Anarcho-Communist here.

[Armed_Philosopher]

I just joined the forums. The site looks interesting so far, with a fair mix that pans the radical left.

I associate with the philosophy of Anarcho-Communism, Kropotkin and Malatesta. I believe in the principles of Autonomy and Direct Democracy from the bottom up, within a federation system, or within a confederation of other radical left ideologies.

I see that there is another person here with philosopher in their name...I didnt mean to copy it. Ive had this name on other forums for a while.

[Nachie]

Welcome to revleft! Please enjoy your stay.

"Kropotkin and Malatesta" eh? Niiiiiiccce :D

It's always good to see more anti-authoritarians popping up on these boards.

Are you in the US? How do you feel about the anarcho-communist NEFAC (http://www.nefac.net) Federation? They're a little too centralized/organizationalist/platformist/boring/whatever for me, but I'm just trying to get an idea of where you fit in... ;)

[LoneRed]

welcome, even more anarchists to debate with...kidding :lol:

[Armed_Philosopher]

Yes, I am in the US. Near the SF bay area.

Generaly, my comrades tend to come from diverse Anarchist backgrouns, sometimes including other "Libertarian Socialist" ideas that are not exactly anarchism but close enough in theory to be concidered "Lateral" organization as opposed to "Vertical".

I have never realy worked with NEFAC. The projects that I have worked on have generaly been alot more open and spontantious. I have done alot of work with the Anti-Capitalist convergences, work as a Black Cross streeet medic, do food not bombs, and other related projects.

I would have to look more into NEFAC befor I could make that kind of judgement call.

[The Grey Blur]

Person: So what are you politically?

You: Anarcho-Comunist

Person: Isn't an Anarchist someone who shoots Kings and burns churches?!

You: Well actually-

Person: And Communist?! Didn't we beat those guys in World War Three!?

You: Well some-

Person: *dials 911*

You: :(

But honestly I'm interested in having you here and Anracho-Communism is certainly an interesting political theory

[Nachie]

Oh well my bad, NEFAC is actually just in the NorthEast USA. I guess there's a regional federation in either Northern or Southern CA as well, but like I said they're not for me. The stuff you mentioned you were already doing is much more what I'm into as far as anarchist organizing. Kudos on getting down with the ABC, that's crucially important work. :)

Have you been involved with Anarchist Action at all? Last I heard they "announced" that they "were not an organization" and it seems to have fallen apart since...

I'm affiliated to a gang of hooligans called the Red & Anarchist Action Network (usually just RAAN) that actually is nation-wide. Later this month a collective from Northern CA is gonna go show a film on Venezuela at the AK Press warehouse in Oakland, maybe something to look out for. You can also read something about us HERE (http://www.redanarchist.org/definition/index.html) if you're into investigating stuff, because we're starting to look for more contacts on the West Coast and it's definitely a project I think you and your comrades would find interesting.

[Armed_Philosopher]

Its kind of interesting to have the Anarchists and the Communists here on one site....basicly we are all socialists, but we differ on the path to the stateless society. Obviously no Communist can say the Anarcist vision is unrealistic, since its the ultimate goal of communism anyway.

Authoritarian Communists on one side of the fence will say we need a vangaurd to ensure the transition isnt usurped by counter revolutionaries, and to help educate people during the transition....as transition which has never happened in any Authoritarian Communist revolution.

On the other hand, the Anarcho-syndacalists did in fact attain a working stateless society in Spain, but they were unable to defend it as they were invaded by a foreign army befor they had a chance to regroup post revolution.

These historic events have valuable lessons for both Anarchists and Communists.


I can offer my basic respect to Communists who stay true to the ultimate goal of freedom and equaity...though most often, the goal seems to seizing power and holding onto it in the case of Stalinist philosophies.


First and foremost, I am an Anarchist. I dont compromise on my opposition to hierarchy or my opposition to capitalism.

[Nachie]

The crux of our working together must be the common rejection of hierarchy, centralization, and in a word, Leninism.

But there are lots of Leninists on the forums and so you see endless debates about nonsense between people who's ideas would never be compatible in real life, no matter how much they both want "freedom".

[Armed_Philosopher]

I dont have a problem with Council Communists, or Autonomist Marxists.

I am definitly not a Lenninist or any sort.



I guess it comes down to choosing our battles, when are where to fight them. Obviously we both oppose the current state, but realisticly we could not work together beyond that. Thats just a fact.

When it comes to compromising with Authoritarians, the only ones who ever do any compromising is us. I dont realy think Lenninism is compatible with any branch of Anarchism.

[Nachie]

I dont realy think Lenninism is compatible with any branch of Anarchism.
Absolutely not.

I would be very interested to hear your impressions of that RAAN link I posted. You can Private Message me if you want.

[Armed_Philosopher]

"In the final analysis, RAAN considers autonomy to be its most important principle"

I agree with this.

You say there is going to be a meeting somewhere here in the Bay Area? Im actualy in the south bay, and it takes me at least an hour to get up to SF given traffic. If something realy cool is going on, sometimes I make it up there.

The project sounds very cool.

[LoneRed]

oh great, hes getting another one to the RAAN.... just what we need


armed philosopher didnt you know that Nachie works for Satan??

[Armed_Philosopher]

I have not fully looked over all of RAANs material.

Is this criticism comming from an Authoritarian Communist, or from other Anarchist members of this site?

[KC]

All revolutionary leftists are authoritarian ;)

[Armed_Philosopher]

" All revolutionary leftists are authoritarian"

Dont tell lies.

[KC]

The suppression of one class by another isn't authoritarian?

[Armed_Philosopher]

I would rather destroy class itself, by taking away the means that seperate one class from another.

Once there is only a single class of people, then there is no other class to oppress.

[LoneRed]

another class thread. arggg. well all i can say is dont join RAAN,

why? i dont know, just dont.


anyways calling me an "authoritarian communist" haha youve lots to learn

[Armed_Philosopher]

It was a serious question. I honestly dont know where everybody stands. Im honestly curious what the diferent ciricisms of the project is and who they are comming from.

Please understand that it was a serious question, not a mock question I created to taunt you.

[barista.marxista]

Lennies: Don't join RAAN! They don't let us in! Something about our "history"... Wah wah wah!!

;) :cool:

Y'all know I'm RAAN like a motherfucker. :ph34r:

[Armed_Philosopher]

Im new here.
Im going to do my homework befor getting involved in organizations.


I am definitely a Libertarian Socialist.

[LoneRed]

oh great, look what the dog dragged in... barista. HAHA

Ya dont jump the gun look at lots of organizations if you want to join one.

[Armed_Philosopher]

My beliefs can best be described as Anarchist Communist. Of course I have my own theories and ideas.

I am interested in working with all types of libertarian socialists.



Thats my introduction....

[barista.marxista]

Hey, I never said he shouldn't look into every organization he can. I'm not the one saying "YOU MUST BE IN A VANGUARD OR UR A DUM ANARKIST!"

[LoneRed]

and did I say that???................................NO!

[KC]

I would rather destroy class itself, by taking away the means that seperate one class from another.

You can't do that overnight. It takes time. What you are describing is the highest phase of communism. We can't go from capitalism to communism overnight; hence the dictatorship of the proletariat which is a dictatorship wherein the proletariat suppress the bourgeoisie.

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 12:07 AM
and did I say that???................................NO!
Ah, sorry, that was just your fellow Lennie, Khayembii, here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49080&st=275). All you authoritarian CL people are the same to me. :D

[LoneRed]

authoritarian... how cute


i recommend you to think before you post. if we all can do it, so can you

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by Khayembii Communique+--> (Khayembii Communique)
barista.marxista

THAT'S suppression of the bourgeoisie, and no totalitarian state is needed.


So you're an anarchist now?[/b]

YOU DON&#39;T BELIEVE IN TOTALITARIAN STATES &#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;? HOW <span style='color:black'>ANARCHIST OF YOU&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;</span>

I hope my satire isn&#39;t overwhelming for you.

[saint max]

You can&#39;t do that overnight. It takes time. What you are describing is the highest phase of communism. We can&#39;t go from capitalism to communism overnight; hence the dictatorship of the proletariat which is a dictatorship wherein the proletariat suppress the bourgeoisie.

Why not? Have we not enough bullets? Serriously, why can&#39;t we hastely and ruthlessly create beautiful ruins? Perhaps it would take a week of full-blow Nechiev-style party&#39;n, but I don&#39;t think we ought to sign peace treaties with realism over a political scandal.


All revolutionary leftists are authoritarian
I actually agree. But perhaps thats a bit more telling about "revolution" than communism and anarchy, or perhaps there are other modes of revolt more appropriate than revolution.

kisses,
-t

[KC]

YOU DON&#39;T BELIEVE IN TOTALITARIAN STATES &#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;? HOW ANARCHIST OF YOU&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

That is anarchist.


Why not?

Because in order to achieve the highest stage of communism, we have to do away with both the bourgeoisie and the material conditions giving rise to the bourgeoisie. For this to happen, the revolution must happen on a worldwide scale. So in order for us to go straight from capitalism to the highest stage of communism would mean a worldwide revolution overnight. This is impossible; it completely ignores historical materialism and the fact that different nations are in different stages of development.


I actually agree.

Good&#33; :)

[Armed_Philosopher]

What are the core diferences between a Council Communist and an Autonomist Marxist?

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by Khayembii Communique+May 15 2006, 01:53 AM--> (Khayembii Communique &#064; May 15 2006, 01:53 AM)That is anarchist.[/b]
Yes. Non-totalitarianism is anarchism. *high-five* :rolleyes:


Armed Philosopher
What are the core diferences between a Council Communist and an Autonomist Marxist?

Councilists focus on councilism itself, while autonomists emphasize the abilities of people to autonomously choose what form of organization is best for themselves. A bit more generally, councilists see the councilist form as the whole, while autonomists see it as a tool or part of the whole. The relationship is similar to that of anarcho-syndicalists and regular anarchists. Anarcho-syndicalists see syndicalism as the way to anarchism, while normal anarchists see it as a possible way.

[Armed_Philosopher]

"You can&#39;t do that overnight. It takes time. What you are describing is the highest phase of communism. We can&#39;t go from capitalism to communism overnight; hence the dictatorship of the proletariat which is a dictatorship wherein the proletariat suppress the bourgeoisie."


I think most anarchists see the "transition period" as the revolution itself. In Anarchism there is the revolution and the goal, while in Authoritarian branches of Communism there is the Revolution, a looooong period of totalitarian dictatorship seperate from the proletariat but making decisions on its behalf and the "eventual" movement twards the end goal.

The problem with this model is that there is little incentive for those in power to give up that power to move Communism to its next phase which is Anarchism.

I reject the idea that it Authoritarian Communists need to take over the whole entire world befor we can create a free society where we stand right now.

[KC]

Yes. Non-totalitarianism is anarchism. *high-five*

Rejecting the idea of the proletarian state is anarchism. ;)


I think most anarchists see the "transition period" as the revolution itself.

The violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie in one country is the revolution. After this violent overthrow, some mechanism of government must be built so that the proletariat can maintain its rule of that nation and won&#39;t lose it to a bourgeois counterrevolution. This period is called the dictatorship of the proletariat.


while in Authoritarian branches of Communism there is the Revolution, a looooong period of totalitarian dictatorship seperate from the proletariat but making decisions on its behalf and the "eventual" movement twards the end goal.

Orthodox Leninists, Maoists, Stalinists, etc... are the ones that advocate this kind of shit.


I reject the idea that it Authoritarian Communists need to take over the whole entire world befor we can create a free society where we stand right now.

You can&#39;t abolish money in one nation when capitalism is worldwide. The nation would have to be be self-sustaining, which is pretty much impossible, plus you need to be able to protect yourself from counterrevolutionaries.

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 15 2006, 02:36 AM
Rejecting the idea of the proletarian state is anarchism. ;)
When did I ever say I oppose the proletarian state? I said I oppose a totalitarian state. My conception of the proletarian state has been very well iterated here. But this is hardly on the topic of this young man&#39;s anarcho-communism, is it?

[KC]

When did I ever say I oppose the proletarian state? I said I oppose a totalitarian state. My conception of the proletarian state has been very well iterated here.

Then I probably misread what you said.


But this is hardly on the topic of this young man&#39;s anarcho-communism, is it?

Why did you bring it up, then? Oh, because you thought I said:


Hey, I never said he shouldn&#39;t look into every organization he can. I&#39;m not the one saying "YOU MUST BE IN A VANGUARD OR UR A DUM ANARKIST&#33;"

You obviously don&#39;t even know what a vanguard is and are confusing it with Lenin&#39;s views on the role that the vanguard should take in the movement.

[barista.marxista]

Then I probably misread what you said.
Then you obviously have never read a word I&#39;ve written, because I&#39;ve described how Autonomists see the DofP only about several dozen times, and mostly to you and your fellow CLers. In fact, I created a topic about it, entitled An Autonomist Conception of the DofP (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49167). You posted in this topic. So how is it you have misread my conception of the proletarian state?

because you thought I said...
You did say I&#39;m an anarchist for not support a totalitarian dictatorship here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49080&st=275), as I already posted above. Clearly you believe anyone who does not support a Leninist dictatorship is an anarchist, despite a large number of realistic and materialist conceptions on this board. This is yet another example of your crude Leninist reductionism.

You obviously don&#39;t even know what a vanguard is and are confusing it with Lenin&#39;s views on the role that the vanguard should take in the movement.
I was a Trotskyist for almost four years, and then I was briefly a Maoist. I&#39;m well aware of the conception of a vanguard. Are you?

[KC]

You did say I&#39;m an anarchist for not support a totalitarian dictatorship here, as I already posted above.

And it was a mistake, as I admitted above. Get over it.


Clearly you believe anyone who does not support a Leninist dictatorship is an anarchist, despite a large number of realistic and materialist conceptions on this board.

Actually, I don&#39;t believe that.


This is yet another example of your crude Leninist reductionism.

Sorry, I&#39;m not a Leninist ;)



I was a Trotskyist for almost four years, and then I was briefly a Maoist. I&#39;m well aware of the conception of a vanguard. Are you?

Regardless, you still are confusing the two; your railing against a vanguard is evidence of it.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 09:25 PM
Y&#39;all know I&#39;m RAAN like a motherfucker. :ph34r:
You&#39;re partially right. ;)

Miles

[saint max]

Sorry, I&#39;m not a Leninist

Well it&#39;s either Stalinist or Chavist then. Or perhaps Gramsci worship? You know statist ideologies are infantile-disorder, right?

[Armed_Philosopher]

"The violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie in one country is the revolution. After this violent overthrow, some mechanism of government must be built so that the proletariat can maintain its rule of that nation and won&#39;t lose it to a bourgeois counterrevolution. This period is called the dictatorship of the proletariat."

Sorry. Thats not my thing. I dont believe such a condition can ever reach its goal. Rather the means perpetuate itself.

You say that Communism cant work while there is capitalism in the world, but I say the only reason that is true is that your totalitarian dictatorship will only become State Capitalist, and you wrongfully apply that standard of regression onto Anarchists when nothing could be farther from the truth.

Anarchists can avoid this problem and create an expanding pattern from the bottom up. Eventualy it could reach the whole world, but it starts from a single cell.

Its only your totalitarian Vanguardist vision that falls apart when capitalism still exists, because your rulling vanguard becomes seduced by it, and sells out the peoples revolution to make the Vanguard into the new bougiose.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Armed_Philosopher+May 15 2006, 03:26 AM--> (Armed_Philosopher &#064; May 15 2006, 03:26 AM)You say that Communism cant work while there is capitalism in the world, but I say the only reason that is true is that your totalitarian dictatorship will only become State Capitalist, and you wrongfully apply that standard of regression onto Anarchists when nothing could be farther from the truth.

Anarchists can avoid this problem and create an expanding pattern from the bottom up. Eventualy it could reach the whole world, but it starts from a single cell.[/b]

Utopian rubbish. Unless you&#39;re planning to have a simultaneous overthrow of capitalism in every country, you will be confronted with a situation where you will have to deal with counterrevolution until proletarian revolutions remove those enemies. You cannot ignore them. (Well, actually, you can ignore them, technically speaking, but they will not ignore you.)

Your "single cell" analogy is as idealist and utopian as the liberal/social-democratic concept of a peaceful transition from capitalism to communism through aggregated reforms. In fact, it is worse than that tepid reformism; this combination of liberal utopianism and bourgeois ideology (individualism) can yield little more than a serotonin release. You won&#39;t change the world, but you&#39;ll get that warm and fuzzy feeling that most bourgeois liberals consider a reasonable substitute.


[email protected] 15 2006, 03:26 AM
Its only your totalitarian Vanguardist vision that falls apart when capitalism still exists, because your rulling vanguard becomes seduced by it, and sells out the peoples revolution to make the Vanguard into the new bougiose.

What is the vanguard? It is that section of the working class that is the most political advanced and active. It is broader than any particular organization, especially at this point in history. Any organization calling itself "the vanguard" is either delusional or substitutionist.

Does the League believe in "vanguardism"? Not in the sense that anarkiddies whine about it. We recognize that a vanguard exists within the working class. We are a part of it, just as we are a part of the working class as a whole, and just as tens of thousands of working people across the country are part of the vanguard here. But we are not "the vanguard", and we don&#39;t have to "believe in" it. It would exist regardless.

Of course, now that you&#39;re done regurgitating stock phrases, will you please clean up your mess? That stuff can really begin to stink if it sits for a while.

Miles

[Armed_Philosopher]

Naw, I dont realy agree with anything you just said.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.



Who are the "counter revolutionaries"? I suppose I would be one of them, since I would fight a Communist Dictatorship every bit as hard as I would fight capitalist Imperialism.

Its all a matter of perspective. I personaly think those who advocate a totalitarian regime are the counter revolutionaires. We just got rid of of the state, and these clowns want to make a new one? Thats counter revolutionary.



You say that some totalitarian government is needed to defend the working class from invasion? If the "2nd phase" Communism isnt able to defend itself then maybe it was never a very good idea to begin with and might as well scrap phase 1 along with it.

If however a phase 2 Communist society which is basicly Anarchist IS capible of defending itself, then why the need for phase 1?



I dont seperate "The Revolution" from the "goal". If we havnt reached freedom, then there are still enemies to be fought.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Armed_Philosopher+May 15 2006, 04:04 AM--> (Armed_Philosopher &#064; May 15 2006, 04:04 AM)Who are the "counter revolutionaries"? I suppose I would be one of them, since I would fight a Communist Dictatorship every bit as hard as I would fight capitalist Imperialism.[/b]

If you choose to align yourself with the capitalists and fascists, then, yes, you&#39;ll be a counterrevolutionary in my book. I&#39;ll just leave it at that.


Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 04:04 AM
Its all a matter of perspective. I personaly think those who advocate a totalitarian regime are the counter revolutionaires. We just got rid of of the state, and these clowns want to make a new one? Thats counter revolutionary.

How are you going to defend yourself from outside invasion, remnants of the capitalists&#39; army and/or fascist gangs? How will they be coordinated? If you think for one second that there will be no resistance to the revolution, you&#39;re either hopelessly deluded or a conscious liar.


Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 04:04 AM
You say that some totalitarian government is needed to defend the working class from invasion?

Actually, no, I don&#39;t say that. You say that.


Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 04:04 AM
If the "2nd phase" Communism isnt able to defend itself then maybe it was never a very good idea to begin with and might as well scrap phase 1 along with it.

If however a phase 2 Communist society which is basicly Anarchist IS capible of defending itself, then why the need for phase 1?

And maybe, if I try hard enough, I can levitate all the way from Los Angeles to New York. If, however, I cannot levitate from L.A. to N.Y., which is where I want to be, then why leave the house at all? And, shit, if I can&#39;t get to N.Y. this way, then maybe trying to get there at all was never a good idea to begin with, and I should just stay at home and watch movies. Fuck it.


[email protected] 15 2006, 04:04 AM
I dont seperate "The Revolution" from the "goal". If we havnt reached freedom, then there are still enemies to be fought.

I agree with you on that. The proletarian dictatorship is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Only myopic fools cannot grasp that.

Miles

[Armed_Philosopher]

I guess we do share some common goals, wether we like to admitt it or not.


The Communist dictatorships that we can point to as examples have all been terrible.


I would be more inclined to support a movement that included political egalitarianism along with economic egalitarianism, starting in phase 1 instead of phase 2. That doesnt mean the work would be done "instantly", and I agree that some people choose to be involved more then others, but I think that a system that encrporates direct democracy and subjects the Vanguard to the will of the proletariat, and not only* the proletariat to the will of the vanguard would be more legitimate.

I think we need a new model, and however much inspiration we draw from past models they need to be revised and adapted to the pressent condition.


Another issue I have that isnt specificly an Anarchist issue is on freedom of beliefs.

I personaly believe that religion tends to be used a tool to manipulate people. Im disgusted by people like Pat Robertson saying that God is on Bushs side and we are mass murdering the people of other countries for some holy cause. I agree that such thinking is a serious problem.

However, I dont nessisarily think that warrants the level of violent repression of these associations that we have seen in China among the Maoists for example. Its a little scary to know that if I choose to pick up a book on eastern philosophy/religion and somebdoy sees me reading it I could just that easily be concidered an enemy of the state. Its a little creepy when people start to dictate what ideas ar acceptable what ideas are not acceptable, wether its a Theocracy or a Socialist Republic.

The fact that I dont nessisarily agree with what they are teaching isnt realy important, but there are obvious examples of how that level of organized oppressive control that is used to "secure the revolution" can go seriously wrong when it ceases to protect the people and begins to kill off everybody who doesnt fit a certain mold.

[KC]

Well it&#39;s either Stalinist or Chavist then. Or perhaps Gramsci worship? You know statist ideologies are infantile-disorder, right?

Nope. Actually, I&#39;m a marxist. You know, he did advocate the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the proletarian state. ;)

[Nachie]

Originally posted by Khayembii Communique+May 15 2006, 02:11 PM--> (Khayembii Communique &#064; May 15 2006, 02:11 PM)Nope. Actually, I&#39;m a marxist. You know, he did advocate the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the proletarian state. ;)[/b]
Hence barista&#39;s Autonomist Conception of the DofP (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49167).

Wow&#33; Magic&#33;


"LoneRed"
well all i can say is dont join RAAN, why? i dont know, just dont.
hahahaha exactly

[KC]

Hence barista&#39;s Autonomist Conception of the DofP.

Wow&#33; Magic&#33;

I wasn&#39;t responding to barista there. ;)

[LoneRed]

and barista i was making a joke, but at the same time being entirely serious in the first half of that sentence

[Nachie]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 15 2006, 03:08 PM
I wasn&#39;t responding to barista there. ;)
No, but I was responding to you.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 08:50 PM
They&#39;re a little too centralized...
What do you mean by that?


organizationalist

God forbid&#33;

[Nachie]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 15 2006, 05:14 PM
What do you mean by that?
Ideologically.

As in, the embracing of the platform as their defining document and "ism", which certainly in the USA centralizes them to the extent that it isolates them from everybody else. NEFAC collectives are of course autonomous in activity, but this isn&#39;t the image or structure they project. The joke amongst NEFAC&#39;ers is to refer to themselves as "The Borg" because that&#39;s literally how a lot of anarchists see them, especially out on the West Coast.


God forbid&#33;
I only consider them organizationalist to the extent that their organizational platform and methodology is outdated, regimented, and totally unsuited to the national context. In addition the creation of "official posts" for duties that could easily be carried out informally just strikes me as much ado about nothing. My big problem with them is the mandatory dues.

Also RAAN is currently talking to NEFAC about doing a joint film screening, just in case I gave the impression that they&#39;re not seen as our allies or something. As a teenager I may even have joined them if we hadn&#39;t founded RAAN, instead.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 06:25 PM
In addition the creation of "official posts" for duties that could easily be carried out informally just strikes me as much ado about nothing.
It&#39;s called organisation and is a necessary part of making things happen. For an organisation that includes a majority of people older than 25 its often the case that people have full time jobs, families and lives outside of anarchism. Having official posts makes the fulfillment of tasks more efficient. It also means that these responsabilities are transparent and accountable.


My big problem with them is the mandatory dues.

I&#39;m quite certain that are not excluded from NEFAC if they cant pay dues. Organisations need money and if people don&#39;t mind and can contribute to things like publications and subing poorer members to gatherings, meetings or events then what&#39;s the problem?

[Nachie]

I&#39;m not against organization.

I understand that those are your opinions and those of the NEFAC&#39;ers but I&#39;m just explaining what the popular (mis)conception of them is. Also some of their theoretical positions are tailored specifically to "justify" the fact that many of their members have full time jobs as organizers for mainstream unions. I&#39;m not saying that&#39;s something they should have to justify, but they build certain policies and practice around it and it definitely is a split within the wider movement.

Plus I think they&#39;ve already peaked in the United States, unless they are able to somehow maximize spillover from Canada. Something else like the Somerville projectionist strike could also be a big help.

At this stage they are seen as an exclusive body trying to regiment and absorb the movement into a particular foreign, pre-existing format rather than an inclusive body seeking to coordinate autonomous resistance and only build structures needed for "efficiency" along the way, grounded directly in each situation&#39;s material circumstances.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 06:49 PM
At this stage they are seen as an exclusive body...
By who?


...trying to regiment and absorb the movement into a particular foreign, pre-existing format

If the anarchist movement in America is anything like it is in England then I think it&#39;s a worth while attempt.


rather than an inclusive body seeking to coordinate autonomous resistance and only build structures needed for "efficiency" along the way, grounded directly in each situation&#39;s material circumstances.

Autonomous resistance by who? And what do these structures do to further the creation of a working class movement?

The idea should be about building working class confidence in their ability to resist the state and capitalism.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 15 2006, 05:55 PM
By who?
People not in NEFAC. That is to say, the majority of the proletariat and anarchist movement, which of course is an exclusive body unto itself, comprised of various other exclusive bodies.

Personally as a Marxist I thought it was lame that we pretty much always have to get absorbed into "anarcho-syndicalist" groups because as a result of largely lacking our own non-Leninist organizations in which to be represented, they are "the closest thing". We set out to fix this, hence the "R" in RAAN.


If the anarchist movement in America is anything like it is in England then I think it&#39;s a worth while attempt.
I wouldn&#39;t know at all, but my guess is that (stereotypically speaking, only&#33;) the East Coast resembles the movement in England to the extent that the West Coast resembles Greece or Italy. At any rate almost everything we do is less effective, regardless of what you label it.


Autonomous resistance by who?
Well firstly by the working class of course, and secondly by any conscious militants who will be responsible for building the "organization" in question and coordinating energy towards the most effective support of the former.


And what do these structures do to further the creation of a working class movement?
But that&#39;s what people ask NEFAC...


The idea should be about building working class confidence in their ability to resist the state and capitalism.
I agree.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Nachie+May 15 2006, 07:13 PM--> (Nachie &#064; May 15 2006, 07:13 PM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 15 2006, 05:55 PM
By who?
People not in NEFAC. That is to say, the majority of the proletariat [/b]
I think it&#39;s quite arrogant to make that assertion.


Personally as a Marxist I thought it was lame that we pretty much always have to get absorbed into "anarcho-syndicalist" groups because as a result of largely lacking our own non-Leninist organizations in which to be represented, they are "the closest thing". We set out to fix this, hence the "R" in RAAN.

I don&#39;t accept that it&#39;s exclusively like that.


Well firstly by the working class of course, and secondly by any conscious militants who will be responsible for building the "organization" in question and coordinating energy towards the most effective support of the former.

You have regular contact with the working class do you? And how do they respond to what I suspect is a rather ghettoised group like RAAN, who by their own admission is loosly organised.



And what do these structures do to further the creation of a working class movement?
But that&#39;s what people ask NEFAC...

Being directly involved in workers politics is a means to achieving that objective and as far as I&#39;m aware that&#39;s what NEFAC do.

The general anarchist movement is extremely ghettoised and does not at all relate to the working class who are often suspicious of radical organisations.



The idea should be about building working class confidence in their ability to resist the state and capitalism.
I agree.

And how does RAAN do that?

[Nachie]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 15 2006, 06:26 PM
I think it&#39;s quite arrogant to make that assertion.
You&#39;re right, it&#39;s only a hypothesis. But that is after all an educated guess.


I don&#39;t accept that it&#39;s exclusively like that.
Neither did we, hence the "R" in RAAN.


You have regular contact with the working class do you? And how do they respond to what I suspect is a rather ghettoised group like RAAN, who by their own admission is loosly organised.
I would say that for the most part they&#39;ve never heard of us.

In many areas however we present ourselves as footsoldiers for community struggle already underway and under workers&#39; self-organization (without sacrificing our politics) and I&#39;ve yet to see a negative reaction to this approach.


Being directly involved in workers politics is a means to achieving that objective and as far as I&#39;m aware that&#39;s what NEFAC do.
I agree, and I support them. However they do not maintain a tactical monopoly over the anarchist movement, and the perception that they wish they did (however I don&#39;t think this is true) is a big dealbreaker here in the US.


The general anarchist movement is extremely ghettoised and does not at all relate to the working class who are often suspicious of radical organisations.
Fully agreed, hence RAAN&#39;s organizing outside of the general anarchist movement and its sceneism, and the resulting hostile reaction of the latter to the former. We&#39;d be much bigger by now if we were out to just coopt all the little collectives and projects already out there and already not working. That&#39;s one of the main reasons we haven&#39;t gained a solid foothold in Washington, DC. Neither has NEFAC, nor any other "broad" group for that matter.


And how does RAAN do that?
Well, for the most part chimx and I just put on thongs and wrestle in a kiddie pool filled with chocolate syrup.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Nachie+May 15 2006, 07:42 PM--> (Nachie &#064; May 15 2006, 07:42 PM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 15 2006, 06:26 PM
I think it&#39;s quite arrogant to make that assertion.
You&#39;re right, it&#39;s only a hypothesis. But that is after all an educated guess. [/b]
I&#39;m not at all convinced that&#39;s the case.


In many areas however we present ourselves as footsoldiers for community struggle already underway and under workers&#39; self-organization (without sacrificing our politics) and I&#39;ve yet to see a negative reaction to this approach.

Like a vanguard?

Working class people don&#39;t need footsoldiers, they need to believe in their own abilities and power in society.

I&#39;m not saying you don&#39;t do that, but you&#39;re not being very forthcoming with anything that supports you have or do or ever will co-ordinate anything which directly builds a libertarian workers movement.

Although you have just criticised NEFAC for doing that very thing and godforbid, wanting it to be organised.

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 02:42 PM
Well, for the most part chimx and I just put on thongs and wrestle in a kiddie pool filled with chocolate syrup.
And I&#39;ve got exclusive pictures to show it. ;)

[Nachie]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 15 2006, 06:55 PM
Like a vanguard?
How did you get from "footsoldier" to "vanguard"?

Some examples for you: SEIU hospital workers&#39; strike in Corning, PPU campaign in Rochester for an emergency hypothermia shelter culminating in a building occupation as forwarded by RAAN, Katrina relief with mutual aid groups, shutting down of the Modesto Tallow Plant with surrounding communities, blocking construction of a Wal Mart with the self-organized community, various projects of support with both political and social prisoners, advancement of Parkour as a training technique, Stockton trucker&#39;s strike with the IWW, support of autonomous immigrant movements on and around May 1st, work within urban gangs, support and resources towards those with relatives are assassinated by the pigs, support to non-aligned autonomous community spaces, free food to striking Foster Farms workers...

I see no reason to have a pissing match over who&#39;s penis is more proletarian. RAAN is definitely interested in internal work within the existing anti-state movement as a way of coordinating compatible ideologies towards a more effective support of proletarian self-valorization.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Armed_Philosopher+May 15 2006, 07:40 AM--> (Armed_Philosopher &#064; May 15 2006, 07:40 AM)I guess we do share some common goals, wether we like to admitt it or not.[/b]

I have no problem admitting it. ;)


Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 07:40 AM
I would be more inclined to support a movement that included political egalitarianism along with economic egalitarianism, starting in phase 1 instead of phase 2. That doesnt mean the work would be done "instantly", and I agree that some people choose to be involved more then others, but I think that a system that encrporates direct democracy and subjects the Vanguard to the will of the proletariat, and not only* the proletariat to the will of the vanguard would be more legitimate.

"Political egalitarianism" ... like organized assemblies and councils of working people in workplaces and neighborhoods deciding how society will be organized and function, and having volunteer armed forces available to defend those assemblies from attacks by capitalists and their agents? I call that a working people&#39;s republic -- the proletarian dictatorship. Such a system would incorporate direct democracy and would function as class rule "from below" -- or, as you put it, it would "subject the Vanguard to the will of the proletariat".


Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 07:40 AM
I think we need a new model, and however much inspiration we draw from past models they need to be revised and adapted to the pressent condition.

I tend to think the basic principles of how such a system is organized are still valid. What specific form it takes, however, is something that will be flexible and based on conditions.


Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 07:40 AM
However, I dont nessisarily think that warrants the level of violent repression of these associations that we have seen in China among the Maoists for example. Its a little scary to know that if I choose to pick up a book on eastern philosophy/religion and somebdoy sees me reading it I could just that easily be concidered an enemy of the state. Its a little creepy when people start to dictate what ideas ar acceptable what ideas are not acceptable, wether its a Theocracy or a Socialist Republic.

I don&#39;t think that anyone here has suggested restriction on beliefs or viewpoints.


[email protected] 15 2006, 07:40 AM
The fact that I dont nessisarily agree with what they are teaching isnt realy important, but there are obvious examples of how that level of organized oppressive control that is used to "secure the revolution" can go seriously wrong when it ceases to protect the people and begins to kill off everybody who doesnt fit a certain mold.

Personally, I welcome people who disagree with me -- even if that is not sometimes very obvious. :) Differing points of view keep me honest. If I cannot justify my actions honestly, then the actions are not worth undertaking in the first place.

Miles

[Brekisonphilous]

This thread is pretty cool.
Armed Philosopher, I also identify myself as some branch of Libertarian Communism. I am just confused on which one, because there seem to be quite a few that seem similar.
Nachie, I am interested in your politics and agree with many of your posts, and would like to know if you could provide me with some information to further educate me on different types of anarcho-communism. I am heading off to check out the RAAN site now...

[anomaly]

Welcome Armed Philosopher&#33; Good to see another annie. :D

Also, Nachie, I would not call NEFAC centralized in the least. Indeed, it is comprised of autonomous collectives&#33;

And TAT, Nachie hits the point:

Originally posted by Nachie
I see no reason to have a pissing match over who&#39;s penis is more proletarian.
The NEFAC and the RAAN are both good anti-statist organizations that help the cause. Some like the network, some like the federation. But hey, we&#39;re all anarchists...or &#39;autonomous Marxists&#39;. ;)

[Nachie]

On Federations and Networks: An interview with Robert Ebright (http://www.redanarchist.org/texts/praxis/1/fedsandnets.html) ;)

Brekisonphilous, what were you interested in specifically? There is a pretty good collection of links HERE (http://www.geocities.com/commie00/links.html) that can get you to a bunch of different texts about different things. The best way to learn is just ask specific questions, though - and of course, read what people have already been saying to figure out who&#39;s views you tend to find affinity with. Anything about theory or history in general I would ask on revleft and of course if you have questions or interests in RAAN the best place to bring them up is the network&#39;s forum (let us know what you think of the site, by the way).

And you can Private Message me whenever, I&#39;m always down to discuss things at length and figure out where everybody stands/what everybody wants - that&#39;s what RAAN&#39;s all about&#33;

[Comrade-Z]

Let&#39;s make it simple:

Can we agree that we want to ruthlessly dispossess and destroy the capitalist class during/after the revolution?

Can we agree that we want to ruthlessly suppress those who want to re-introduce private property and claim a monopoly on the means of production? (Even if they are fascist proletarians, or even if they say that they have the best interests of the revolutionary proletariat in mind, as well. It doesn&#39;t matter what promises they make. The means of production will not be taken out of the hands of the revolutionary proletariat under any circumstances.)?

Anarchists and Leninists should be able to agree on these first two. Yes, both want this. And using the marxist definition of a state, this would constitute a state. So take that, you dogmatic anarchists who can&#39;t step outside of your definitional and ideological shells for just one moment&#33; :lol:

Can we agree that the entirety of the revolutionary proletariat (which is the massive portion of the proletariat that takes an active revolutionary role from day 1 of the revolution) should have direct democratic control of the new society from day 1 of the revolution?

This is where things get tricky. Leninists usually demand that the revolution be authoritarian to everyone except those who bow to party leadership.

On the other hand, anarchists demand that the transitional revolutionary state be incredibly brutal and authoritarian, even totalitarian, towards the former capitalist class, fascists, priests, and the like, but at the same time incredibly ultra-democratic within the revolutionary proletariat.

In the book "The Spanish Cockpit" by Franz Borkenau, the author talks about how anarchists in Spain would be as kind and cooperative as can be towards a comrade, but at the same time these anarchists would eagerly and with vehement hatred string up a capitalist class or shoot a priest.

Violence and authoritarianism within the revolutionary proletariat was not tolerated. But violence and authoritarianism against counter-revolutionaries was a part of the basic anarchist programme&#33;

In short, the Spanish anarchists sought to be ultra-democratic within their own proletarian ranks, and ruthlessly authoritarian towards capitalists, priests, and counter-revolutionaries in general. This was the correct stance, in my opinion.

Obviously there will be some reactionary elements within the proletariat. Those will be ruthlessly suppressed. But the entirety of the revolutionary proletariat (that wants to abolish private property and move as fast as possible towards stateless communism) is what we are interested in.

Can we agree to rapidly abolish money?

Can we agree on attacking leadership mentality during and after the revolution?

Can we agree to make sure individuals are rotated in and out of administrative positions on a regular basis, no exceptions? (Assuming representative, recallable administrative positions are needed).

If anarchists and Leninists can agree on these things, then they have no reason to bicker about whether or not having a transitional state is a good thing. Clearly the issue is solved.

The revolution will have a transitional "state" that is brutally authoritarian towards the old order, but yet uncompromisingly cooperative and ultra-democratic within the revolutionary proletariat.

[anomaly]

If only things were so simple.

The only similarities between anarchists and Leninists are that we are anti-capitalists. We disagree on basically everything else.


Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z
And using the marxist definition of a state, this would constitute a state.
If you wish. Actually, I argue that the resulting society would be functionally classless, and thus no state machinery is required. But no one ever picks up on the &#39;functionally&#39;...except LSD, because I stole the term from him. :lol:

But, yea, I agree with the basic ideas behind your post.

However, surely you understand that Lennies and annies will never get along, right? It is an ongoing debate, simply &#39;how to get there&#39;. And it&#39;s an important debate.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 11:50 PM
The only similarities between anarchists and Leninists are that we are anti-capitalists.
Leninists are NOT anti-capitalist. They are the left-wing of capital. They are the "stick a red flag in capitalism to make it look pretty, because the workers are getting antsy".

Even Mr. Z&#39;s analysis is far too much of a patch-job to conceal the real differences in PRACTICE between Leninists and actual revolutionaries. For instance,


Can we agree that the entirety of the revolutionary proletariat should have direct democratic control of the new society from day 1 of the revolution?
The Leninists would answer, "of course, they&#39;ll have it through our victorious workers&#39; party&#33;"

I do agree however that Borkenau&#39;s book is excellent, probably the best and most accessible account of the Spanish Civil War.

[LoneRed]

" Leninists are NOT anti-capitalist"


Nachie, this is beautiful, just beautiful....

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 11:50 PM
However, surely you understand that Lennies and annies will never get along, right? It is an ongoing debate, simply &#39;how to get there&#39;. And it&#39;s an important debate.
Actually, if the Anarchist position is correct, that the revolution will happen due to the spontaneous genius of the working class, then it&#39;s a pretty pointless debate, no?

Plus, whilst &#39;lennies&#39; and &#39;annies&#39; are hurling insults at each other in the name of this &#39;debate&#39; and "not getting along", the workers are ignoring both factions in their millions.

[LoneRed]

very true, both viewpoints are too far outta the working class grasp. the anarchists just wanna wait for something to happen and want instance gratification(revolution) to a new society, and Lennies have a bad history so no one is taking there view to heart.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by CitizenZero+--> (CitizenZero)Actually, if the Anarchist position is correct, that the revolution will happen due to the spontaneous genius of the working class, then it&#39;s a pretty pointless debate, no?[/b]
I&#39;ll tell you one thing. The revolution won&#39;t happen if we don&#39;t get out there and tell people that another world is possible (anarchism). And currently many dozens of anarchist groups are working toward such a goal.

But I&#39;ll tell you another thing, Lennie. I trust in the working class far more than I trust in your pathetic Vanguard Party. I spit on your Vanguard.

I&#39;d say the debate is still important. But I think it&#39;s almost over, too. :)


LoneRed
both viewpoints are too far outta the working class grasp
Or anarchism is not yet in their material interests. Anarchism isn&#39;t out of anyone&#39;s &#39;grasp&#39;. It&#39;s a rather simple concept.

Leninism is only within one&#39;s grasp if one happen&#39;s to be in the Party. :lol:

[Armed_Philosopher]

I dont see anything wrong with being a facilitator of Revolution, but I do see a problem with the attitude that the Vanguard is so high above the working class intellectualy that it gives them the right to sezie positions of power for the benifit of the working class. Once the Vanguard becomes the power behind the revolution, the revolution has already been los as we fall right back into classism. One rule for rullers and another for the rulled. The Vanguard can decide who is a threat and send a police force to kill them, but the working class are merely tools to be recruited from....for their own good.

I have more faith in the people then that. I believe that people are resourcefull and can figure things out in a hurry when it becomes a matter of survival.

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 08:09 PM
" Leninists are NOT anti-capitalist"


Nachie, this is beautiful, just beautiful....
You call yourself a historical materialist: when in history, in the last one hundred years and two dozen attempts, has Leninism created anything but state-capitalist regimes? Upon a material analysis, what does that lead you to conclude?

[Brekisonphilous]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 01:55 AM

You call yourself a historical materialist: when in history, in the last one hundred years and two dozen attempts, has Leninism created anything but state-capitalist regimes? Upon a material analysis, what does that lead you to conclude?
Barista is right, Lenists are nothing more than capitalists wrapped in a red banner. :lol:
Anarchists and Lenists will always always always disagree until the Lenists along with the bourgeoisie and hierarchy are overthrown by the anarchists. If the Lenists seized power after the revolution, actually, no-- there would be no "after" the revolution because it would only continue until the anarchists are either supressed or give in to hierarchy( fat chance of that happening), or the anarchists prevail in mobilizing the proletariat.
And the proletariat would not stop until your Lenist vanguard is crushed... So really, whoever mobilizes the proletariat first wins... But the way I see it, it will ultimately be the anarchists because that is the final frontier. Lenists had their chance with the proletariat and blew it. It is our turn.

[LoneRed]

does that mean that at the core of their doctrine is not anti-capitalist? No it doesnt, they realized that they in fact did need to have an industrial working class as well as the higher modes of production to bring socialism. Whether they got there or not is a moot point, there original goal was socialism, whether anyone likes that or not, or whether it was achieved.

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 10:30 PM
there original goal was socialism
Unless you&#39;re a Kantist: BOO-FUCKING-WHOO&#33; What they said they really really really really really wanted, and what they actually did, are two different things. And guess which counts to a real Marxist?

[LoneRed]

did you read a word of what i said, They REALIZED that they needed capitalism before socialism, just because they didnt have the opportunity or ability what have you to show in action socialism doesnt mean thats not what they wanted. also did you ever take a gander at the workers soviets?? doubtful.

[barista.marxista]

Yes, they realized they needed capitalism before socialism, and then they became capitalists. Thus, Leninism is a third-world phenomena that serves as a transistor between feudalism/proto-capitalism, and industrialized capitalism (in the best-case scenarios). It is therefore equatible to the bourgeois revolutions of Europe from the seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries, and is, again, not revolutionary leftism, but merely the left-wing of capital. I&#39;m glad we reached that conclusion together, LoneRed.

However, I feel the need to reiterate this: it&#39;s not what they said they really really really wanted, it&#39;s what they actually did.

And yes, I have gandered at the soviets. Your point being? I mean, I assume you know that the soviets were the first things to be subordinated under the all-mighty party bureaucracy. Right?

[Martin Blank]

What&#39;s the difference between an anarchist and most of the self-described "Leninists"? An anarchist substitutes him or herself for the working class as an individual. A self-described "Leninist" substitutes him or herself for the working class as part of an organization.

Miles

[encephalon]

What&#39;s the difference between an anarchist and most of the self-described "Leninists"? An anarchist substitutes him or herself for the working class as an individual. A self-described "Leninist" substitutes him or herself for the working class as part of an organization.


Oh, please. Plenty of anarchists are in organizations. They simply aren&#39;t the same top-down organizations as leninists prefer. At least be truthful to yourself and others when trying to make a point.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 04:35 AM
Oh, please. Plenty of anarchists are in organizations. They simply aren&#39;t the same top-down organizations as leninists prefer. At least be truthful to yourself and others when trying to make a point.
Maybe you should limit your interjections to times when you get the point.

Miles

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 08:22 PM
I see no reason to have a pissing match over who&#39;s penis is more proletarian.
Me neither and that wasn&#39;t the intention. I was genuinely interested in what it is that RAAN do.

[Armed_Philosopher]

I understood encephalon. Maybe I need to be confused by some Communist lingo to help me not understand what he said.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 10:49 AM
Maybe you should limit your interjections to times when you get the point.
He did get the point: You were making some lameass slander against anarchists and had no idea what you were talking about.


Me neither and that wasn&#39;t the intention. I was genuinely interested in what it is that RAAN do.
Word. I am too haha, we&#39;re too young to really know just yet, but I guarantee it&#39;ll be awesome when we get there.

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 16 2006, 06:47 AM
I was genuinely interested in what it is that RAAN do.
Three words: revolutionary dance parties. Yeah, you heard it. :D

[KC]

Sounds like the anarchists here. May Day Picnic&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; (Even though the city&#39;s largest protest in history is happening, they have a picnic instead. Go figure.)

[Nachie]

the teddy bears come to our picnics

:marx: :hammer: :che:

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 16 2006, 02:06 PM
Sounds like the anarchists here. May Day Picnic&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; (Even though the city&#39;s largest protest in history is happening, they have a picnic instead. Go figure.)
Wait, I just had a better idea&#33; Newspaper sale drive&#33;&#33; Let&#39;s see who can sell 50 copies first&#33; Yay&#33;&#33; :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:

[KC]

Wait, I just had a better idea&#33; Newspaper sale drive&#33;&#33; Let&#39;s see who can sell 50 copies first&#33; Yay&#33;&#33;

Another shitty idea. You could tip over dumpsters in the middle of the street like the anarchists here do.

[Nachie]

barista, you dolt&#33; we don&#39;t have a newspaper&#33;

waah waah waah waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah&#33;

:marx: :hammer: :che:

[CCCPneubauten]

I&#39;d still say we both are having trouble...most common folks think anarchism is running around with no cops and getting into a shooting match whilst going to the store. And when peole think Leninism they think....Stalin. IN a way, some one need to get out and act and teach, first one to do THAT will win.

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 03:32 PM
barista, you dolt&#33; we don&#39;t have a newspaper&#33;
...

How come the Central Committee never told me this?

Fuck RAAN. I&#39;m joining the Communist League&#33; :hammer: :hammer: :trotski: :che: :marx: :trotski: :cuba: :cuba: :castro: :trotski:

[LoneRed]

these anarchists are acting quite immature.

It is true that the anarchists or the ones around here and back home, would rather run around dumpstering, or tagging shit, or basically not doing a damn thing rather than organizing.

[Nachie]

yeah but i bet at the very least they ride totally expensive road bikes

:marx: :hammer: :che:

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 09:17 AM
I understood encephalon. Maybe I need to be confused by some Communist lingo to help me not understand what he said.
Fine, you want me to say that anarchists substitute themselves for the working class sometimes as an individual and sometimes as an affinity group. I can do that. Not a problem. It doesn&#39;t change the point, though.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 16 2006, 01:06 PM
Sounds like the anarchists here. May Day Picnic&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; (Even though the city&#39;s largest protest in history is happening, they have a picnic instead. Go figure.)
What do you expect? Given the sexism these boys display, a good measure of national chauvinism and racism is also to be anticipated.

Miles

[KC]

What do you expect?

I expected to see some dumpsters tipped at the march&#33; And I was really disappointed when it didn&#39;t happen. :(

[anomaly]

Originally posted by LoneRed
these anarchists are acting quite immature
Yea, totally.

Or maybe you Marxists need to get a sense of humor.

[LoneRed]

I wasnt referring to those things which were obviously jokes, but instead the things you said that had truth about them, i.e. the CL reference as well as your relentless attacks on leninism

[The Feral Underclass]

This thread has no theoretical value.