Anarchists show their idiocy - yet again, isolating themselv [Archive]

Kez

31st May 2003, 20:34

first off, soz for the wrong thread, they musta changeed the address or sum shit

well done james, you should be on the comedy strip with that sorta wit...

"Attacking the party headquarters of one of the ruling parties to protest the G8 summit is nothing even remotely close to fucking up the movement."

It doesnt matter what the party does, its the fact that the party has the following of the working class, and if the working class are in the SP we also should be there to get the most advanced workers and radicalise them further.

If we dont work within these parties to get the best members, where the fuck are we gonna get members from? from the street? from just talking to people we pass?

How is the attack on this property justified? Will the party leaders (who with some justification are traitors) pay for it? NO! it will be the working class members, so the "anarchists" have caused damage which the working class members will have to pay for most for! So much for uniting to fight for working class!

Secondly, on another thread we have said that rioting helps fuckin no1, its unorganised mayhem, which cud result in injury or death (as was the case with comrade carlo). Rioting creates worse press, isolating the marxists from the working class. Another congratulations to the anarchists it seems! Bravo!

And as for my campaign against Anarchists, i gave it up long ago, as i saw it was pointless, but i will not hidee my dislike for anarchism, stalinism, capitalism or fascism.

"hmm Kamo, trying to distort the facts are we?"
- no i didnt present any of my own facts...what are you talking about?

Pete

31st May 2003, 20:35

It doesnt matter what the party does, its the fact that the party has the following of the working class

And what if the working class are in the American Republican Party?

rAW DEaL bILL

31st May 2003, 20:55

kamo id like to know what u have against anarchism and anarchists. i truly dont understand how someone who truly knows about anarchism could possibly be aposed to it unless theyre truly happy with being bossed around and having their liberties taken away like some kind of fascist. anarchism is simply total freedom. no one has more freedom than anyone else. its mutual aid. if u DONT know a lot about anarchism and are campaigning against chaos and lawlessness than im with you in your campaign. just dont call it a campaign against anarchism because ANARCHY IS NOT CHAOS! if it is true u think anarchy is so terrible because of what u think it is than i suggest reading some anarchist philosophers. I suggest reading the works of Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Mikhail Bakunin, Errico Malatesta, Alexander Berkman and Daniel Guerin to name a few.if not and u truly know what anarchism is and your still against it than, wow! i truly dont understand it! u must be like anti-freedom or something or maybe u just realy like the "security" of having a master take care of everyhting for you just like..... o i know! a FASCIST! u said u were opossed to fascism yet u seem to enjoy masters..... a bit hypocrytical dont you think? also all anarchists arent violent. there are passifist anarchist too u know! just because anarchists are usualy assosiated with violence doesnt mean all of them are violent. another thing, ALL ANARCHISTS ARE SOCIALISTS. there are some people that call themselves "anarcho-capitalists" but thats bullshit. thats a fucking oxi-moron. anarchists just believe in maximising peoples freedom and thats impossible with capitalism. therefore anarchists cant be fucking up there own movement! just because the "working class" is in that particular party doesnt mean its a good party! it means the working class in that party are uninformed and need to get the fuck out of that party if they wish to see true socialism. just my reaction to this attack on anarchism. peace

BOZG

31st May 2003, 21:37

I seriously doubt it was just the anarchists. It's the usual shit from the media "If they do any sort of direct action, let's call them anarchists and say they're out to kill everyone and that they eat children".
I'd say it's probably all sorts of lefties, not just the anarchists. As far as I know they also attacked a petrol station.

Kez

1st June 2003, 00:00

raw deal, u r not an anarchist, u are a fool

"could possibly be aposed to it unless theyre truly happy with being bossed around and having their liberties taken away like some kind of fascist."
- in a workers state no1 is my boss, if everyone is a beurocrat, there is no beurocracy

"u must be like anti-freedom or something or maybe u just realy like the "security" of having a master take care of everyhting for you just like..... o i know! a FASCIST!"
- dont fuck about with the term, people like you lower the significance of this most disgusting of "ideologies"
6 million jews were killed in holocaust, countless , gypsies, homosexuals, disabled people, comrades, trade unionists, communists were killed and tortured. 30 million people were killed trying to end the war against fascism, AND YOU DARE CALL ME A FASCIST!!!!

not once but many times! Get a grip of yourself and think about what your saying...

"just because the "working class" is in that particular party doesnt mean its a good party! it means the working class in that party are uninformed and need to get the fuck out of that party if they wish to see true socialism"
it doesnt fuckin matter, if u had any knowledge of the working class and how to conduct revolution you would know only the workers can do anything. No fuckin squatters are gonna change shit, no hippy commune is gonna do fuck all. Fuckin ram your cabbage patch for fux sake, we want a workers revolution!

comrade kamo

Pete

1st June 2003, 00:08

Kamo, your post quality has dropped recently, but I was wondering if that last part was directed at me since it resembled what I wrote...

Kez

1st June 2003, 00:56

no it was directed at raw deal?

why u think my post quality has gone down? amount of swearing? i think im letting me emotions back in again. i try and sort it out, Cheers

Pete

1st June 2003, 05:38

I just remember more articulate and capitalised/puncuated posts. Or of course it could be teh 3000 post nostaglia kicking in early...

Severian

1st June 2003, 08:39

Kez

1st June 2003, 09:43

nah, james is always looking for an excuse to smear my name. The title really isnt ironic....

Anyway, this was the first time i wanted the police to really beat fuck outta these tits, not coz they were anarchists, but for the reactionary work they were taking.

comrade kamo

redstar2000

1st June 2003, 14:25

Anyway, this was the first time i wanted the police to really beat fuck outta these tits...

Gee, TK, are you so lonely these days that you want to "cuddle with cops"? What does that make you?

Personally, I salute the revolutionary courage of all those kids over there...standing up to the "world leaders" and their lackies (that includes you now, TK).

While they engage in real struggle against capitalist hegemony, you are still whining about bourgeois political parties and how we should try to "radicalize" them.

BornOfZapatasGuns has it right, of course...it is not just "anarchists" that are there. But I'm pretty sure there are probably few or no Stalinists, Trotskyists, or Maoists there. One rarely finds ghosts among the living.

The kids at Evian and similar protests around the world are the future of the international revolutionary movement.

And if that be "anarchism", then make the most of it!

:cool:

http://sf.indymedia.org/ for updates from anti-capitalist sources.

redstar2000

1st June 2003, 14:38

Ironic that anarchists spout on so much about freedom and then attempt an act of repression against another party. Whatever one thinks of the Socialist Party, to attempt to express that opinion by goon-squad methods is rather Stalinist...or one could say Nechaevist as easily, I guess.

I would conclude from this extraordinary statement that whenever we deal with bourgeois political parties, you would favor a more decorous approach...something involving a bended knee, perhaps? Ours, not theirs, of course.

Disgusting.

:cool:

Kez

1st June 2003, 15:18

RedStar, dont be a fuckin hero, ur not good, ur wit is poor, and u shud try thinking about what u spout out.

If these shits are the hope of the future id quit now, fortunately theyre not.

why would i be a lacky of these bourgeoisie parties? because im trying to get rid of the bourgeoisie element in the party with the mass workers following?
Grow up, stop hurling names at people

First off, what will the working classes reaction BE NOW, when they see this violence? dont put fuckin spin on it, but what will the REACTION be? will it make workers wanna join them and make them marxist? or will it isolate the rioters from the movement?

comrade kamo

ps, for the first time, try thinking about it before you blast your bullshit around

redstar2000

1st June 2003, 16:16

First off, what will the working classes reaction BE NOW, when they see this violence? dont put fuckin spin on it, but what will the REACTION be? will it make workers wanna join them and make them marxist? or will it isolate the rioters from the movement?

It's likely that quite a few of those kids are workers or sons/daughters of workers. Of course, they are very different from the kinds of workers that you hang out with...who support the Labour Party and never "walk on the grass" when the sign forbids it.

Yes, I'm sure the "rioters" are very isolated from all those workers who still accept capitalism; on the other hand, those workers who are having their doubts are probably looking on with interest...here are people who are fighting back in a major way.

It all depends on your point of view...like those who stand against the police and those who stand with them.

If these shits are the hope of the future id quit now...

Good idea.

:cool:

Kez

1st June 2003, 17:41

[quote]Quote: from redstar2000 on 4:16 pm on June 1, 2003

It's likely that quite a few of those kids are workers or sons/daughters of workers. Of course, they are very different from the kinds of workers that you hang out with...who support the Labour Party and never "walk on the grass" when the sign forbids it.

Yes, I'm sure the "rioters" are very isolated from all those workers who still accept capitalism; on the other hand, those workers who are having their doubts are probably looking on with interest...here are people who are fighting back in a major way.

It all depends on your point of view...like those who stand against the police and those who stand with them.

[quote]

do you have ANY uunderstanding of how the working class operates????

many fascist groups are filled with working class members, do u see me supporting them? No? There is no fuckin logic to ur posts.

People who are pissedd off my capitalism dont ponder at these yobs and say "hrmmm, here are people who are fighting back in a major way"
Your a total idiot for thinking so. People think how can they change it, how can they better themselves. How is rioting and getting beaten up by pigs make their lvies better? hey???

i never sed id stand with the policee, i sed i hoped they beat up some anarchists.

comrade kamo

sc4r

1st June 2003, 19:26

Quote: from TavareeshKamo on 8:34 pm on May 31, 2003

It is just an opinion, but it's my opinion that the sort of passive attitude you are preaching is partly what allows the gentle creep of capitalism masquerading as soft liberalism to so effectively take control.

In a way the headquarters of parties pretending to be socialist when they are in fact just as wedded to liberal ideas of property as anyone else are actually more worthy of attack than those of admitted capitalists. Why? - because these people are traitors or subversives.

If you dont protest loud and clear your voice will never be heard. It is not as thought the working classes in the west are so badly off that they will ever resist until the point at which it is too late. They need alerting to the danger; they need it thrust into their faces, and made unmistakeable.

Genuine socialism does not get an equal press. It does not get fairly represented; so we cannot rely upon moderation.

Good on the Anarchists I say.

CompadreGuerrillera

1st June 2003, 20:54

Kamo, I have a question... why are you even a communist? or let me restate this, why are you even revolutionary? or are you even that? i know i asked mulitple questions becuase i am not sure of WHO you are, you stated that you are anti-facist, capitalist, anarchist, and stalinist, so what are you, authoritarian communist or something? I think you just thought it was COOL to be a "communist", i bet you konw nothing about its philosophy, and from your posts, you look like a "poser" just my observation

Kamo, just drop this shit, no1 appreciates your confused-kid-on-the-internet attitude, no go back to your paranoid fantasies you autocratic idiot

Kez

1st June 2003, 22:02

oh dear,
this thread means that a serious issue of the examination of the ideologies needs to take place on serious debate both of the validty of anarchism and marxism, but on another thread i believe, in a weeks time as we finished exams?

ok, back to the rioters, just because the leaders of this party are shitheads doesnt mean that the anarchists can smash it up (for which the majority of members of the SP who are Working Class members) will have to pay for.

Where are the working class members voting for now? (if at all due to apathy of shit SP leadership).

For my information, who are the unions afilliated with?

Sc4r, good post, good qustions, but 1 thing, these were not protests, if they were, they wud be organised, they werent. The organised protest was with the moustached guy Jose Reve or summit, i forget his name. Now this guy has my respect, not because of his lack of marxist understanding, but rather the organisation, and the fact that ppl going here will protest (sometimes violently) but in organised fashion, against capitalism.

ok, now onto BellendreGuerillera,
mate, you dont know me.
2nd, if i was a "poser" y wud i bother reading marxist books?
y am i autocratic? do i lead a nation i do not know of???
do i lead a following i do not know of???
please tell me how i am autocratic???

ive noticed u havent contributed to any of my posts in theory, is this due to u not knowing there was a theory forum (which wud be a legit reason) or ur lack of socialist theoretical understanding

yours in struggle
comrade kamo

(Edited by TavareeshKamo at 10:04 pm on June 1, 2003)

Som

1st June 2003, 22:05

It doesnt matter what the party does, its the fact that the party has the following of the working class,

and then...

many fascist groups are filled with working class members, do u see me supporting them? No?

Social-democrats, fascists, neither are really working for socialism, and neither party are going to be converted to it.

http://uk.indymedia.org/front.php3?article...3&group=webcast (http://uk.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=70163&group=webcast)

near the bottom is what one of the people there has to say on it, not much different.

Guardia Bolivariano

1st June 2003, 22:49

Personally I think the problem with anarchism is thAT It's a "COMERCIAL" ideology a big part of the people who get into the movement do It to be "cool" and unfortunetly the "cool" ones overshadow the smart ones and that gives us a wrong impresion.

I'm happy that communism is evil the less cool kids we have the better!:biggrin:

redstar2000

1st June 2003, 22:50

People think how can they change it, how can they better themselves. How is rioting and getting beaten up by pigs make their lvies better? hey???

No, TK, actually people don't always think about "how they can better themselves".

Now and then, believe it or not, they think about what it would be like to be free.

How romantic, you say. How juvenile, you say. How idiotic, you say.

How marvelous, I say! And how much like, on a small scale, it looks like the way real revolutions actually happen. The "vanguard" is conspicuous by its absence. If there's a "great leader" present, he is certainly extraordinarily adept at avoiding the public eye.

The ruling class is, as always, better than the Leninists in perceiving the real threats to their power. When the "Marxist"-Leninists come to town, not only are no extra police required...they can send a few guys on vacation.

Matters are, um, more serious when a substantial and outraged portion of the population shows up.

i never sed id stand with the policee, i sed i hoped they beat up some anarchists.

I see...when the time comes for fascist violence against ordinary people, you prefer to call on the services of trained professionals.

I suppose you have a point; why bloody your own hands when you can hire people to do the dirty work for you?

:cool:

sc4r

2nd June 2003, 01:32

what will the reaction of working classes be now if they see these sham socialists not getting violently denounced for what they are ?

I'm with redstar on this. Far too much reasonable and passive acceptance of takeover of socialist movements by what are after all just 'nice' liberals (in this context that means capitalists BTW) goes on.

You gotta make up your mind. What are you for - Socialism, or the workers of the western world getting a share of capitalism? If its the latter then fine, just go on pushing for a bigger and more powerful 'Labour' party. You will end up with exactly what we have inthe UK - A 'labour' party that is actually a 'capitalist' party prepared to get into bed and shag its brains out with any American whore that promises it a good time.

I dont think you realise that this is a war. The capitalist side is not going to allow your nice democratic take-over to take place. They are not going to allow the socialist message even to be heard, and the only way it ever will be is by making a noise. This certainly included denouncing traitors with false messages.

Good on the Anarchists I say

(Edited by sc4r at 1:37 am on June 2, 2003)

ChiTown Lady

2nd June 2003, 08:43

TavareeshKamo –

I too can’t get to the right link, but what I get when I involk your url is totally different than what Som got – I get an article about “US and EU pledge money to fight AIDS” :lol That whole AIDS Aid scene is worthy of a book in and of itrself – so we’ll leave that alone within this posting.

Webster’s Dictionary:

Anarchy: Lack of political authority, disorder and confusion, the absence of any purose or standard.

Therefore, technically - an anachist would be one who advocates and/or practices the idea if disorder and confusion, with the absence of any purpose or standard.

Anarchy (by definision) is extremely immiture and also distructive in my opinion, and those in society who are acting out in this unstructured realm need to think about what they are doing, and start funnelling their energies in a direction and/or towards an end that is not so counterproductive. Anarchy is not the answer, but rather is part of the problem.

CompadreGuerrillera – We are not working together with the Anachists for a common goal. I’m sorry, but I have to disagree with you there. While it is true that the Anarchists as well as us abslutely do not like the current order of things here, it is also true that the Anachists are disordered and confused with the absence of any purpose or standard. This is NOT the case with the Socialist and/or Communist Parties beleifs and stances on the issues.

Maybe many of the anachists don’t know their options and what else is out there besides rampant Capitalism. We need to start educating everyone we meet and posting the facts in every forum we go to – this is key to educating the puiblic in this environment we live today.

I am sure there are many peple who would change their thinking on many of the issues if they only knew the facts and were open minded enough to see it all for what it really is.

The US will fall soon – it has gone way too far already. It is riding way “too high” and it will fall just as drastically soon. It is like “Old Rome” and “Nazi Germany” combined – and it will fall with a bang like you have never seen before. This will be a high tech and very destructive fall according to my observations. The US has more neuclear bombs and chemical weapons than any other nation on the planet – and the US has proven time and again that it will use them whenever and to whomever it choses.

This will all come to a head, and we will see big bangs here and there – as well as more homeless in the streets here in the US, as well as more sufferring globally at the hands of the US Government.

We need stucture within the solution – it cannot be without porpose or standard.

sc4r

2nd June 2003, 09:33

Quote: from ChiTown Lady on 8:43 am on June 2, 2003
Anarchy: Lack of political authority, disorder and confusion, the absence of any purose or standard.

Therefore, technically - an anachist would be one who advocates and/or practices the idea if disorder and confusion, with the absence of any purpose or standard.

.

I would have thought a socialist on this board would have realised that quoting a dictionary definition was proof of nothing.

One meaning of anarchy is total disorder, but the political movement called anarchy is not defined in that way.

It is that simple.

UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics

2nd June 2003, 10:39

I dont want to start the agrument over the definition of anarchy up again, so i'll keep this fairly general. I think anarchy involves a very free market through its lack of rules and laws, which would aid the rich and hinder those without any means of production. Another problem is that as Guardia Bolivariano said Anarchy has become very fashionable, and many people are turning to it for a chaos substitue
............Mark

Kez

2nd June 2003, 10:44

Redstar, could you please go meet some workers and ask them "would you like to better your conditions or be "free".

by bettering conditions i mean revolution, which would be freedom.

What would these anarchists acheive anyway? is there going to be the establishment of anarchism in Evian? You reckon these jokes of kids could take on a powerful tool of the state???

REdstar, there was no vanguard, thats why it was a riot. One could say the begining of a vanguard were in the OTHER massive groupings of protestors who were in the same camp as Jose Bove, this had even more ppl that these anarchists, yet they get less press. You know why? because they were sat there discussing for action in the future and planning. Footage of planning doesnt sell as well as footage of rioters. I think you should grow up, lose the romantcism and see that we need planning and organisation.

Do people think these anarchists are revolutionaries???
Revolutionaries are those who strike and agitate for strike for a general strike to overthrow a leader (as was the case agaisnt the leaaders of the Venuezuelan coup, and also in argentina)

I wish people would read the whole of my fuckin posts before writing shit. I never said we should bow down to the leadership of the french SP, but i sed as thats where the workers are then we should be there to radicalise them, teach them marxism/anarchism and then be able to organise something real, not a playtime fight against pigs, but the overthrow of this capitalist state!

I agree with sc4r, the dictionary definition is a joke, i suggest reading Bakunin for some real incite into anarchism.

The reason i joined Labour party was not so i could vote for nobhead blair, but so i cud go to the labour meetings in my area and convert some lefts to marxism, simple as that. Just like lenin did in th RSDLP. If people READ A MOTHERFUCKING BOOK OR TWO, people would see my reasoning, however as people just ride th wave of opportunism, we are surrounded by ignorance.

If these were real protests, where the fuck were the workers? where were the unions??? thats how much of a failure these riots were. However, in the Jose Bove camp there was a massive union contingency as well as youth. The Camp is as radical if not more radical than the anarchists, difference is, one knows how the state operates, the other is just an angry mob of dissolusioned kids.

comrade kamo

革命者

2nd June 2003, 11:05

i don't believe in anachism.

BUT.. You, mister, better beleive that i finished posting in all forums at 11.00am GMT without interuption, well there! (i am modest i know)

James

2nd June 2003, 11:53

Kamo; Would you be upset if Labour UK HQ was attacked?

Kez

2nd June 2003, 12:40

not upset, pissed off for the following reasons:

a) It would harm image of the workers struggle
B) It would be aginst the party which most working class people are voting for or unions are in with, showing how they have no idea of how to become a revolutionary force against capitalism
c) working class members will proportionally have to pay most to get it fixed
d) isolate anarchists from working class movement

comrade kamo

redstar2000

2nd June 2003, 13:36

You reckon these jokes of kids could take on a powerful tool of the state???

They have already done so repeatedly...unless you wish to argue that Seattle, Genoa, etc. didn't really happen.

Redstar, there was no vanguard, that's why it was a riot.

It wasn't only a "riot" and, as is often the case in these situations, the police did as much or more "rioting" as the kids you are so eager to denounce...fulfilling your hopes that they would "beat up some anarchists".

One could say the begining of a vanguard were in the OTHER massive groupings of protestors who were in the same camp as Jose Bove, this had even more ppl that these anarchists, yet they get less press.

I never heard of this fellow "Jose Bove" but it sounds to me, TK, that you have a "great leader" already picked out and ready to follow...perhaps an improvement over Tony Blair.

Your whole political approach to matters is based on the assumption that if you can get the "right people" running things, all will go well. And pigs will fly!

Do people think these anarchists are revolutionaries??? Revolutionaries are those who strike and agitate for a general strike to overthrow a leader (as was the case agaisnt the leaders of the Venezuelan coup, and also in Argentina)

That is a poor definition, at best. Revolutionaries agitate and organize for the overthrow of an entire social order, not just this or that particular leader.

What is taking place at Evian is a militant demonstration of opposition to the capitalist world order...which is obviously revolutionary in its outlook. Anarchists of varying kinds have played [/b]important roles[/b] in these demonstrations. Right now, they are "looking good"...and what's wrong with that?

In fact, TK, they're looking a lot better than you.

If people READ A MOTHERFUCKING BOOK OR TWO, people would see my reasoning...

I've seen this sentiment expressed occasionally by you and a few others on this board and I reject it as a cheap attempt to intellectually intimidate people.

There are a number of widely-read people on this board (I've gotten some new stuff to look at as a result of references made by other board members).

But you don't escape the need to provide evidence and coherent argument for your position by screaming at people to "read a fucking book". I have read a lot more than you and I think your position sucks...it is vulgar parliamentary cretinism with scraps and tatters of Marxist and Trotskyist rhetoric wrapped around it.

When faced with militant and serious struggle against the capitalist order, you recoil in horror and fright and call upon the police to suppress this "anarchist" disorder at once. George and Tony agree with you; I do not.

If these were real protests, where the fuck were the workers? where were the unions???

I really like the way you posed that question; it is so revealing. If the union leadership is not running through the streets of Geneva smashing windows, there must not be "any workers" there.

Has the possibility occurred to you that young workers are not terribly impressed with either the views or the accomplishments of the existing unions? If you are young and unemployed in Europe these days, just exactly what is some pork-faced union bureaucrat going to do for you?

No one does "occupational surveys" at these events...perhaps because they are afraid of what they might learn. But I see no reason to assume that many of these "anarchists" were not young workers, employed or unemployed. The number of rich, privileged kids who are willing to take on the police has always been rather small.

The Camp is as radical if not more radical than the anarchists, difference is, one knows how the state operates, the other is just an angry mob of disillusioned kids.

I will certainly concede the possibility that you may be right about that evaluation. I am thousands of miles away and the details of the class struggle in Europe are naturally quite hazy from this distance.

But that does not mean any less solidarity, in my view, with the "anarchists" that have engaged in militant struggle in the streets against the prevailing social order. Right now, they are the only people who are showing in practice that moderately large-scale resistance is possible.

Compare that to your pathetic alternative: "vote Labour".

As if there were any comparison!

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 7:43 am on June 2, 2003)

(Edited by redstar2000 at 9:00 am on June 2, 2003)

Severian

2nd June 2003, 13:40

Kamo is correct, and I'd say this discussion reflects how a lot of middle-class leftists are fully prepared to use violence to impose their views on the working class. In contrast to Lenin's policy, "patiently explain", until a majority of the working class is won over.

This has always been present in anarchism, basically a petty-bourgeois tendency descended from the era of bourgeois-democratic revolutions. (Godwin.)

Proudhon advocated shooting strikers, and Bakunin and Nechaev used secret organizations, deceit, and violence against those who criticized them in an effort to impose their ideological nostrums on the working-class movement.

And today most anarchists have even less to do with the working-class movement than at that time. Even veteran anarchist Murray Bookchin has pointed this out in "Social Anarchism vs. Lifestyle Anarchism."

I disagree with Kamo on one point: saying that he'd like to see the police beat up the anarchist thugs. The proper response to attacks by gangs, whether fascist, Stalinist, LaRouchites, or whatever they call themselves, on workers' organizations is to form workers' defense guards.

I'm not sure it would be entirely accurate to say the French SP has a working-class base, like the French CP or the British Labour party does. Though probably more workers support the SP than support the anarchist groups attacking its offices. And the advocates of this thug violence have made it clear that they think the British Labour Party is also fair game. Why not the unions whose leaders support the Labour Party, then?

Even if one considers the SP wholly a bourgeois party, it's a truly stupid idea to endorse attacks on its offices. If you do that, how will you appeal for support when your organization is attacked by goon squads? Will you say that even people who disagree with your views should come out to defend your right to express them?

The hypocrisy would be glaring....this is one of the reasons the CPUSA had so much trouble getting anyone to defend them during the McCarthy era, because they'd endorsed the suppression of others.

Kez

2nd June 2003, 14:27

read star in your post you accuse me of bout 5 things, which you know nothing about me...
im not gonna smear ur name like u did to me, as i have better things to do, but to counter your gross allegations..

"They have already done so repeatedly...unless you wish to argue that Seattle, Genoa, etc. didn't really happen."

oh yes, i forgot that seattle and genoa are now socialist republic... So if i threw a brick at westminster wud i have acheved the same as Genoa? coz qualititively i have achevied the same, just quantitively i wud be different. PLease put logic into your slogans

"It wasn't only a "riot" and, as is often these case in these situations, the police did as much or more "rioting" as the kids you are so eager to denounce...fulfilling your hopes that they would "beat up some anarchists"

-Are you suggesting every brick thrown at the socialists was by agent provaceurs? i doubt this very much. Funny thing is, had these people been organised, they wud know who is who, and who is provaceur and cud clean them out. However, no to vanguardism, all people to themselves, then we shall make socialist paradise!! ...how very naive

"I never heard of this fellow "Jose Bove" but it sounds to me, TK, that you have a "great leader" already picked out and ready to follow...perhaps an improvement over Tony Blair.

-This just about epitomises your complete ignorance of the political struggle around you.
Bove is THE most famour anti-globalisationist in europe. hes the guy who gave hamburgers to homeless people and got sacked, he got a tractor and sprayed shit all over French banks (if im not mistaken). PLease take up some research on european politcal movement, then add your comments, it would save so many people so much time having to explain simple things to you...either that, or dont comment on it , if u dont understand it

What is this shit about great leader, please do not smear my name with bollocks like this. No one is my leader, i dotn follow orders, i follow principles and with organisation (something you seem to know fuck all of) i ask for instructions

"Your whole political approach to matters is based on the assumption that if you can get the "right people" running things, all will go well. And pigs will fly!

- Do you suggest getting the "wrong people"?? what are you on about, u build an organisation which will have most chance of success, y on earth wud u not want the best ppl in ur group???

"That is a poor definition, at best. Revolutionaries agitate and organize for the overthrow of an entire social order, not just this or that particular leader."

- dont twist what im on about, you know what i meant, yet again you try to smear my reputation as you cannot possibly counter any of my arguments

"which is obviously revolutionary in its outlook"

- no its not, its a fuckin unorganised riot, a revolution is organised, with basic theory underneath it

"In fact, TK, they're looking a lot better than you."

-WHat is it i do then? i want clear examples of what ive done and how it is inferior to these rioters? if u do not answer this question, it wil merely confirm what is suspected that you talk about things you do not know... eg in this case what i do with my time...

This was the funniest bit tho, give credit to the clown where its due...

"i've seen this sentiment expressed occasionally by you and a few others on this board and I reject it as a cheap attempt to intellectually intimidate people."

followed by.....

I have read a lot more than you

^^^ that is comic genius

To cap off your ignorance

"Right now, they are the only people who are showing in practice that moderately large-scale resistance is possible. "

-first off it wasnt large scale, the reason it wasnt large scale was coz it had nothing to do with the workers and therefore the masses
-2ndly, your ignorancee of the movement is shown by the fact u seem to ignore the massive massive strikes all across europe and latin america.

But its ok, as long as you think you are the best its ok, we can live with that, just dont expect ppl to kep reply ing to ur unfoundeed posts

the final final pisstake it where u do this :cool: after every shit post. Do you some how think you are "cool"? (as you have to type : cool : to get :cool:) you have serious problems with urself.

Severian, i was not sure of the composition of the SP in france, thats y i asked before, but i wud presume it wud have the greatest mass following, im not sure about this, are you from france? could you please provide details as i have no exact figures, thanks

comrade kamo

PS RS if ur gonna talk about my relationshiop with Labour PArty dont use it outta context, just shows the fact that u cant argue a point and like the stalinists u falsify history and facts with distorting ideas and justifying them with outta context quotes

(Edited by TavareeshKamo at 3:35 pm on June 2, 2003)

BOZG

2nd June 2003, 14:33

ChiTown Lady,

It's never advisable to use ANY dictionary in order to define what any ideology stands for. If the dictionary defined capitalism as "the ultimate ideology, one of equality and freedom" would you believe in capitalism? I would think not so neither should you believe what the dictionary says about any other ideology.

Whether you believe anarchy will result in disorder or chaos is your own personal belief, its not something which can be defined or is an interal characteristic of anarchism. Whether anarchy does become disorder will be only be defined and discovered if or when its implemented, its not something which a dictionary can tell you.

James

2nd June 2003, 15:44

a) It would harm image of the workers struggle

I disagree. Surely it would strengthen the general feeling. Maybe prompt change!
The feeling that New Labour is destroying the Labour party. As i've stated to you before, the Leadership is the party, especially in New Labour due to changes; constitutional and conventionial. i.e. The party now resembles the Tory party (up down movement, instead of the '83, down up movement of power etc).

B) It would be aginst the party which most working class people are voting for or unions are in with, showing how they have no idea of how to become a revolutionary force against capitalism

Actually Labour's membership has decreased from 1 million in the 50s, to 400,000 in '97 to 200,000 in 2001. Many traditional members have either stopped voting for labour, or have left completely. This number will have also dramtically decreased after the war with iraq, where many members destroyed their cards.

Voting turn out has decreased as you know, this is because the socialist working class feels alienated. So don't bother. They feel alienated because new labour targets the middle classes.

True, working class people still vote Labour; but some also vote Conservative. Are you going to enter the Tory party?

Important question; does this party that the anarchists attacked, have the support of the unions?

c) working class members will proportionally have to pay most to get it fixed

Nope.
As stated most members have left. I expect Lord Sainsbury will pay.

d) isolate anarchists from working class movement

I said nothing of Anarchists.

redstar2000

2nd June 2003, 16:39

I'd say this discussion reflects how a lot of middle-class leftists are fully prepared to use violence to impose their views on the working class.

That is, anyone who "riots" in protest of capitalism is "using violence to impose their views on the working class."

Is that "Leninist Logic"?

And don't forget, the protesters are "middle-class"...we "know" that's "true" because...well, because...that is, because...and also because...

Even if one considers the SP wholly a bourgeois party, it's a truly stupid idea to endorse attacks on its offices. If you do that, how will you appeal for support when your organization is attacked by goon squads?

Gee, maybe these kids don't have offices. Maybe they're already prepared to defend themselves and don't feel the need to call on bourgeois "socialists" or union bureaucrats for "defense". Maybe they're right about that.

Bove is THE most famour anti-globalisationist in europe. hes the guy who gave hamburgers to homeless people and got sacked, he got a tractor and sprayed shit all over French banks (if im not mistaken).

My apologies, TK, for not paying "proper" attention to your celebrity du jour. As a Marxist, I have other concerns.

As the rest of your post consists entirely of self-righteous denial and personal abuse...there's nothing really left to say to you on this subject. But I thought this was pretty amusing...

No one is my leader, i dotn follow orders, i follow principles and with organisation (something you seem to know fuck all of) i ask for instructions.

You don't follow orders...you just ask for instructions...and, I would imagine, carry them out after you've received them. So much easier than having to <groan> figure things out for yourself.

Like the people at Evian.

:cool:

Kez

2nd June 2003, 16:47

james its a shame ur attacking myself persoally rather than my ideas, this has caused u to believe i was directing arguments at u, rather than the actual ppl who i was.

Leadership isnt the whole party. Are you suggesting that 200,000 people are blairites???

onto B) i dont see what your getting at, fact of matter is the masses STILL despite blair vote for Labour Party, which means this is most effective place to get left wing workers

the unnions still support labour thats why theyre still in it, and have made numerous calls to reclaim it (ie not leave it)

working class members will proportionally have to pay most to get it fixed
i was talking about France, please look at question when answering it.

"d) isolate anarchists from working class movement
I said nothing of Anarchists. "

that wud be because i wasnt talking to you about it

sc4r

2nd June 2003, 17:39

Kamo

what are you seeking to achieve ? This would clarify a whole lot I would guess.

To me you seem to be looking for a way in which a substantial number of western workers can be brought together and 'civilised' to form a self interest bloc. You seem to see this as a purpose partly of itself and partly with an expectation that if this can be done they will automatically benefit.

I dont think all that many on this board agree with that as a purpose.

In the first place they see a much greater unity with peoples all over the world and would not particularly want to see the west grab yet more of the swag irrespective of whether the swag recievers were labelled 'workers' or not.

In the second place they flat dont believe it. They believe that workers voting for even moderate capitalism is like turkeys voting for Xmas. The wishes of both are going to get ignored come carving time and we would be better off not attempting to gain unity by trying to become exactly like those we oppose.

For me your insistances to 'read a book' etc. were also pretty annoying. People here are not primarily concerned with whether thay are obeying this instruction or that instruction from such and such a source; or following this path or the other because some guru said so. They are reacting to reality here and now, and many are very very well informed. You come over as an intellectual apparatchick looking for the appearance of unity and adherence to prescribed forms rather than as someone looking for the substance of socialism and justice.

sorry if I'm misrepresnting you. But this is what I percieve. I see you demanding conformance to what you see as good organisation (eg in the vote for mods thread) as an end in itself. In other words demanding polite conformance to exactly what every capitalist would love to see us conform to.

Socialists will have to be prepared to suffer to achieve socialism. They will not achieve it by subverting their desires into a petit bourgesioise mentaility and looking for some immediate gain.

Put another way the Labout party may be the party 'of the workers' but your ideas dont make it a party FOR the workers.

Workers can be wrong too you know. They can be bought off by cheap promises of immediate gain. This is what you are offering.

(Edited by sc4r at 5:42 pm on June 2, 2003)

Kez

2nd June 2003, 18:43

i think u have misinterpretaed me wrong, no need to apologise tho, this is what u get with talking over the net instead of real.

Anyway, Voting for labour and entering the labour party is not the end, but is a means to the end.

I musta sedd this 5 times in last week.
Point is, to get into labour party, and there one can see the most left advanced members of the proleteriat, here these can be radicalised into a marxist block within the labour party, from here one can do many things.
One can get the group and split from labour, or one the other end of the scale can try to take over the party and purge the right of the party, either way, it will form a big Marxist Workers Group be it under the name of Labour Party or another name.

im not saying conform to the system, if i was wud be rather strange if im trying to smash the state???:)??

What am i seeking to acheive? a workers state, clear and simple, and the running of this state 80% of the board wud agree with (20% being anarchists and stalinists).
The difference comes with the strategy of achieving such a workers state.
Some say through sects, some say through entrism, some say through hippy communes, some say through voting Liberal Democrat Or Labour.

I say entrism, like lenin did, not because lenin did, but because it is the same circumstances with the RSDLP and the LP in britain.

comrade kamo

James

2nd June 2003, 20:00

james its a shame ur attacking myself persoally rather than my ideas, this has caused u to believe i was directing arguments at u, rather than the actual ppl who i was.

I havn't... please quote me attacking you seriously in my last post. My post was all related to theory and methodology.

Leadership isnt the whole party. Are you suggesting that 200,000 people are blairites???

No, i didn't. I was simply pointing out that membership had gone from 1 million (when it was left wing) to 200,000 (when it was right wing). New Labour itself must be responsible for the membership to half. To suggest that those that left were happy with labour is silly. Thus, 200,000 members were pissed off with New Labour.
I was pointing out that many have left, many more during the Iraq war; thus the figures are even lower than 200,000 now.

In the 50s Labour was the party u like i assume?

These were 1 million people - New Labour didn't exist, thus they were workingclass, and socialists. The party you envisage - Agree?

Membership decreased to 400,000 in 1997. Now i don't know for sure, but i imagine many left after '83.

Half of the 400,000 have left whilst labour has been 'New Labour'. New Labourities would stay. Yes?
Thus a massive proportion of the 200,000 will be blarities, agreed?

What type of member do you think has left?

So whats happened to the million?

Is less than 200,000 the people you are after?

onto B) i dont see what your getting at, fact of matter is the masses STILL despite blair vote for Labour Party, which means this is most effective place to get left wing workers

Yes, but it isn't an attack on Labour's voters, its a theoritical attack on the labour rulling elite.

Plus, leadership controls the party. As stated, there is an up down movement of power/influence/control; brought in by New Labourites.

True, many grass roots may be leftwing; but the grass roots arn't Labour HQ. For example MillBank. Yes, lets say the attack is on MillBank.

the unnions still support labour thats why theyre still in it, and have made numerous calls to reclaim it (ie not leave it)

True; but attacking Labour HQ isn't under control of the Unions. Or would you argue otherwise?

working class members will proportionally have to pay most to get it fixed
i was talking about France, please look at question when answering it.

"d) isolate anarchists from working class movement
I said nothing of Anarchists. "

that wud be because i wasnt talking to you about it

WTF?!?!?!?
READ THE POSTS.
I asked you a question;
"Kamo; Would you be upset if Labour UK HQ was attacked?"

YOU REPLIED

"not upset, pissed off for the following reasons:"

Please re-read the relevent posts then we can carry on our talk....

Kez

2nd June 2003, 21:02

james ur posts are becoming ever increaingly full of bullshit
you making Redstars posts look like sensible well thought out scriptures

On the leadership question your repeating the same thing...very tiresome....

"New Labourities would stay. Yes?
Thus a massive proportion of the 200,000 will be blarities, agreed? "
No, it wudnt be just blairites who stayed, it wud be those who can see long term and see that labour will swing back left, and/or see themselves as part of the party to MOVE it left

"Is less than 200,000 the people you are after"
Well i was considering going after teh 4,000 in the Socialist Party, but i dunno, i may as well stay here.
200,000 plus millions in subsciption fees or 4,000 and ever increasing debts.
THe only reason the SP hasnt collapsed it coz they took the Main building from militant, and now they sold it, eating into the income from that

"Yes, but it isn't an attack on Labour's voters, its a theoritical attack on the labour rulling elite. "
good

"Plus, leadership controls the party. As stated, there is an up down movement of power/influence/control; brought in by New Labourites."
bad
wrong, it needs 20%(12.5 in Opposition) of PLP and 2/3 of conference (none during opposition) to boot him out. Electoral college 33% votes go to unions, 33% to CLP and 33% to rest

Unions prividee 50% funding

"True; but attacking Labour HQ isn't under control of the Unions. Or would you argue otherwise? "
what wud be point? 50% of the cost of the building is from unions, silling thing to do to burn ur own money, desoite my perosnal hatred of Millbank and all it standfor.

i suggest u read the thread properly
the bit u have highlighted was about when i made a comment on anarchism relationship with WC, u believed i was replying to you, (i wasnt) so u reply back after id sed it wasnt a reply to you, and now u reply again
for the 3rd time, this comment is not a reply to you

for a 2nd answer to Kamo; Would you be upset if Labour UK HQ was attacked i will copy and paste what ive already written....:
i sed id be pissed off becoz...
a) It would harm image of the workers struggle
B) It would be aginst the party which most working class people are voting for or unions are in with, showing how they have no idea of how to become a revolutionary force against capitalism
c) working class members will proportionally have to pay most to get it fixed
d) isolate anarchists from working class movement

comade kamo

PS try opticians, they can do wonders to your eyes with glasses

James

2nd June 2003, 23:12

Please go back and read again;
You've span whatever i've said so that you can go on about why you are a labour member blah blah blah
- boring -
I asked would you get upset if Labour HQ got attacked.
Please answer.

James

2nd June 2003, 23:14

also you ignored a question. OR didn't read it... i'm not sure which.

Does this party in the link have all the support of the trade unions?

CompadreGuerrillera

3rd June 2003, 00:17

well, Kamo, i mean autocratic for lack of better word, i mean supporiting idiots that ARE autocratic i.e. Stalin, but you stated you were anti-Stalinist, i guess Trotskyist? You havent answered my damn question!!! What are your beliefs politicially?? give yourself a "label" or something,

and i am not going to argue if your poser or not, i just asumed you were, because you arent giving me any damn information? what the hell do you belive? do u support autocratic communism? WHAT?

it seems that you dont know what the hell you are, or want.

again my observation

James

3rd June 2003, 00:33

Kamo's ideology?
Well he's a Blairite

Only joking.... nah kamo is alright. He is far more well read than most give him credit for, and he's in the minoirty because of this.
He realizes that he has to get where the workers are. This is where the TU's are. At the moment; Labour. This i personally agree with.
We just differ on how left wing Labour is, where i believe in showing support for alternatives to destroy the leadership, Kamo believes in being loyal to where the workers are. This is very comendable. Although we do disagree over finer points of methodology.

Kez

3rd June 2003, 08:38

i respect ur maturity James for ur last post, and im not talking down to u here, i was fuckin fuming when i read ur:

also you ignored a question. OR didn't read it... i'm not sure which.

Does this party in the link have all the support of the trade unions?

Please go back and read again;
You've span whatever i've said so that you can go on about why you are a labour member blah blah blah
- boring -
I asked would you get upset if Labour HQ got attacked.
Please answer.

But now we can continue discussing in proper manner.

To answer your first question james, if ur refering to the French SP, im not sure, i asked the question a few pages ago no1 replies, but one would presume the case to be so.

you asked:
"would you get upset if Labour HQ got attacked."
my reply is "yes" because of following reasons
a) It would harm image of the workers struggle
B) It would be aginst the party which most working class people [still despite **** blair] are voting for or unions are in with, showing how no idea of how to become a revolutionary force against capitalism
c) working class members will proportionally have to pay most to get it fixed

i apologise for the glasses comment i made, that was petty and low

BellendeGuerilla, your wasting time and space for some shit your on about and i have no time for. Gain my respect and i shall answer some of your other questions if you ever make some sensible ones up

James, u know how you suggest eg vote Libs to get Labour out to get Blair out, do you not think it wud be possible to do the same as happened to Thatcher? ie her cabinet booteed her out while she was still in power, result was 7 years of rule by a completely different styled leader.

Pete's Edit: I fixed your code. It was annoying me :)

(Edited by CrazyPete at 10:25 am on June 3, 2003)

Severian

3rd June 2003, 12:40

Redstar, you once said you belonged to a "Leninist party" for eight years; was it the Spartacist League by any chance? Or something similar? If so, your method of reasoning, if that's the word, hasn't changed, nor your attitude towards anyone who disagrees with you.

Amazing how difficult is to break training on things like that; political methods don't change just because you're using them in service of a different set of ideological shibboleths....

Why do keep responding to my posts, anyway? Are you under the illusion that you and I are having a discussion? If so, you're wrong; I'm no more interested in discussing with you than I am in arguing with a Spart on a street corner.

redstar2000

3rd June 2003, 13:28

Redstar, you once said you belonged to a "Leninist party" for eight years; was it the Spartacist League by any chance?

No.

Why do [you] keep responding to my posts, anyway? Are you under the illusion that you and I are having a discussion?

Likewise, no.

When people say things that I regard as wrong, I do not expect them to change their minds based on the rational arguments that I offer...though it sometimes happens that way.

I'm really speaking to all the people who read the thread and who may be curious, undecided, etc. about the question being discussed.

I'm well aware of the fact that the particular individual whose views I criticize in a post will almost invariably respond with some kind of personal attack...I have a very thick skin and it doesn't bother me a bit. I respect the readers of the thread and trust that they will perceive personal attacks on me ("you argue like a Spart", etc.) as a confession of theoretical bankruptcy.

But just to respond to the spirit of your post, I suggest you form a new group: "Communists" for Law & Order.

Have a nice day.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 7:30 am on June 3, 2003)

James

3rd June 2003, 17:38

To answer your first question james, if ur refering to the French SP, im not sure, i asked the question a few pages ago no1 replies, but one would presume the case to be so.

OI, SOMEONE IN THE KNOW ANSWER THIS PLEASE

you asked:
"would you get upset if Labour HQ got attacked."
my reply is "yes" because of following reasons
a) It would harm image of the workers struggle
B) It would be aginst the party which most working class people [still despite **** blair] are voting for or unions are in with, showing how no idea of how to become a revolutionary force against capitalism
c) working class members will proportionally have to pay most to get it fixed

I see; for me Labour HQ represents the control of Labour. The control under New Labour; thus i would take an attack of such as an attack on NEW labour, maybe supportive of the actual cause as it shows people are really pissed off with New Labour.

I'd agree with your points if something more traditional was attacked, any thing linked to the unions etc.
The power in labour though, to me, is New Labour; thus such an attack would be a symbolic attack on New Labour. Thats my opinion.

i apologise for the glasses comment i made, that was petty and low

:D
I don't mind, i wear glasses anyway so its no big insult or anything.

James, u know how you suggest eg vote Libs to get Labour out to get Blair out,

I say liberals because they have the means to get elected; but i'm questioning this tactic now as it wouldn't show a move to the left, just the liberal left... i don't think that would be enough on its own to remove new labour. Unless of course there was a strong internal movement in Labour which can come to power when New Labour loose power...

do you not think it wud be possible to do the same as happened to Thatcher? ie her cabinet booteed her out while she was still in power, result was 7 years of rule by a completely different styled leader.

No i don't, i don't see major that different from Thatcher. The only thing that was different really was that he had a smaller majority, with all that entails.

The Cabinet to me, is still loyal to New Labour.

The power complex needs to go.

Remember, New Labour needs to fail, not just Blair.

Severian

4th June 2003, 10:29

Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:28 pm on June 3, 2003
Redstar, you once said you belonged to a "Leninist party" for eight years; was it the Spartacist League by any chance?

No.

I notice you're too embarassed to say what it was, though.

sc4r

4th June 2003, 14:09

OK Kamo thx for your reply. It did clarify where u are coming from.

The difference between us seems to lie in a difference of opinion about how socialism can be sold and/or progressed.

I dont believe that the Labour party is going to return to its socialist roots. I think the elimination of clause 4 made that very plain.

Nor do I believe that it will now allow a Marxist Block to develop within it (how long since the purge on exactly this ? 5/6 years ?).

It is undoubtedly true that to abandon the Labour party as the focus for socialist striving is a set back. It's unfortunate (to say the least) but in my view just a fact of life, the labour party is now an instrument not for socialism but for caoitalism, it seeks to persuade the natural supporters of socialism to soften, not harden, their views; to become in effect petit bourgeusois.

So I wont support it any longer. I've voted labour all my life, I broke open the bubbly and cheered with all the rest when Portillo lost his seat that night; but I wont do it again.

For me socialism support needs to be rebuilt in a genuinely socialist party. One that is from the outset not remotely for anything else. This involves starting again from a much smaller power base (as u say it involves giving up union support for a while).

I also see you as something of a Stalinist (not the perjurative version of course) rather than Trotskyist in approach. I'm the opposite. Neither of us are , of course, wholly defined in this way.

So I see Anarchists revealing their disdain and spelling out to potential socialist recruits that if they want to be this then not to listen to Social Democrats and not to be seduced by their offereings.

Sorry. I'm quite sure now your heart is in the same place mine is but we disagree rather dramaticaly on how our hearts desire can be achieved.

Best Wishes Brother.

redstar2000

4th June 2003, 16:13

I notice you're too embarassed to say what it was, though.

You got that one right. In defense of my youthful folly, I can only say that (1) it was 30 plus years ago; and (2) I was a terrible Leninist...always in hot water with the leadership for raising awkward questions.

You're right; some things don't change.

:cool:

James

4th June 2003, 16:29

I agree with kamo, Labour shouldn't be abadoned, but for election purpuses, a socialist alternative is needed to register that there is a left wing vote.

Kez

6th June 2003, 20:35

Red star answer this

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
read star in your post you accuse me of bout 5 things, which you know nothing about me...
im not gonna smear ur name like u did to me, as i have better things to do, but to counter your gross allegations..

"They have already done so repeatedly...unless you wish to argue that Seattle, Genoa, etc. didn't really happen."

oh yes, i forgot that seattle and genoa are now socialist republic... So if i threw a brick at westminster wud i have acheved the same as Genoa? coz qualititively i have achevied the same, just quantitively i wud be different. PLease put logic into your slogans

"It wasn't only a "riot" and, as is often these case in these situations, the police did as much or more "rioting" as the kids you are so eager to denounce...fulfilling your hopes that they would "beat up some anarchists"

-Are you suggesting every brick thrown at the socialists was by agent provaceurs? i doubt this very much. Funny thing is, had these people been organised, they wud know who is who, and who is provaceur and cud clean them out. However, no to vanguardism, all people to themselves, then we shall make socialist paradise!! ...how very naive

"I never heard of this fellow "Jose Bove" but it sounds to me, TK, that you have a "great leader" already picked out and ready to follow...perhaps an improvement over Tony Blair.

-This just about epitomises your complete ignorance of the political struggle around you.
Bove is THE most famour anti-globalisationist in europe. hes the guy who gave hamburgers to homeless people and got sacked, he got a tractor and sprayed shit all over French banks (if im not mistaken). PLease take up some research on european politcal movement, then add your comments, it would save so many people so much time having to explain simple things to you...either that, or dont comment on it , if u dont understand it

What is this shit about great leader, please do not smear my name with bollocks like this. No one is my leader, i dotn follow orders, i follow principles and with organisation (something you seem to know fuck all of) i ask for instructions

"Your whole political approach to matters is based on the assumption that if you can get the "right people" running things, all will go well. And pigs will fly!

- Do you suggest getting the "wrong people"?? what are you on about, u build an organisation which will have most chance of success, y on earth wud u not want the best ppl in ur group???

"That is a poor definition, at best. Revolutionaries agitate and organize for the overthrow of an entire social order, not just this or that particular leader."

- dont twist what im on about, you know what i meant, yet again you try to smear my reputation as you cannot possibly counter any of my arguments

"which is obviously revolutionary in its outlook"

- no its not, its a fuckin unorganised riot, a revolution is organised, with basic theory underneath it

"In fact, TK, they're looking a lot better than you."

-WHat is it i do then? i want clear examples of what ive done and how it is inferior to these rioters? if u do not answer this question, it wil merely confirm what is suspected that you talk about things you do not know... eg in this case what i do with my time...

This was the funniest bit tho, give credit to the clown where its due...

"i've seen this sentiment expressed occasionally by you and a few others on this board and I reject it as a cheap attempt to intellectually intimidate people."

followed by.....

I have read a lot more than you

^^^ that is comic genius

To cap off your ignorance

"Right now, they are the only people who are showing in practice that moderately large-scale resistance is possible. "

-first off it wasnt large scale, the reason it wasnt large scale was coz it had nothing to do with the workers and therefore the masses
-2ndly, your ignorancee of the movement is shown by the fact u seem to ignore the massive massive strikes all across europe and latin america.

But its ok, as long as you think you are the best its ok, we can live with that, just dont expect ppl to kep reply ing to ur unfoundeed posts

the final final pisstake it where u do this after every shit post. Do you some how think you are "cool"? (as you have to type : cool : to get ) you have serious problems with urself.

Severian, i was not sure of the composition of the SP in france, thats y i asked before, but i wud presume it wud have the greatest mass following, im not sure about this, are you from france? could you please provide details as i have no exact figures, thanks

comrade kamo

PS RS if ur gonna talk about my relationshiop with Labour PArty dont use it outta context, just shows the fact that u cant argue a point and like the stalinists u falsify history and facts with distorting ideas and justifying them with outta context quotes

redstar2000

7th June 2003, 06:39

TK, from what I can see, you have cut and pasted all your previous posts on this subject into one post.

Since I've already answered your points in my previous posts, am I supposed to answer again?

Why can't people read that stuff the first time?

Why can't you?

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 12:40 am on June 7, 2003)

Kez

7th June 2003, 10:39

nah, i was repeating one single post as u failed u answer it

at least answer me this part:

[b]"i've seen this sentiment expressed [telling others to read books] occasionally by you and a few others on this board and I reject it as a cheap attempt to intellectually intimidate people."[b]

followed by.....

[b]I have read a lot more than you[b]

redstar2000

7th June 2003, 13:31

Ok.

What I mean by that is a summary of experience. In political meetings and debates, when people start using the argument "why don't you read some books?" (as you did), the implication is that you have read more than others, know more than others, and they should shut up, listen to you, and do whatever you tell them to do.

Since most people in the left, being young, have not read all that much, they feel (sometimes) intimidated by that "argument" and "afraid" to stand up to someone who uses it for fear of looking like a "fool" or an "ignoramus".

Since I am the oldest member of the board (I think), it is almost inevitable that I have "read more" than any other person on the board.

But I would be ashamed to use that as a "weapon" in debate. It's cheap and uncalled for, like saying I have more college degrees than you have, so that makes me right and you wrong.

No. Arguments must stand or fall on their merits...not on the strengths or weaknesses, accomplishments or failures, youth or age of the person arguing.

I was once in a controversy with a "hotshot Berkeley Marxist" who informed me in lofty tones that if I would only read the new translation of the Grundrisse, I would understand why he was right.

I laughed.

Because if he couldn't summarize the argument in the Grundrisse with sufficient clarity for me to grasp it, then it didn't matter if he had read it or not, he didn't understand it himself.

I think that's the test of argument "from books"...can you summarize the book's point of view and the supportive evidence, so that someone who hasn't read it can have a reasonably clear understanding of what you're getting at?

If you can't do that, then it doesn't matter how much you've read; you've understood nothing.

:cool:

the SovieT

7th June 2003, 13:54

just a litle apart:
One must be really stupid to think that a Socialist Party is actually somehow leftist or even socialist in the real sense of the word...

James

7th June 2003, 20:08

I agree with RS's post.
Espeically on the reading aspect.

Kamo constantly thinks he's "higher" than others as he believes to be well read.

Kez

7th June 2003, 21:34

well, the implications arent as u described, when i sed read some books (for the 10-20th time) i start getting pissed off.

anyway, ive stated already that i havent read all the books and am not a learned marxist, but it doesnt matter to u, y let the truth spoil a good argument?

in anycase, when i say read books the implications are as follows:
read books

its interesting how u twisted the implications to suit ur argument, if i was a psycologist then i wud knowur situation, as im not, i dont , nor do i care

i wud like some quotes where i state i am "higher"
wud it be the advise of books i have read that i recommend?

tell u the truth, i cudnt give a flying fuck really, coz at the end of the day, im here to spread the real message of marxism, and use this as a pool to strengthen the struggle

i cudnt give a shit what a bitter old man thinks of me

and with james, i apologise if i came across that way, wud have bein better if u told me at the time, then i wudda changed earlier (maybe u did and i ignored u:))

anyway, back to another one of ur hypocritical posts RS

u say
But I would be ashamed to use that [reading more] as a "weapon" in debate.

but in an earlier post u sed:
"I have read a lot more than you"

this humours me, keep it up old chap!

Blackberry

8th June 2003, 11:28

You call RedStar2000 a hypocrite, but look at this:

Quote: from TavareeshKamo on 9:34 pm on June 7, 2003

ive stated already that i havent read all the books and am not a learned marxist,

and

coz at the end of the day, im here to spread the real message of marxism,

Did you acquire a massive amount of marxist knowledge all of a sudden?

Blackberry

8th June 2003, 11:37

Quote: from TavareeshKamo on 9:34 pm on June 7, 2003

u say
But I would be ashamed to use that [reading more] as a "weapon" in debate.

but in an earlier post u sed:
"I have read a lot more than you"

this humours me, keep it up old chap!

You should quote the entire paragraph, for the benefit of the readers of this thread. I will do that, since you didn't.

Quote: from RedStar2000

But you don't escape the need to provide evidence and coherent argument for your position by screaming at people to "read a fucking book". I have read a lot more than you and I think your position sucks...it is vulgar parliamentary cretinism with scraps and tatters of Marxist and Trotskyist rhetoric wrapped around it.

He was unhappy with you saying that people should "read a fucking book". He countered your cheap argument with a cheap counter-argument. An interesting technique that the 'old chap' has.

However, he was not implying that the amount one reads equals knowledge, but rather that you should argue properly, or not argue at all. Plus, he did say "I think".

:cool:

(Edited by Neutral Nation at 11:40 am on June 8, 2003)

Kez

8th June 2003, 19:56

well worth it, good posts neutral ur posts are most thought provoking

BOZG

8th June 2003, 21:25

Quote: from the SovieT on 1:54 pm on June 7, 2003
just a litle apart:
One must be really stupid to think that a Socialist Party is actually somehow leftist or even socialist in the real sense of the word...

That's extremely generalised. Openly being called a Communist party in many countries can alienate support for the party, particularly in ones where there isn't much of a working class struggle (like Ireland). The party I'm in (Socialist Party) is a Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyist party as much as any true communist party.

James

8th June 2003, 22:46

The "Socialist party" in England is called so because of the above reason

Kez

9th June 2003, 17:21

the socialist party in england (and i presume Ireland) is genuinley socialist.

who do the unions in france affilaite with?? answer the motherfuckin question!

kylie

10th June 2003, 10:44

Quote: from TavareeshKamo on 5:21 pm on June 9, 2003
the socialist party in england (and i presume Ireland) is genuinley socialist.

The british socialist party is a joke. While it identifies the different problems occuring in the UK, it never makes the final link to the problem being capitalism. Instead hiding at the bottom of its manifesto a small section on how it is supposedly socialist. Out of all the various parties in the UK that claim to be socialist, the british socialist party is one of the most reformist there is:

We want real socialism - a democratic society and economy run to meet the needs of all instead of the profits of a few.
This itself is a contradiction, in real socialism the economy would meet the needs of the working class, and would seek to end all bourgeoisie activity.

No privatisation of the Post Office, the NHS, education or any other public services.
It fails to go the full length and sate no private property at all, a fairly basic socialist concept.

And finally how is it they are hoping to get into power and end some of the exploition caused by the ruling class? Through that very bourgeois tool, elections.

(Edited by feoric at 10:46 am on June 10, 2003)