but that it work's, but as in overthrowin' it, and functionin' after-ward's. That's all there is to it......

So last note is. This is not about being a worker. Of course, most of us are, in a way, but it's not the point of it. This is about bringing a classless society, where worker's can feel like they're in charge. Fuck all that shit, "I'm a hardcore prole", I'm perhaps not a prole for bein' on the net 'cuz it's such a "labor-aristocracy" thang, but certainly will be if I get lost in 'ris system. Which I already can see happenin' to alot of other people. I'll pray I'm not endin' up there, so thas' why I'm pickin' up'ris shit. Not 'cuz we need it do this shit, pickin' up a rifle and bringin' it diauwn, but 'cuz it's good to know some background info and "theory" before you rush headlon' into sumthin' :P

However: I do not own the mean's of production (yet?), so I am not burgerouise, atleast. Thank god fer'at....

Forward Union

18th August 2005, 16:38

Originally posted by saint [email protected] 18 2005, 11:12 AM
hell my dad was 'working class' too, and I service, but Prols through Marx's glasses, we am not.

Sorry to be a whore, I normally don't bother mentioning peoples grammar, spelling or whatnot as its normally fairly trivial, but I have trouble understanding your points.

Im guessing your saying that, just because we are in the poorer half of our nations population, we are not necessarily working class? Well, im working class, and im in no way poor by global standards.

Now im not going to pretend im an expert on Marx's definition of a Prol, but as far as im concerned, if you have no access to the means of production, and instead, are forced to sell your raw labour or skills to a boss, in order to make money; you are working class.

I consider class to be directly linked to your acess to the means of production.

Nothing Human Is Alien

18th August 2005, 21:04

"Saint" Max - You have a gross misunderstanding of the LTV if you think people in the service industry in the present are not proletariat

Donnie

18th August 2005, 21:26

None of you are prol, and you know it.
I’m a gardener; I currently have to put in a lot of days in at the moment because I’ve not been going to work.
My mum used to be on a wage of £8000 a year but is now on £6000 a year and lives in rented accommodation with my little brother. She works part time as she has to look after my little brother. She could send him to a baby sitter but that means forking out money she can’t afford.

Objectively, are a black petty-bourgeois and a black proletariat in the U.S. not oppressed, at least to some extent? Would it not be in BOTH their interests to be liberated from that oppression?
Well seen as a Black proletariat is doubly oppressed because first of all he’s black and second of all he’s working class. At the end of the day the middle class black man can with stand the racism at his work because he knows he’s going home with a hefty £35,000 check in his back pocket at the end of the year. The working class black man has to be subjected racism in his workplace but unlike the middle class black man he gets another insult to him because he’s only been paid £30 at the end of the day but don’t worry he gets to go home to his loving cold council house.

Unless the middle class black man rejects his class they have nothing in common and it would be in the best interests of the working class black man to work with his other black and white working class comrades.

Another example, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in a country like Nicaragua are both objectively oppressed to some extent by imperialism, are they not? Wouldn't the bourgeoisie be better off without imperialism dominating their country economically and otherwise? Would not the proletariat?
It’s all fine and dandy fighting off the oppression of imperialism with the bourgeois and proletariat working together under nationalist ideas but at the end of the day the realistic thing is once they have destroyed the oppression of imperialism in their country the working class has to trudge back to the workplace to be subjected to exploitation by the bourgeois they were once fighting next to for national liberation. It’s a no win situation for the proletariat when nationalist ideas are introduced.
Imperialism and capitalism can only be carried out by the proletariat and the peasantry.

Hey, at least we create somthing among the working class
I’m working class and I would say I’ve been influenced more by class struggle Anarchism than reformist Marxism.
At least with the Anarchists they get out into my working class communities unlike the Marxists who like to sit on their thrones of power.

Nothing Human Is Alien

18th August 2005, 22:38

I’m a gardener; I currently have to put in a lot of days in at the moment because I’ve not been going to work.
My mum used to be on a wage of £8000 a year but is now on £6000 a year and lives in rented accommodation with my little brother. She works part time as she has to look after my little brother. She could send him to a baby sitter but that means forking out money she can’t afford.

I don't even know why you guys bothered to respond to this guy, what do you have to prove to him?

This reminds me of that old baiting tactic of the pigs, "you're not revolutionary, what have you done?" Where the person in question proceeds to admit to criminal activity to "prove himself".. lol

Well seen as a Black proletariat is doubly oppressed because first of all he’s black and second of all he’s working class. At the end of the day the middle class black man can with stand the racism at his work because he knows he’s going home with a hefty £35,000 check in his back pocket at the end of the year. The working class black man has to be subjected racism in his workplace but unlike the middle class black man he gets another insult to him because he’s only been paid £30 at the end of the day but don’t worry he gets to go home to his loving cold council house.

Unless the middle class black man rejects his class they have nothing in common and it would be in the best interests of the working class black man to work with his other black and white working class comrades.

You just proved my point, if the Black proletariat is doubly oppressed that means that the black petty-bourgeois is oppressed! And so it would be in both of their interests to overthrow that oppression. In places like America, many of the Black working person's "brothers and sisters" are reactionary and part of the oppression!

I'm not talking about class colaboration here, or promoting it. What I'm pointing out is that the struggles of oppressed people are revolutionary and will happen whether the anarchists approve of them or not.

It’s all fine and dandy fighting off the oppression of imperialism with the bourgeois and proletariat working together under nationalist ideas but at the end of the day the realistic thing is once they have destroyed the oppression of imperialism in their country the working class has to trudge back to the workplace to be subjected to exploitation by the bourgeois they were once fighting next to for national liberation. It’s a no win situation for the proletariat when nationalist ideas are introduced.
Imperialism and capitalism can only be carried out by the proletariat and the peasantry.

You just admitted that the working class and bourgeoisie can have the same interests, at least in the position of colonized people. No one said that immediately after the overthrow of the imperialists' yoke that the working class shouldn't overthrow the bourgeoisie. The point was that the working class and bourgeoisie in oppressed nations do have similiar interests, and that nationalism in these countries can be revolutionary.

I’m working class and I would say I’ve been influenced more by class struggle Anarchism than reformist Marxism.
At least with the Anarchists they get out into my working class communities unlike the Marxists who like to sit on their thrones of power.

What "thrones of power" would those be? Were there some vanguard-lead revolutions last night that I haven't heard about?

And there have been many, many more expamples of communist-inspired (whether they were implemented correctly or not is another question) revolutions and revolutionary uprisings than anarchist ones.

saint max

18th August 2005, 23:56

Additive,

i said:

Since most of yall I am directing this at are ideologically communist and or anarchist, this critique should create a problematic. You can identify all you want-- hell my dad was 'working class' too, and I service, but Prols through Marx's glasses, we am not.

The real question should be does being poor really mean anything than probabaly having an experience that forces you to conceptualize your own surivival, positionality, and desire for freedom, or are there other positionalities, experiences, ontologies that do this as well?

I meant my dad and I may be 'wokers' but we are not Prol. Not anymore at least. "Am" should read "are." Sorry. I think the last point is actually the most important though.

you said:

Im guessing your saying that, just because we are in the poorer half of our nations population, we are not necessarily working class? Well, im working class, and im in no way poor by global standards.

Now im not going to pretend im an expert on Marx's definition of a Prol, but as far as im concerned, if you have no access to the means of production, and instead, are forced to sell your raw labour or skills to a boss, in order to make money; you are working class.

I consider class to be directly linked to your acess to the means of production.

It is linked to production, but not necessarily who owns. The Prol produces. The prol does not serivice. If anything by Marx's language that would be the lumpenprol. My point as i wrote above, albiet acedemic language, is that by Marx's definition none of us are Prol, but like I said, I wouldn't share my ice cream cone with that grumpy old man. Furthermore, does it really matter if we are Marx's 'prol'? or Leftism's working class? I think not.

cheers,
-max

Nothing Human Is Alien

19th August 2005, 00:07

You're just wrong. You should really research.

A proletariat is someone that creates surplus value.

And you say "According to Marx", well of course it is, as you could find in Wikipedia, "the term was initially used in a derogatory sense, until Karl Marx used it as a positive term to identify what he termed the working class."

rebelworker

19th August 2005, 04:10

Ok to side step this more prole or not stuff,

The original question about direction in the anarchist movement can be summed up quite simply

In my opinion there has been a serrious lack of proper organization within the anarchsit movement that has allowed petty burgeoise tendencies(marxists have had their fair share too, vanguardism for one can you say Bob Avakian or the weather undertground anyone) to from time to time steal the spotlight from the more idealogically sound and productive class struggle tendancy within anarchism.

After one of the most succesfull periods in anarchist history, Nestor Mahkno of the ukrain, along withmany other russian and international comrades wrote a pamphlet called "The Platform of the Libertarian Communists" discussing the failure of Anarchsits within Russia to act as an effective idealogical and political force during the revolution.

This debate sparked and organization in Spain known as "the Friends of Durruti" it sought to overcome similar failures within the CNT/FAI during the revolution, though started to late this tendancie has now begun to re foarm and revive anarchsim in the modern period.

We "Platfoarmists" seek to build more coherent and effective, class struggle Libertarian Communist organizations to shed off some off the petty burgeoise failures of some anarchists and effectivly compete with more authoritarian ideologies for a more free revolution based on the principles of anarchist communism.

NEFAC, The Workers Solidartity Network(Ireland), The Zabalaza Anaerchist Communist Federation(South Africa), Federación Anarquista Uruguaya (Uraguay) and the Consejo Indígena Popular de Oaxaca "Ricardo Flores Magón" (Mexico) are some of the largest and most active organizations in this fast growing trend within Anarchism.

We hope to overcome many of the past failures of anarchsim due to lack of proper organization, while maintaining the spirit of freedom held by anarchism historically and as working class militants remember the repeated betrayals and opression we have historically faced at the hands of marxists claiming to represent our class interests.

As to your comment about the sucess of marxism, before the russian revolution Anarchsim was much more established world wide and only when the "success" of the Bolshevik revolution drew many eager revolutionaries into newly forming "communist parties" and with great propoghnada and forec did authoritarian destroy anarchist organizations cause the conditions where anarchism was not able as a tradition to give all that it could to the intwernational working class. Unfortunatly it has taken anarchsim almost an entire century to be in a position again where we can again be a force politically world wide but I think the modest sucess we have made over the last ten or so years is due in large part to the rebirth of the "platformist" tendancy within anarchism.

If anyone is intersted in this relativly new tendancy and the concrete work we are doing check out:

http://www.anarkismo.net

In Solidarity with all working class militants intersted in the liberation of our class,
Rebelworker

PS the size and quality of Marxist groups today, especially in North America and Europe is nothing to write home about... as I dont think we have to worry about marxist organizational domination of the working class.

bombeverything

21st August 2005, 03:53

Nothing Human Is Alien

21st August 2005, 08:18

But there is a difference between being oppressed, and being doubly oppressed. The fact that they are part of the petty-bourgeois means that they will share interests with others in the same class. This means that they will ultimately have different interests to that of the working class. Are you claiming that these people are revolutionary simply because they are black?

Let's not jump all around here. You said that proles and petit-bourgeois and bourgeois can never have any similar interests. I proved that wrong. No one is saying that the black petit-bouregeoisie is equally as oppressed as the proles in the US, what I'm pointing out is simply that they are both oppressed, and it's in both of their interests to end that oppression.

I think your vulgarizing the class struggle. The class struggle doesn't mean that no other struggles exist, nor does it render other struggles insignificant!

I guess this depends on what you mean by 'revolutionary'. We are talking about a worldwide class struggle. Nationalism is [by it's very nature] opposed to this, and as a result could never result in communism.

Let's look at this objectively. In a country like Nicaragua, the entire place is under the boot of imperialism, which is the crutch holding up capitalism -- it keeps it alive. The proletariat is small in Nicaragua, and will continue to be, because imperialism won't ever allow Nicaragua to develop under it's control. Now, it is in the interests of the petit-bourgeoisie, sectors of the bourgeoisie, the proletariat, and the peasants to throw off the yoke of imperialism -- they would all benefit.

The proletariat is not strong enough to through off the yoke of imperialism itself, and even if it was, it would still be acting in the interests of those classes I mentioned!

Since imperialism is what's keeping capitalism alive, and since the abolition of capitalism is in the interests of all workers -- and overall most of humanity, any strike against, and defeat of imperialism is a victory for the international proletariat.

As I've pointed out earlier in this thread -- though I'm certainly not the first to do so -- this doesn't mean the proletariat should collaborate with the bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie AFTER imperialism is overthrown. A succesful overthrow of the imperialists' control also sharpens the class struggle both in the imperialist country and in the country where the action took place -- it creates an opening for the working class to take power.

Unless the middle class black man rejects his class they have nothing in common and it would be in the best interests of the working class black man to work with his other black and white working class comrades.

Exactly.

I just pointed out some thing they have in common, where was this refuted?

bombeverything

21st August 2005, 23:51

Let's not jump all around here. You said that proles and petit-bourgeois and bourgeois can never have any similar interests. I proved that wrong. No one is saying that the black petit-bouregeoisie is equally as oppressed as the proles in the US, what I'm pointing out is simply that they are both oppressed, and it's in both of their interests to end that oppression.

I never claimed this. Ofcourse they can. I was simply noting that nationalism is a force that is by it's nature opposed to communism. I understand the need for these struggles, and as a result I would not condemn them. Yet at the same time I would never give them my support.

Let's look at this objectively. In a country like Nicaragua, the entire place is under the boot of imperialism, which is the crutch holding up capitalism -- it keeps it alive. The proletariat is small in Nicaragua, and will continue to be, because imperialism won't ever allow Nicaragua to develop under it's control. Now, it is in the interests of the petit-bourgeoisie, sectors of the bourgeoisie, the proletariat, and the peasants to throw off the yoke of imperialism -- they would all benefit.

But the upper classes would ultimately benefit the most.

this doesn't mean the proletariat should collaborate with the bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie AFTER imperialism is overthrown.

Yes, but if they do this before the revolution some of these links will still remain after the revolution. They will not simply disappear.

A succesful overthrow of the imperialists' control also sharpens the class struggle both in the imperialist country and in the country where the action took place -- it creates an opening for the working class to take power.

How would this happen if the workers themselves are not in control of the process?

I just pointed out some thing they have in common, where was this refuted?

Ok, fair enough.

Nothing Human Is Alien

22nd August 2005, 00:09

I never claimed this. Ofcourse they can. I was simply noting that nationalism is a force that is by it's nature opposed to communism. I understand the need for these struggles, and as a result I would not condemn them. Yet at the same time I would never give them my support.

I think I proved that wrong. In oppressed neo-colonial countries nationalism -- the aspirations of the oppressed people to overthrow imperialism -- serves to damage imperialism -- and thus capitalism -- and so directly contributes towards the realization of world communism.

And objectively comrade, if you don't support anti-imperialist struggles, you are actually supporting the imperialists, and thus capitalism.

But the upper classes would ultimately benefit the most.

Not if the working class uses the opening created to strike the bourgeoisie (upper classes), overthrow them, and seize power.

Yes, but if they do this before the revolution some of these links will still remain after the revolution. They will not simply disappear

I never argued that they would. After the imperialists are overthrown -- and actualy even while they are being overthrown to an extent, the bourgeoisie need to be overthrown.

How would this happen if the workers themselves are not in control of the process?

Where did I ever say anything about the workers not being in control? Of course I support the working class leading the revolution.

bombeverything

22nd August 2005, 13:52

I think I proved that wrong. In oppressed neo-colonial countries nationalism -- the aspirations of the oppressed people to overthrow imperialism -- serves to damage imperialism -- and thus capitalism -- and so directly contributes towards the realization of world communism.

And objectively comrade, if you don't support anti-imperialist struggles, you are actually supporting the imperialists, and thus capitalism.

But what you seem to be forgetting is that the nationalists are not fighting for international communism. These are nationalist rather than class struggles. I admit that these are bound to happen. However, capitalism will still exist after these revolts. One ruler will simply be replaced with another, or one oppressive political regime with another. In this case, capitalism is left untouched. Sure it might seem like it is “better” than what existed before but ultimately the same class oppression will continue. Are you claiming that any nationalist struggle should be supported? Even if the opposition are clearly authoritarian and tyrannical? That all nationalist struggles should be unquestionably supported? There is a clear danger in this that you appear to be ignoring.

Not if the working class uses the opening created to strike the bourgeoisie (upper classes), overthrow them, and seize power.

Where did I ever say anything about the workers not being in control? Of course I support the working class leading the revolution.

But this is the thing. You say that before the revolution we should collaborate or play with the petty-bourgeoisie, pretend to be their “friend” in order to gain their support, and then once a few of us are in power [you admit here that at this stage capitalism would still exist] eliminate them from the picture. But these people will also have power. They will not give their privileges up without a fight. Instead, the few ex-workers who have gained power during this “transition phase” would be using the workers as a tool for the seizure of their own power, rather than the workers actually using their inherent collective power to bring down the ruling class. This is because only a small elite would actually be aware of this overall plan.

I never argued that they would. After the imperialists are overthrown -- and actualy even while they are being overthrown to an extent, the bourgeoisie need to be overthrown.

I am glad you added the last part because waiting for the end of imperialism before overthrowing the bourgeoisie would be foolish. Why should we wait until after?

Donnie

22nd August 2005, 19:37

You just proved my point, if the Black proletariat is doubly oppressed that means that the black petty-bourgeois is oppressed! And so it would be in both of their interests to overthrow that oppression. In places like America, many of the Black working person's "brothers and sisters" are reactionary and part of the oppression!
What’s the point throwing off imperialist oppression just so that we can have another form of oppression; class oppression. The working class would just be fighting for another form of oppression. If the working black man or women fights off black oppression with the petty bourgeois, the black petty bourgeois man can go back to his snug suburban home at then end while the working black man has to go back to the workplace probably to be oppressed by the black petty bourgeois man. If we are to throw off the chains of imperialism it should be done through the working class.

No one said that immediately after the overthrow of the imperialists' yoke that the working class shouldn't overthrow the bourgeoisie.
What’s the point working with the petty bourgeois to fight off imperialism then when the revolution comes after alienate them? Why not just stick with the working class overthrowing imperialism and then moving on to the social revolution. Well in fact the social revolution would throw off all forms of oppression; imperialist, state and capitalist oppression. There’s no point incorporating the petty bourgeois in one phase of the revolution then chucking them out when the capitalist overthrow comes along. It would be in our best class interests not to let them into the revolution unless they fundamentally reject there wealth and status.
What would definitely happen if you incorporated the petty bourgeois into overthrowing imperialism is they would numb the working mass’s and say that the only reason why you were oppressed in the first place was because of imperialism. The petty bourgeoisie would give this whole load of cock and bollocks about the working man and women’s lifestyle being better under capitalism thus stopping the social revolution in its tracks.

What "thrones of power" would those be? Were there some vanguard-lead revolutions last night that I haven't heard about?
I was saying the party and the party leadership. In the Leninist eye why would you want to work with the working class communities when the working class can work for the party?
I see know CP leader wondering round my communities promoting ideas of emancipation.
In fact if I recollect the RCPB (ML) only has 20 members that’s real consciousness raising. ;)

Nothing Human Is Alien

22nd August 2005, 22:29

But what you seem to be forgetting is that the nationalists are not fighting for international communism. These are nationalist rather than class struggles. I admit that these are bound to happen. However, capitalism will still exist after these revolts. One ruler will simply be replaced with another, or one oppressive political regime with another. In this case, capitalism is left untouched. Sure it might seem like it is “better” than what existed before but ultimately the same class oppression will continue. Are you claiming that any nationalist struggle should be supported? Even if the opposition are clearly authoritarian and tyrannical? That all nationalist struggles should be unquestionably supported? There is a clear danger in this that you appear to be ignoring.

I never said unquestionably. I'm pointing out the fact that -- putting aside their political aspirations -- all national liberation movements are objectively anti-imperialist, and thus anti-capitalist.

But this is the thing. You say that before the revolution we should collaborate or play with the petty-bourgeoisie, pretend to be their “friend” in order to gain their support, and then once a few of us are in power [you admit here that at this stage capitalism would still exist] eliminate them from the picture. But these people will also have power. They will not give their privileges up without a fight. Instead, the few ex-workers who have gained power during this “transition phase” would be using the workers as a tool for the seizure of their own power, rather than the workers actually using their inherent collective power to bring down the ruling class. This is because only a small elite would actually be aware of this overall plan.

Let's be clear -- if we haven't been -- that we're talking about countries oppressed by imperialism. Capitalism will exist until it's overthrown, only the working class and it's allis are going to do that.

I never said anything about anyone getting into a possition of power -- I'm saying that the anti-capitalist struggle is opened up as a part of the national liberation struggle (during, and immediately following). I don't think the national bourgeois should ever be given the chance to take power.

Like I pointed out, whether the petit-bourgeois and national bourgeois participate or not, looking at it objectively we see that throwing off the boot of imperialism is in the benefit of all classes, at least in the immediate past.

I am glad you added the last part because waiting for the end of imperialism before overthrowing the bourgeoisie would be foolish. Why should we wait until after?

We shouldn't wait -- I said before, as a part of the anti-imperialist struggle.

What’s the point throwing off imperialist oppression just so that we can have another form of oppression; class oppression. The working class would just be fighting for another form of oppression. If the working black man or women fights off black oppression with the petty bourgeois, the black petty bourgeois man can go back to his snug suburban home at then end while the working black man has to go back to the workplace probably to be oppressed by the black petty bourgeois man. If we are to throw off the chains of imperialism it should be done through the working class.

What’s the point working with the petty bourgeois to fight off imperialism then when the revolution comes after alienate them? Why not just stick with the working class overthrowing imperialism and then moving on to the social revolution. Well in fact the social revolution would throw off all forms of oppression; imperialist, state and capitalist oppression. There’s no point incorporating the petty bourgeois in one phase of the revolution then chucking them out when the capitalist overthrow comes along. It would be in our best class interests not to let them into the revolution unless they fundamentally reject there wealth and status.
What would definitely happen if you incorporated the petty bourgeois into overthrowing imperialism is they would numb the working mass’s and say that the only reason why you were oppressed in the first place was because of imperialism. The petty bourgeoisie would give this whole load of cock and bollocks about the working man and women’s lifestyle being better under capitalism thus stopping the social revolution in its tracks.

You say "not to let them in," but you don't advocate any form of hiarchy or control, so who's going to stop them? And we have to look at this on a class basis -- objectively, as I've pointed out now several times -- whether they participate or not, the national bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie benefit from the overthrow of imperialism's control. Not to mention that in the sort of countries we're talking about the working class is usually a minority, they don't have the ability to overthrow imperialism alone. Waiting for capitalism to develop in their countries so that the number of proletariat can grow would prove deadly -- not to mention the fact that due to imperialism it will most likely never happen!

I was saying the party and the party leadership. In the Leninist eye why would you want to work with the working class communities when the working class can work for the party?
I see know CP leader wondering round my communities promoting ideas of emancipation.
In fact if I recollect the RCPB (ML) only has 20 members that’s real consciousness raising.

I don't know about that party and therefor can't speak for it. I obviously don't support any "political" work like what you describe. The members of our group, and the other groups we work with, are in the streets almost daily, present in union organizing drives, protests, etc. and educating folks where ever we come across them.

Our branch in Hartford, Ct. US even works with local anarchist collectives.

bombeverything

22nd August 2005, 23:39

I never said unquestionably. I'm pointing out the fact that -- putting aside their political aspirations -- all national liberation movements are objectively anti-imperialist, and thus anti-capitalist.

But political goals are important because they will ultimately guide practice. You cannot simply put aside political aspirations.

I never said anything about anyone getting into a possition of power -- I'm saying that the anti-capitalist struggle is opened up as a part of the national liberation struggle (during, and immediately following). I don't think the national bourgeois should ever be given the chance to take power.

Yeah but our support would give them a chance to do this. We would be working with those in power, rather than working against them as we should be. Thus, during this process the power structures would actually be strengthened, making them harder to dismantle.

You say "not to let them in," but you don't advocate any form of hiarchy or control, so who's going to stop them? And we have to look at this on a class basis -- objectively, as I've pointed out now several times -- whether they participate or not, the national bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie benefit from the overthrow of imperialism's control. Not to mention that in the sort of countries we're talking about the working class is usually a minority, they don't have the ability to overthrow imperialism alone. Waiting for capitalism to develop in their countries so that the number of proletariat can grow would prove deadly -- not to mention the fact that due to imperialism it will most likely never happen!

I thought that you said that no one would be in a position of power? The workers as a collective would stop them. As I said, I agree that these struggles are necessary within the current system. However I could never support a revolution that leaves all the unequal power structures intact. Giving something a different name is not equivalent to real change.

Donnie

22nd August 2005, 23:40

You say "not to let them in," but you don't advocate any form of hiarchy or control, so who's going to stop them?
Of course I advocate control, I just think you don't need hierarchy to control industries. Being a member of a revolutionary organisation that does not have hierarchy can still control the revolution, where not about controlling the workers the workers control the revolutionary organisation. Just through the notion of class war is enough to unite the workers into controlling the revolution through a revolutionary organisation.

objectively, as I've pointed out now several times -- whether they participate or not, the national bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie benefit from the overthrow of imperialism's control.
As I pointed out before the working class does not have the same interests as the petty-bourgeois because of their wealth and status. As I stated before the petty-bourgeois are only interested in throwing off imperialism not capitalism. The petty-bourgeois would gladly accept having capitalism once the workers and petty bourgeois unite and throw off the bonds of imperialism (as you so clearly think).

Not to mention that in the sort of countries we're talking about the working class is usually a minority, they don't have the ability to overthrow imperialism alone.
Actually now I come to think of it in the countries where talking about i.e. the third world; there is a dominance of proletariat and peasants and they easily outnumber the ruling class. If you actually think about it there is now petty-bourgeois. In the third world class society is more clearly seen; you’re either really poor or really rich and if you're rich you're obviously benefiting from imperialism, although the rich in the third world tend to be either state officials or western capitalists.
Also if the poor in the third world are in the minority as you so think, what would be the point of overthrowing imperialism? Because clearly if the workers and peasants in the third world are in the minority then it seems to be that there is no problem with imperialism.
However the working class and peasants are not in the minority they are the majority and so they don't need the help of the petty-bourgeois because there is non is there now we come to think of it because as class society is in two different opposite poles under imperialism.

hey don't have the ability to overthrow imperialism alone.
Of course the working class can overthrow capitalism and imperialism on it's own because of it being in the majority and also as I said before just through the notion of class war is enough to unite them and throw off imperialism and capitalism. It doesn't take much for the workers to start a revolutionary organisation controlled by them. People in Africa are in the process of doing it.

Nothing Human Is Alien

23rd August 2005, 00:35

But political goals are important because they will ultimately guide practice. You cannot simply put aside political aspirations.

You can support something without giving it political support.

Yeah but our support would give them a chance to do this. We would be working with those in power, rather than working against them as we should be. Thus, during this process the power structures would actually be strengthened, making them harder to dismantle.

You say "we" as if you are a member of the proletariat in the third world, are you? And working with doesn't = "working for".

I thought that you said that no one would be in a position of power? The workers as a collective would stop them. As I said, I agree that these struggles are necessary within the current system. However I could never support a revolution that leaves all the unequal power structures intact. Giving something a different name is not equivalent to real change.

Ah, the workers as a collective.. forgive me if I laugh. If the proletariat in the most advanced capitalist countries doesn't yet have the counciousness to act as "a class of their own" what makes you think the proletariat in third world countries do -- enough to create hiarchy-free organizations that are strong enough to control the direction of a popular uprising?

You also didn't address my point about the proletariat being the minority.

As I pointed out before the working class does not have the same interests as the petty-bourgeois because of their wealth and status. As I stated before the petty-bourgeois are only interested in throwing off imperialism not capitalism. The petty-bourgeois would gladly accept having capitalism once the workers and petty bourgeois unite and throw off the bonds of imperialism (as you so clearly think).

Yes they would gladly accept capitalism, which is why they would (have, do) fight to overthrow imperialism. But 1. they are out numbered by the working class and it's allies who would have the momentum to overthrow them, and 2. in a newly independent (economically and politicially) country they wouldn't have much of a footing and would need the support of a large part of the working class and it's allies. Of course they wouldn't have this if the anti-imperialist struggle was lead by the working class and was made a part of the larger anti-capitalist struggle.

Actually now I come to think of it in the countries where talking about i.e. the third world; there is a dominance of proletariat and peasants and they easily outnumber the ruling class. If you actually think about it there is now petty-bourgeois. In the third world class society is more clearly seen; you’re either really poor or really rich and if you're rich you're obviously benefiting from imperialism, although the rich in the third world tend to be either state officials or western capitalists.
Also if the poor in the third world are in the minority as you so think, what would be the point of overthrowing imperialism? Because clearly if the workers and peasants in the third world are in the minority then it seems to be that there is no problem with imperialism.
However the working class and peasants are not in the minority they are the majority and so they don't need the help of the petty-bourgeois because there is non is there now we come to think of it because as class society is in two different opposite poles under imperialism.

Where did the peasantry come from? I said the working class (proletariat) wasn't strong enough. Where did I say the poor were in the minority?? Being poor does not make you a member of the working class (but being a member of the working class usually makes you poor).

Of course the working class can overthrow capitalism and imperialism on it's own because of it being in the majority and also as I said before just through the notion of class war is enough to unite them and throw off imperialism and capitalism. It doesn't take much for the workers to start a revolutionary organisation controlled by them. People in Africa are in the process of doing it.

The proletariat is not in the majority in most if not all of the underdeveloped countries.

bombeverything

23rd August 2005, 01:42

You can support something without giving it political support.

Please elaborate on this. What then do you mean by support? Surely making alliances with the petty-bourgeois is political support.

You say "we" as if you are a member of the proletariat in the third world, are you? And working with doesn't = "working for".

It does if some are in a position of authority as a result of their economic privileges. Also, I apologise if I seemed to be suggesting that. I was referring to "us" in general.

Ah, the workers as a collective.. forgive me if I laugh. If the proletariat in the most advanced capitalist countries doesn't yet have the counciousness to act as "a class of their own" what makes you think the proletariat in third world countries do -- enough to create hiarchy-free organizations that are strong enough to control the direction of a popular uprising?

Laugh all you like. This is the way it has to be if it is to be a genuine revolution from the bottom up. People usually revolt because they are hungry, not because they have been guided by a set of theories.

You also didn't address my point about the proletariat being the minority.

The peasants are not the minority.

Where did the peasantry come from? I said the working class (proletariat) wasn't strong enough. Where did I say the poor were in the minority?? Being poor does not make you a member of the working class (but being a member of the working class usually makes you poor).

It was mentioned because they are also of importance in a struggle meant to emancipate the poor.

Donnie

23rd August 2005, 21:24

Where did the peasantry come from? I said the working class (proletariat) wasn't strong enough. Where did I say the poor were in the minority?? Being poor does not make you a member of the working class (but being a member of the working class usually makes you poor)
Of course being poor makes you a member of the working class. I would hardly say the poor are middle class rofl. Both peasents and workers have the same intrests and should work together.

The proletariat is not in the majority in most if not all of the underdeveloped countries.
I would think so. The people in the Third world who work to sell there labour are working class. Is not the African man who sells his labour for the Landowner not working class?

Nothing Human Is Alien

23rd August 2005, 22:13

Please elaborate on this. What then do you mean by support? Surely making alliances with the petty-bourgeois is political support.

example: I support the Democratic People's Republic of Korea against US imperialist aggresion, I do not support the DPRK one iota politically.

It does if some are in a position of authority as a result of their economic privileges.

How would their class status grant them a position of authority in an anti-imperialist front lead by the working class?

Laugh all you like. This is the way it has to be if it is to be a genuine revolution from the bottom up. People usually revolt because they are hungry, not because they have been guided by a set of theories.

If it's a real revolution, the revolutionary class(es) revolt when they gain conciousness.

The peasants are not the minority.

There's those peasants again.. lol. My argument is that in under developed country the working class is in the minority, and you respond the peasants are not the minority.

I don't know how I'm supposed to debate in this manner.

It was mentioned because they are also of importance in a struggle meant to emancipate the poor.

Wait a minute, I don't think you're being fair here. My original statement was that, in underdeveloped countries, the working class wasn't strong enough to through off the chains of imperialism, and you countered with "the workers and the peasants..." That's not what I was talking about.

Of course being poor makes you a member of the working class. I would hardly say the poor are middle class rofl. Both peasents and workers have the same intrests and should work together.

Never heard of the lumpenproletariat? How about the peasantry?

I would think so. The people in the Third world who work to sell there labour are working class. Is not the African man who sells his labour for the Landowner not working class?

Let's look at the Dominican Republic, a country I'm very familiar with:

Up To 50% of the Urban "work force" are self-employed in very small businesses and "microenterprises" (ie. fruit stands), and as this (http://www.photius.com/countries/dominican_republic/government/dominican_republic_government_peasants.html) article points out, "Although numerically the largest group in Dominican society, politically they were the weakest."

I think the same can be said for most countries third world, ie. the majority of people in them are peasants, thus "under developed".

bombeverything

24th August 2005, 08:08

example: I support the Democratic People's Republic of Korea against US imperialist aggresion, I do not support the DPRK one iota politically.

In my opinion this is ridiculous. How is supporting a regime that is clearly repressive and exploitative towards it's people in any way promoting the interests of the international working class? How could the people ever develop any revolutionary potential within such a rigid structure? The people are suffering while the leaders are playing their own political games. Anarchists are interested in the liberation of the workers, not the power games of their leaders.

You said that you would not support nationalist movements unquestionably, but here is an example of an authoritarian regime that you are supporting simply because they are an enemy of the U.S.

How would their class status grant them a position of authority in an anti-imperialist front lead by the working class?

Their class status is authority in itself.

If it's a real revolution, the revolutionary class(es) revolt when they gain conciousness.

Wasn't this what I said? What I meant was that people often revolt because of their interactions with their material world. Theories beyond this have no real place at this stage. If by a real revolution you are referring to an enlightened few "guiding” the workers to revolution then I disagree. If, however, the workers themselves will carry out this revolution I agree with you.

There's those peasants again.. lol. My argument is that in under developed country the working class is in the minority, and you respond the peasants are not the minority.

I don't know how I'm supposed to debate in this manner.

:lol:

Ok, sorry about that. I wasn't disagreeing with what you were saying, but just introducing another dimension to the argument. That is, the role of the peasants in poor countries.

Wait a minute, I don't think you're being fair here. My original statement was that, in underdeveloped countries, the working class wasn't strong enough to through off the chains of imperialism, and you countered with "the workers and the peasants..." That's not what I was talking about.

Ok. Point taken. What I was suggesting was that although the working class in developing countries is small, if we talked about the workers and the peasants as one we would be talking about the majority of the population.

Never heard of the lumpenproletariat? How about the peasantry?

I am not a Marxist. This means that I disagree with him when he said that "the peasants have the political consciousness of a sack of potatoes". Ha. I believe that this goes back to the discussion before about class consciousness and what actually constitutes it.

I think the same can be said for most countries third world, ie. the majority of people in them are peasants, thus "under developed".

I disagree with the assumption that peasants are "under developed". You seem to be forgetting that peasants have been active in most revolutionary struggles.

Sorry for changing the topic if you feel that I have. All I am really trying to say is that it would be better to unite with the peasants rather than the petty-bourgeoisie.

Nothing Human Is Alien

24th August 2005, 09:46

In my opinion this is ridiculous. How is supporting a regime that is clearly repressive and exploitative towards it's people in any way promoting the interests of the international working class? How could the people ever develop any revolutionary potential within such a rigid structure? The people are suffering while the leaders are playing their own political games. Anarchists are interested in the liberation of the workers, not the power games of their leaders.

You said that you would not support nationalist movements unquestionably, but here is an example of an authoritarian regime that you are supporting simply because they are an enemy of the U.S.

So you're saying you'd support a U.S. invasion of the DPRK?? And I'm being ridiculous?

Their class status is authority in itself.

I said "in an anti-imperialist front lead by the working class." If it's lead by the working class, it's, well, lead by the working class.

Wasn't this what I said? What I meant was that people often revolt because of their interactions with their material world. Theories beyond this have no real place at this stage. If by a real revolution you are referring to an enlightened few "guiding” the workers to revolution then I disagree. If, however, the workers themselves will carry out this revolution I agree with you.

Of course the workers will lead it. There will surely arrise individual leaders, though not necessary 'leadership'.

Ok, sorry about that. I wasn't disagreeing with what you were saying, but just introducing another dimension to the argument. That is, the role of the peasants in poor countries.

Okay.

Ok. Point taken. What I was suggesting was that although the working class in developing countries is small, if we talked about the workers and the peasants as one we would be talking about the majority of the population.

Okay, I couldn't, of course, argue that since it's objective fact. But the question is now, are all peasants revolutionary? Maybe that should be left for another thread..

I am not a Marxist. This means that I disagree with him when he said that "the peasants have the political consciousness of a sack of potatoes". Ha. I believe that this goes back to the discussion before about class consciousness and what actually constitutes it.

I don't think Marx was talking about all peasants, and material conditions have changed since his time obviously. But, I believe history has shown us that there is a large strata of the peasantry that are be reactionary, and many of those that might be considered revolutionary are so only up until there demands for land are met.

I disagree with the assumption that peasants are "under developed". You seem to be forgetting that peasants have been active in most revolutionary struggles.

I haven't said that peasants are under developed comrade. What I'm saying is that in under developed countries, the majority of people are peasants.

Sorry for changing the topic if you feel that I have. All I am really trying to say is that it would be better to unite with the peasants rather than the petty-bourgeoisie.

That doesn't change the fact that national liberation is in the interest of all classes. (back to the original point).

bombeverything

24th August 2005, 11:05

So you're saying you'd support a U.S. invasion of the DPRK?? And I'm being ridiculous?

Of course not! But I don't support the DPRK either.

Okay, I couldn't, of course, argue that since it's objective fact. But the question is now, are all peasants revolutionary? Maybe that should be left for another thread..

Your probably right but why not? You have raised an interesting topic.

I don't think Marx was talking about all peasants, and material conditions have changed since his time obviously. But, I believe history has shown us that there is a large strata of the peasantry that are be reactionary, and many of those that might be considered revolutionary are so only up until there demands for land are met.

What about the history of the peasants in Spain and the Ukraine? Surely they showed that peasants could be revolutionary when they want to. The peasants would begin with recognition of material conditions, and then begin to become influenced by revolutionary ideas. In other words, I believe there is a significant revolutionary potential there. What are your views on this?

I haven't said that peasants are under developed comrade. What I'm saying is that in under developed countries, the majority of people are peasants.

Haha fair enough then, sorry.

That doesn't change the fact that national liberation is in the interest of all classes. (back to the original point).

Yay! But I still disagree. Yes it is in the interests of all classes, including the bourgeoisie. With the class system still in place, the wealthy will inevitably end up with the majority of the benefits that you are referring to. In the end it doesn't matter who has the money. It is the same deal.