How Will We Defeat The Enemy

[JC1]

OK, here is my question;

Marxist thinking posit's that the struggle between labour and capital is a political one. How this struggle is resolved is the point of contention between Anarchist's and Leninist-Communist's.

Anarchist's say that Capitalism will bury itself, and that all we gotta do is sorta weaken it with activity in mass movement's. They argue that Class Counsince will develop not as a result of workers self-organizing, but as a result of the systems decay.

Leninist's say that for the working class to defeat its enemy, it need's orginization.

Right now we are seeing many people accept the fact that capitalism is in decay. But we are not seeing a political independence in our class, except in examples that are counsincly orginizied (E.G. CL relief Effort's in the NO, IFC work in Iraq, et cet era).

Does this not mean that, Anarchism, has been prooven false ?

[LSD]

Anarchist's say that Capitalism will bury itself

No we don't!

First of all, "bury itself" is a rather meaningless term. Capitalism is not an "entity", it is a social arrangement made up of people, mostly proletarian ones. The only way for capitalism to be "burried" is for those people to change it and history teaches us that that change will not be peaceful.

Second of all, while Anarchists generally oppose all forms of reformism and political collaboration, Leninists are famous for participating in bourgeois "democracies". If anything, it's the Leninists who believe that capitalism can be "made" to "destroy itself".

Not to mention that the entire Leninist paradigm is predicated on some rather idealist assertions. Despite the overwhelming failure of historical Leninism, modern Trots and Maoists continue to insist that somehow "next time" will be "different".

Somehow though they fail to actually explain what has changed.

Leninism didn't work 80 years ago, it doesn't work today. "Socialism" from the top is simply not a workable social programme. People cannot be "forced to be free", real freedom means political franchisement, even if the "great leader" doesn't like it.


They argue that Class Counsince will develop not as a result of workers self-organizing, but as a result of the systems decay.

I have no idea where you're getting this nonsense from, but it has absolutely nothing to do with class-war Anarchism. Real anarcho-communists and anarchosyndicalists fully understand the need for proletarian organization and radicalization.

Where we differ from the Leninist paradigm is in our rejection of party hierarchy.

We are not fighting for revolution so that Chairman X can declare himself our "supreme leader". Replacing the despotism of market capital with the despotism of "Bolshevik" bureaucracy is not a victory for working people.

A real proletarian revolution requires real proletarian organization, organized and managed by real proletarians. There is no room for petty-bourgeois "party managers" or their elitist "iron discipline" crap.

Leninists think that class consciousness "flows" from the "revolutionary party"; Anarchists think that class consciousness develops from active class war.

That means that not only do we not "oppose" workers' self-organization, but that on the contrary we support it absolutely. It's the Leninists who insist that workers must be "lead" from the outside, that they're "too backwards" to organize themselves.

Again, I don't know where you picked up this notion that Anarchists oppose organization, but it's thoroughly ludicrous.


Leninist's say that for the working class to defeat its enemy, it need's orginization.

That's not entirely correct. Leninists don't just advocate organization, they advocate Leninist organization.

That is, while every workers' organization on earth recognizes the self-evident fact that individual workers are powerless on their own and must unite in order to have a political impact, Leninists inisist that only a Leninist "revolutionary party" can properly represent the "interests" of the working class.

As an anarchosyndicalist I reject that bourgeois parliamentary "parties" have any role whatsoever to play in the liberation of the workers. Workers must organize themselves throught their own political channels.

The notion that only the "pure vanguard revolutionaries" can "lead" the workers is pure myth, nothing more. Working people are smart and resourceful and we don't need any self-declared "representatives" to "lead" us anywhere.


Right now we are seeing many people accept the fact that capitalism is in decay.

Capitalism is decaying, but it is a long way away from the crisis point. As revolutionaries, however, it is our role to precipitate that crisis and to move the working class into a position where it's prepared to sieze power.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 09:26 PM
Capitalism is decaying, but it is a long way away from the crisis point. As revolutionaries, however, it is our role to precipitate that crisis and to move the working class into a position where it's prepared to sieze power.
Actually thats the subject of a article I'm working on - the Revolution is coming soon, and this is the moment that it has all come to - the phrases of "Liberty or Death", "Common Ruin or Socialism", "Heaven or Hell" all come together here -

Now in the next half century, either humans overthrow capitalism forever, or the Earth will erradicate us all.

Global Warming - Sea Levels rise 20 feet - major industrial cities where hundreds of millions of workers live will be flooded, including Calcutta, Shanghai, New Orleans, etc. All of Denmark, which BBC calls "The Happiest Place on Earth" will be underwater.

Scorching temperatures which already are killing hundreds from heat and causing Hurricanes which kill even more are ravaging the land - and they will only get worse.

Either Humanity will be destroyed from radiation, overheating, and tidal waves, or we all revolt and destroy the capitalists and their poisonous industries.

The world is ruined - or industry is destroyed. Either way, the time is coming.

[JC1]

First of all, "bury itself" is a rather meaningless term. Capitalism is not an "entity", it is a social arrangement made up of people, mostly proletarian ones. The only way for capitalism to be "burried" is for those people to change it and history teaches us that that change will not be peaceful.

OK Fine, it was a figure of speech.


Second of all, while Anarchists generally oppose all forms of reformism and political collaboration, Leninists are famous for participating in bourgeois "democracies". If anything, it's the Leninists who believe that capitalism can be "made" to "destroy itself".

Strawman, I never said that Anarchist's participate in goverment. They do however participate en mass in mass movements that are overwellmingly non-worker (the peace movement, the anti-globolization mov't, et cet era).

Could you please substantiate youre last sentence ?


Not to mention that the entire Leninist paradigm is predicated on some rather idealist assertions. Despite the overwhelming failure of historical Leninism, modern Trots and Maoists continue to insist that somehow "next time" will be "different".

Not to mention anarchism is predicated on some rather idealist assertions. Despite the overwhelming failure of historical anarchism to;

A) Produce any signifigant following in first world (in a period of time much longer then leninism has even been around), or for that matter, produce any following that was numericaly comparable to Leninism (the US Communist Party at times had a hundred thousand member's, and the BPP had 7000 member's at its peak, Can it be said that was even a period in time inwich there was even 10,000 anarchists in the US?).

B) Produce any movement in the third world that amounted to more then peaseant populism a la a the zapitista's or the makhnovista's (Ironic that the historic anarchist mov't's tend to be named after individual's).

Anarchist's countinue to insit that some how anarchism, will be diffrent next time.


Somehow though they fail to actually explain what has changed.

I have, we are kickin' out the non-worker's.


Leninists think that class consciousness "flows" from the "revolutionary party"; Anarchists think that class consciousness develops from active class war.


No. The reveloutionary party is a product of class struggle, an institution created by that struggle. It is an organic element in that struggle.


It's the Leninists who insist that workers must be "lead" from the outside, that they're "too backwards" to organize themselves.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I advocate that the reveloutionary party should be exclusivly prolatarian.


Capitalism is decaying, but it is a long way away from the crisis point. As revolutionaries, however, it is our role to precipitate that crisis and to move the working class to a position where its prepared to sieze power.

And the only way to do that is to create political independence. And that cant be done in an organizational vaccum, or in mass movement's or in anarchist movements where class relationsip's are reproduced and political workers are exluded from political activity.

[JC1]

Why was this moved to learning ?

"How will we defeat the enemy" is broad political problem, not a novice question of theory. Was the move motivated by wishes to belittle this debate and/or my positions ?

[LSD]

Strawman, I never said that Anarchist's participate in goverment. They do however participate en mass in mass movements that are overwellmingly non-worker (the peace movement, the anti-globolization mov't, et cet era).


And you have a problem with this?

The "peace movement" is better characterized as the anti-imperialist movement and the "anti-globalization mov't" is the struggle against economic hegemony. Clearly both of thse causes are not only in the interersts of the international working class but at the ideological heart of communism and Anarchism.

Besides, none of this serves to back up your initial claim that Anarchists "say that Capitalism will bury itself" and/or oppose worker organization.

The fact that we are willing to work with non-Anarchists to pursue immediate aims is an indication of our dedication to organization not an "opposition" to it. Clearly the "peace movement" isn't going to spearhead a revolution any time soon, but then, as Anarchists, we don't approah every political questions from a "party" perspective.

You see it's the Leninist obsessions with self that's the real danger of the ideology. Leninist organizations have historically and consistantly viewed their own leadership and their own organization to be the "single key" to revolutionary success.

This narcisistic mypoia has lead to the implicit glorification of sectarian fracturization. Despite how much Leninist parties have appealed to "unity" and "solidarity", they have always placed their own "party role" above all other concerns.

Again, Anarchists do not oppose working class organization, we just oppose letting you folks "run the show" for our "own good".

The age of "leadership" is over! :angry:


Could you please substantiate youre last sentence ?

You might want to start by taking a look at your own signature.

The CPC is a Parliamentary party.


Not to mention anarchism is predicated on some rather idealist assertions. Despite the overwhelming failure of historical anarchism to;

A) Produce any signifigant following in first world

Excluding Spain, of course.

Besides, since when does lack of practical implementation negate a political theory? Until 1917, no one had tried communism anywhere, did that mean that it was "idealist" to be a Marxist?

The only way to test a sociopolitical model is to evaluate it in action. You're correct, when it comes to Anarchism we don't have that many historical examples to look to; unfortunately, however, we have far too many examples of Leninism.

Leninism has failed everywhere it has been attempted and it's been attempted a lot. So while the "jury's still out" on Anarchism, the verdict on Leninism is all but decided.

If Leninism was workable it would have worked. The fact that it's failed so spectacularly every single time it's been attempted is the final nail in Lenin's 80 year old coffin.

It's time that we let dead Russians stay dead and move on with the business of liberating the worker.


B) Produce any movement in the third world

That's because Anarchism is not a third world ideology; neither, by the way, is communism.

The obsession of Leninist parties with "re-crafting" Marxism to appeal to undeveloped countries is nothing short of a perversion of revolutionary communism.

Areas without industrialized infastructures are simply not capable of supporting classless socities. The only kind of "socialism" that can be implemented in these locations is top-down authoritarian "iron discipline".

Leninism may have found its "niche" in the third world; it has, after all, proven itself moderately successful at industrializing backwards countries relatvively quickly, but that has nothing to do with the question of proletarian revolution!


No. The reveloutionary party is a product of class struggle, an institution created by that struggle.

Parties are not "created by struggle", they are created by people and they are created to seve the specific interests of their creators. It is pure idealism to believe that a political party can "represent" anything more than its own political leadership.

You see the problem with "speaking for" a class has always been that there are no democratic measures in place to ensure that one is acually "speaking for" anybody but oneself.

Sure, in a technical sense, anyone in the "vanguard" speaks "for" the "vanguard" because they themselves are part of it. But they are not all of it. And while they may be capable of speaking for their own ideas and those of their immediate compatriots, historically speaking, revolutionary "vanguards" have always been ideologically conflicting entities.

The best revolutionary condition is when all members of the "vanguard" (insofar as it exists) speak for themselves and organize together so that no one voice has a monopoly on influence.

The danger of the traditional "leninist" party is that it does not facilitate this kind of broad-based dialogue, but rather promotes an authoritarian line of "democratic centralism" with its own "leadership" as the sole "voice of the vanguard".

Those who accept the existance of the "vanguard" or even consider themselves among it are of no threat to the working class. Those who would proclaim themselves its "leader" or its "voice", however, have historically shown themselves to be among the greatest threats to proletarian victory.

There's nothing worse than a false "guide"!


I advocate that the reveloutionary party should be exclusivly prolatarian.

:lol:

There is something deliciously ironic about a "Leninist" advocating a party model that would exclude Lenin!

I suppose it's just another indication of just how anachronistic Lenin's ideas really are these days. Even his ideological "followers" reject his petty-bourgeois "leadership".

Remember, consciousness determines being and Lenin's class position determined his theoretical approach. By rejecting his class you are in effect rejecting him. You can call yourself a Leninist, but in reality you are gradually distancing yourself from the the Bolsheviks' approach.

In the end, Leninism will be rendered obsolete, it's simply inevitable. It may take people like you a little longer to get there, but as you just demonstrated, even you are headed in the right direction.

It's just a matter of time now. :)


in anarchist movements ... political workers are exluded from political activity.

What, pray tell, is a "political worker"?

Wait, let me guess! It's someone who's not actually a worker at all but who's "part of the vanguard" by virtue of their "political" "allegiance". So basically a Lenin ....or a Trotsky.

Wow, I've got to say, it's rather astounding how many theoretical hoops you hero-worshipers are willing to jump through just to make sure that your idols stay all bright and polished.

How about instead of new-speaking the definition of "worker", you just accept that proletarian only means proletarian only. Yeah, that means that most of your "leaders" wouldn't be part of the revolutionary movement any more, but frankly, that's probably a good thing.


Why was this moved to learning ?

Because you've shown a complete misunderstanding of Anarchist theory and clearly need to learn a great deal more on the subject before you can discuss it coherently.

[LSD]

The truth is, the means of production in alot of (most?) "third world countries" is as, or more developed than it was in Europe when Marx was around..

And Europe wasn't ready for communism then. It's been 150 years, though, and technology has improved dramatically. In much of the third world, however, the infastructure is still noy developed enough to support a classless society.

Unless there are workably instruments of mass control, "socialism" cannot help but turn into despotism. The Leninist "third world" paradigm is centered around "iron discipline" and "party rule" precisely because real socialism would be untenable.

At this point, however, the notion of "substituting" top-down "management" for actual workers' control has been revealed to be the utter sham it is.

The thid world today needs a strong progressive anti-imperialist movement, no doubt, but that movement needs to be realist. It needs to recognize that "communism" is simply not on the cards for Somalia or Angola or Yemen.

Classlessness simply requires a greater degree of interconnective technological infastructure than any of these countries can presently support.

That's not a "knock" against any of these countries, it's just the unfortunate state of the world.


Besides that, imperialism has been one of the main developments of capitalism that has allowed it to continue on.. it's necessary to deal powerful blows to imperialism to bring the conditions of revolution to the imperialist countries..

Obviously, but anti-imperialist struggle should not be confused with revolutionary communism.

The thid world needs to free itself from the shackles of economic imperialism and that's what national independence movements are for. But to imagine that any of these movments can develop "socialism" or "communism" in backwards underdeveloped neofeudalist countries is entirely fantastical.

Besides, recognizing that communism is not attainable in modern neocolonies is not to support imperialism. As you rightly point out, economic imperialism is a critical tool by which the bourgeoisie maintains its dominance. Removing that tool would do substantial damage and would greatly help the international proletariat.

But opposing imperialism does not mean accepting Leninist substitutionalism. Bourgeois independence movements draped in red flags are still bourgeois independence movements. In occupied neocolonies, they are progressive, but they are not and can never be "communist" in any meaningful sense.

Communism, again, is not a third world ideology!

[LSD]

Marx thought it was.

And he was wrong.


So did most of your anarchist heros

:lol:

I don't have any "heros", CdL, Anarchist or otherwise. That allows me to treat everything I read with an objective eye and not fall into the Leninst trap of following personalities instead of ideas.

I am more than willing to accept that the vast majority of 19th century "Anarchist" thought is crap; I am also willing to accept that, genius or not, Marx was occasionaly dead wrong.


How developed was the France of Paris Commune days?

Not developed enough for the commune to spread beyond one localized urban area. The communications technologies were simply not developed yet such that all workers could have a legitimate say in social policy.

Statelessness, and by extension classlessness, require an incredibly advanced infastructure to subsist. Paris in in the 1870s did not have one.

That doesn't mean that the Paris commune was not an important part of working class history, just that there's virtually no change that, even had it survived, it would have "developed" into anything more.

Besides, France in the 19th century was an independent capitalist giant with a long history of social revolution and a large domestic industrial workforce. echnologically speaking, the third world may be ostensibly more developed than 19th century France, but socially speaking they are still behind.

These countries need political and economic independence before we can eve start talking about the possibility for communism.


Communism is a workers ideology

Yes it is, but it is also more than that. Communism is not just about workers siezing power, it's about workers siezing power and using that power to create a classless stateless society.

And while the workers can do the former in many backwards countries, in none of them can they do the latter.

Attempting to only results in the elimination of whatever progressive democratic gains were made in the first place and subjugation of the working class to an emergent bureaucratic elite.

Trying to force massive socioeconomi change in an environment that cannot support it is idealistic social control. And that kind of utopianistic authoritarianism can only result in despotism.


The only alternative is for the workers and farmers of those countries to overthrow the imperialists and capitalists and take control over their own countries.

I think that that's a tad oversimplistic, but I don't actually disagree with the underlying premise.

The only question is what should the workers and peasants do following the siezure of power. Should they pursue "communism" out of some utopian "ideological" perversion of Marxism, or should they pursue realistic social-democratic reforms?

Leninism, obviously, advocates the former, but I think that a much more rational approach is to only fight for what's attainable and not raise false hopes of a "socialist utopia" in the fucking third world.

Kicking out the imperialists is the first step in moving the neocolonies towards communism, but it is the first of a very great many.


t will be difficult for them to hold on to power and avoid the rise of bureaucracy while their revolution/s are isolated; but Cuba has proved that it is possible.

Cuba is an inspiring example of anti-imperialist resistance and social welfare in a thoroughly miserable and oppressed corner of the world.

That said though, Cuba is not and never has been "on the road" to communism. If Cuba was a tad more democratic, it would be called a social-democracy, as it is, it's "state-socialist".

Either way though, while the Cuban example could be replicated by other third world nations, it would be even better if they could dispense with the Castroite propaganda about "communism" and enter modern capitalism with their eyes open.

[JC1]

And you have a problem with this?


Only when its youre only activity. And the way you carry out that activity.


The "peace movement" is better characterized as the anti-imperialist movement and the "anti-globalization mov't" is the struggle against economic hegemony. Clearly both of thse causes are not only in the interersts of the international working class but at the ideological heart of communism and Anarchism.



The Anti-Globo Mov't is straight up petit-bourgoise, but thats beside the point. The point is that the political activity of Anarchist's in those movements contribute to the disassociation of social movements with the working class.


You see it's the Leninist obsessions with self that's the real danger of the ideology. Leninist organizations have historically and consistantly viewed their own leadership and their own organization to be the "single key" to revolutionary success.

This is a valid point. I see the vanguard as a section of tha mov't as opposed to a single party or org.


You might want to start by taking a look at your own signature.

The CPC is a Parliamentary party.

Wrong again. One day every few years we struggle in the ballot, but our day-to-day activity has nothing to do with this.


Excluding Spain, of course.


Spain was not a first world country at that point. Even youre deity RedTsrar agree's with this.

And BTW, the majority of the anarchist mov't there was rural based.


since when does lack of practical implementation negate a political theory? QUOTE]

You ansewer youre own question with the next sentence.

[QUOTE]The only way to test a sociopolitical model is to evaluate it in action.

So far the Anarchist movement has produced nothing, except peaseant/petit-bourgoise insurgency's and petit-bourgoise lifestyles.

In Action, Anarchism is a petit-bourgoise oddity.


Leninism has failed everywhere it has been attempted and it's been attempted a lot. So while the "jury's still out" on Anarchism, the verdict on Leninism is all but decided.

Why is the jury still out on Anarchism ? You guy's have been around for 150 years and done nothing, whereas we have been a mass movement in every country on earth since our inception 80 years ago.

Even though were taking a dip now, I doubt that there is any country where anarchists out number Leninists.


What, pray tell, is a "political worker"?

Some one who is political and lives off the wage fund.


There is something deliciously ironic about a "Leninist" advocating a party model that would exclude Lenin!

Lenin A) Seperated himself from the petit-bourgise when he was on tha run B) At the point he in the party, his class was historicly progresive.

[Ander]

LSD is an anarchist??

[LSD]

The Anti-Globo Mov't is straight up petit-bourgoise

Elements of it are, yes.

So what?


The point is that the political activity of Anarchist's in those movements contribute to the disassociation of social movements with the working class.


Utter nonsense.

The fight against "free trade" is the fight for the rights of all workers. Obviously we must aim to get more working people involved in class war, but to assert that one cannot participate in progressive causes lest on "disassociate" from the proletariat is ludicrous.

The working class and working class organizations cannot exactly "disassociate" from themselves, now can they? Obviously our priority must be the immeidate needs and interests of working class people, but we need to restrict ourselves to short-run causes.

Not unless you're proposing that we don't protest imperialism because it would "disassociate" us from working class "social movements"! :o


Wrong again. One day every few years we struggle in the ballot, but our day-to-day activity has nothing to do with this.

Oh so it's just a "coincidence" that the top news story on the CPC website is a Federal decision regarding the Canada Elections Act? It's just "secondary" that the Party rules require all members to vote in elections?

The NDP also claims that its a "people party first" and a Parliamentary one second, but we all know the truth. Even with the best of intentions, a bourgeois legislature is a bourgeois legislature and all groups that particpate within it have sold out.

The CPC isn't trying to destroy bourgeois state power, they're trying to get in on it! That may be an excellent tactic for the "Central Committe" but it's a lousey one for us regular workers.


Spain was not a first world country at that point.

Well, the system of "first world / third world" didn't exist at that time, but it'd be fair to say that Spain was one of the more developed countries on earth at that point.

It wasn't as advanced as say Germany or the United States, no, but it was by no means what we would call a "third world" country today.


Even youre deity RedTsrar agree's with this.

:rolleyes:

What is it with you Leninists and projection? Just because your politics are predicated on hero-worship doesn't mean the rest of our's are.

Some of us can actualy think for ourselves.


So far the Anarchist movement has produced nothing, except peaseant/petit-bourgoise insurgency's and petit-bourgoise lifestyles.

And what did the Marxist "movement" produce in the 70 years following the Manifesto's publication? How many thriving socialist states were created during the nineteenth century?

Political theories, especially radical political theories, take a long time to manifest. Remember, it took the bourgeoisie something like 500 years to become the dominant class; we shouldn't expect to overthrow capitalism in a matter of decades.

Leninism has tried to "cheat" historical materialism by "skipping" several social stages and "forcing" "socialism" from above. Clearly that's been an unmitigated disaster.

It would appear that Marx was right, social evolution cannot come about at the barrel of a gun, it can only develop from genuine mass movements.

Whether Anarchism will ever achieve such a mass movement, I obviously cannot say. I tend to believe that it, or something very similar, will eventually become the dominant left-wing paradigm, but even if it doesn't, at least it will never produice another "Stalin" or "Mao".

Anarchism by its nature rejects Bolshevik authoritarianism and that means that, whatever happens, it will never repeat the disasterous bloody history of 20th century Leninism.


Why is the jury still out on Anarchism ? You guy's have been around for 150 years and done nothing

"150 years"? :rolleyes:

The Anarchism of Bakunin or Proudhon is not the Anarchism of today. Modern class-war anarcho-communism has been here for less than a century, if that.

Besides, the assumption that an ideology remains constant over its existance may be classic Leninsit idealism, but it's atrocious history. You may insist on treating politics like "holy gospel", but don't project your superstition on the rest of us.

The kind of class-war anarchosyndicalism that I adhere to only developed in the mid 1930s and is still undergoing critical changes. That it hasn't yet lead to any "anarchist societies" is a testament to the staying power of the bourgeoisie not any inherent weakness to Anarchism.

After all, how many Leninist revolutions have there been in the past 25 years? How many have been remotely successful?

The "jury's still out" because modern Anarchism has yet to be seriously tested. Leninism had an apparently successful revolution to launch it into the public consciousness; Anarchism had the loss the Franco.

Until Anarchism has been attempted in a real and consistant manner, we will not be able to conclusively say whether or not it is a practical option. Theoretically, of course, it makes a great deal of sense. Much more sense than Leninism with its paradoxical "disciplined" "socialism".


Whereas we have been a mass movement in every country on earth since our inception 80 years ago.

Yeah? How's that been going for you lately?

There was a time when fascist parties could be found across the world, that didn't make it a progressive ideology. It also didn't make it any less memetic.

The failures of Leninism speak for themselves. The fact that, for a time, it became the dominant strain of Marxism is a tragic historical accident and one which is rapidly correcting itself. We may not know what an Anarchist society would look like long-term, but we do know what a Leninist one looks like ...and it isn't pretty.


Some one who is political and lives off the wage fund.

Oh, so in other words, a member of the petty-bourgeoisies.


Lenin A) Seperated himself from the petit-bourgise when he was on tha run B) At the point he in the party, his class was historicly progresive.

:lol:

You can't "seperate" yourself from your class just by "wishing" it to be so, JC. Lenin was petty-bourgeois through and through.

Just like most other authoritarian revolutionary "leaders" of the past, he was never a part of the working class and so treated it as seperate from him. To Lenin, after all, the workers were too "stupid" and too "backwards" to rule themselves. He Had to rule them "for their own good".

If that dosn't demonstrate manegerial thinking, I frankly don't know what does.


LSD is an anarchist??

Anarcho-syndicalist, yes.

[JC1]

OK. Youre responce is utter non-sense, but I wana clear one thing up.


Oh, so in other words, a member of the petty-bourgeoisies.


Some one who is living off the wage fund lives off wages, I.E. a wage-labourer. a political Worker is simjply a Worker engaged in political struggle.

[Tetsuo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 11:40 PM
The "peace movement" is better characterized as the anti-imperialist movement and the "anti-globalization mov't" is the struggle against economic hegemony. Clearly both of thse causes are not only in the interersts of the international working class but at the ideological heart of communism and Anarchism.
I agree with most of what you're saying on this thread, but do you really think that there is anything really useful or relevant in the anti-globalisation "movement"?

As far as I can see, it is a mess politically & organisationally, and appeals to inneffective, substitutionist forms of action that are more spectacle than substance.

If we accept the aim of communism as being to advance our material interest as workers, then being a part of the "anti-globilisation mov't" is not a good idea, which isn't to say that struggling aggainst economic liberalism is a bad thing, just that the so-called movement against it is fucked.

[LSD]

OK. Youre responce is utter non-sense

:lol:

Nonsense that you're unable to refute, apparently.


Some one who is living off the wage fund lives off wages, I.E. a wage-labourer.

Did Lenin sell his labour to survive, yes or no? Was he paid an hourly wage based on the reproducibility of his skills, yes or no? Was he economically employed by the bourgeoisie, yes or no?

"Wage fund", no "wage fund". Someone who does not sell his labour is not a proletarian. Period.


I agree with most of what you're saying on this thread, but do you really think that there is anything really useful or relevant in the anti-globalisation "movement"?

I think that it can be used to serve a progressive working-class purpose.

In and of itself, much of the "anti-globalization" has an irritating petty-bourgeois "hippy" streak and, for the most part, it's made up of ineffective liberals who see "big business" as the problem and not capitalism itself.

But that doesn't make "globalization" any less of a threat to workers or "free trade" anything other than a euphemism for economic imperialism.

If fighting against "economic liberalism" means ocassionaly working with "ineffective liberals", so be it. So long as anti-globalization efforts are not all that one does politically, there really shouldn't be a problem.

After all, the civil rights movement was also made up of a lot of idealist and "spectacle"-minded individuals. That didn't mean that communists didn't have a duty to participate.

By not helping out we allow liberals to define the anti-"free trade" struggle; by participating we can help to introduce workers to communism and communist thinking. Either way, the struggle will happen.

Isn't it better that we be a part of it?

[Tetsuo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:09 AM
I think that it can be used to serve a progressive working-class purpose.

In and of itself, much of the "anti-globalization" has an irritating petty-bourgeois "hippy" streak and, for the most part, it's made up of ineffective liberals who see "big business" as the problem and not capitalism itself.

But that doesn't make "globalization" any less of a threat to workers or "free trade" anything other than a euphemism for economic imperialism.

If fighting against "economic liberalism" means ocassionaly working with "ineffective liberals", so be it. So long as anti-globalization efforts are not all that one does politically, there really shouldn't be a problem.
My problem isn't necessarily working with liberals or the ideological content of the movement, it's the tactics and forms of organisation used by that movement, which are ultimately inneffective.


After all, the civil rights movement was also made up of a lot of idealist and "spectacle"-minded individuals. That didn't mean that communists didn't have a duty to participate.

By not helping out we allow liberals to define the anti-"free trade" struggle; by participating we can help to introduce workers to communism and communist thinking. Either way, the struggle will happen.

Isn't it better that we be a part of it?
I'm not saying we shouldn't struggle against the new neo-liberal consensus and its effects on our lives, but I don't see that we need to engage with the anti-globilisation/"global justice" lot to do so.

Surely struggling against these things where they happen (in the workplace and the community) and doing solidarity actions with those doing so in other regions or countries is more effective than the substitutionist crap that most summit hoppers get up to?

[LSD]

My problem isn't necessarily working with liberals or the ideological content of the movement, it's the tactics and forms of organisation used by that movement, which are ultimately inneffective.

The "movement" in question may be tactically immature, but it also enjoys greater public support than any "propper" anti-capitalist movement around today. That doesn't mean that we should accept liberal organization without critisism, of course, but it does mean that if we want to have a say in moving the anti-"free trade" community, we need to grit our teeth and get involved.

That's not to say however that we should exclusively concentrate on "anti-globalization" or even that it should be a high priority. But to reject the "new left" opposition entirely is to overlook a critical opportunity to ingender radicalization.

Besides nothing says that we have to abide by liberal tactics. Participating in the anti-"free trade" struggle may mean working with liberals, but it certainly doesn't mean bowing to them.

Like the civil rights struggle, this happens to be an issue where working class and advanced petty-bourgeois interests coincide. Obviously, the petty-bourgeois tendency is to approach the issue from a conformist and elitist perspective, but our natural revulsion to that kind of substitutionalist arrogance should not keep us from playing a role in fighting imperialism on all available fronts.


Surely struggling against these things where they happen (in the workplace and the community) and doing solidarity actions with those doing so in other regions or countries is more effective than the substitutionist crap that most summit hoppers get up to?

Undoubtable, but again there's no reason that we can't do both.

[JC1]

Nonsense that you're unable to refute, apparently.

Nah man. I just dont want to argue with people that semantics and debaters rule supreme with.

[LSD]

I'm not trying to be ironic or anything, but the grammer of that sentence is truly incomprehensible.

[More Fire for the People]

The objective conditions of the capitalist world dictate that people are ready for their own political rule — the dictatorship of the proletariat. The subjective conditions, class conscioussness, are not ‘ready’. The working masses can be described as a-political in that they do create their own politics. Ideological and state apparatuses shape the working class into a group of obedient atomitized individuals.

[Zero]

Originally posted by "JC1"
How many anarchists participated in the "Battle for Seattle"?

If you read most mainstream news accounts, you'd be led to believe that there were 50 anarchists in Seattle who came just to smash windows. In fact, conservative estimates put the actual number of anarchists in Seattle during the week at around 4000. The actual number is hard to determine, since no survey was taken of Seattle participants.