Anarchist Vanguard?

[Question?]

Could Bakunin's Brotherhood be known as an anarchist vanguard?

[Bilan]

It was hardly "anarchist".

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 02:26 am
Could Bakunin's Brotherhood be known as an anarchist vanguard?
Perhaps.

His idea was totally insane, the brotherhood was not supposed to organise overground, and thus would lead to free, unchallenged (from the revolutionary left) leninist organisation.

Bakunin was known for his occasional insanity, in this instance and also in his accusations that the Jews were the greatest enemy of the working class.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Anarchism? Is'nt that the lack of government? History has shown time and again that when there is no authority the thugs with the biggest guns rule the land. Then you get warlords and if the ones with the biggest guns want to take advantage of this and exploit the situation you get a bully. Anarchism is really just as bad as fascism or capitalism. The only solution I see is a more centralised leftist government. One that would keep bully like thugs from running the streets. So yeah, call me authoritarian all you want but I like Fidel Castro's society way better than any anarchist dreamland.

[Marsella]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 04:11 pm
Anarchism? Is'nt that the lack of government? History has shown time and again that when there is no authority the thugs with the biggest guns rule the land. Then you get warlords and if the ones with the biggest guns want to take advantage of this and exploit the situation you get a bully. Anarchism is really just as bad as fascism or capitalism. The only solution I see is a more centralised leftist government. One that would keep bully like thugs from running the streets. So yeah, call me authoritarian all you want but I like Fidel Castro's society way better than any anarchist dreamland.
Well, I'm not an anarchist, but that has to be one of the most pathetic critiques I have ever had the misfortune of reading.

'Dah guys wid da big guns will take over teh worldz!!!'

Intelligence - 30 points.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by William Everard+December 10, 2007 12:11 pm--> (William Everard @ December 10, 2007 12:11 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 02:26 am
Could Bakunin's Brotherhood be known as an anarchist vanguard?
Perhaps.

His idea was totally insane, the brotherhood was not supposed to organise overground, and thus would lead to free, unchallenged (from the revolutionary left) leninist organisation.

[/b]
It is actually quite interesting that he managed to accuse Marx of being the authoritarian one with some of his arguments about organisation. At least Marx was for open political organisation.

Unlike this:


Bakunin
It is necessary that in the midst of popular anarchy, which will make up the very life of the revolution, the unity of revolutionary thought and action should be embodied in a certain organ. That organ must be the secret and world-wide association of the international brothers.
...
The number of these individuals should not, therefore be too large. For the international organisation throughout Europe one hundred serious and firmly united revolutionaries would be sufficient.


Devrim

[black magick hustla]

Bakunin never completely abandoned his narodnik roots, after all.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

The funniest notion ever: Rich, white, suburban kids in the United States going to demonstrations with faces covered calling themselves anarchists and talking about oppression. (Something they would know soooooo much about, ya know :P ) hahaha. Not to say that all anarchists are like that. But dude that's soooo punk rock. But most go back to being so-called productive members of society when they get bored with their psuedo beliefs. Once again THIS IS NOT A REFLECTION OF ALL ANARCHISTS The other anarchists on the other hand for the most part either marginalize themselves through purist ideology or take themselves way too seriously.

[An archist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 08:31 am
The funniest notion ever: Rich, white, suburban kids in the United States going to demonstrations with faces covered calling themselves anarchists and talking about oppression. (Something they would know soooooo much about, ya know :P ) hahaha. Not to say that all anarchists are like that. But dude that's soooo punk rock. But most go back to being so-called productive members of society when they get bored with their psuedo beliefs. Once again THIS IS NOT A REFLECTION OF ALL ANARCHISTS The other anarchists on the other hand for the most part either marginalize themselves through purist ideology or take themselves way too seriously.
You obviously know a lot of anarchists.

[YSR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 01:34 am
Bakunin never completely abandoned his narodnik roots, after all.
Very true.


The funniest notion ever: Rich, white, suburban kids in the United States going to demonstrations with faces covered calling themselves anarchists and talking about oppression. (Something they would know soooooo much about, ya know tongue.gif ) hahaha. Not to say that all anarchists are like that. But dude that's soooo punk rock. But most go back to being so-called productive members of society when they get bored with their psuedo beliefs. Once again THIS IS NOT A REFLECTION OF ALL ANARCHISTS The other anarchists on the other hand for the most part either marginalize themselves through purist ideology or take themselves way too seriously.

I think that there are about 15 or so kids like that in reality. I think they are probably all part of CrimethInc, or at least give money to them.

But seriously, THAT'S IT. I have never met anyone like this. This bizarre anarchist stereotype has absolutely no basis in reality. White? Okay, I'll bite. But rich and suburban? Not in my experience.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 06:31 pm
The funniest notion ever: Rich, white, suburban kids in the United States going to demonstrations with faces covered calling themselves anarchists and talking about oppression. (Something they would know soooooo much about, ya know :P ) hahaha. Not to say that all anarchists are like that. But dude that's soooo punk rock. But most go back to being so-called productive members of society when they get bored with their psuedo beliefs. Once again THIS IS NOT A REFLECTION OF ALL ANARCHISTS The other anarchists on the other hand for the most part either marginalize themselves through purist ideology or take themselves way too seriously.
Boring.

[Forward Union]

The bulk of the Socialist party were fairly well off white university students (some even went to oxford) At least, this was my experience whilst involved. I came across as many ethnic people as I have done in the Anarchist movement, although my experience is that the average age group within (organised) Anarchism is generally lates 20s, to early 40s, whereas in the SP it's probably a lot younger. And like the SP, we do have black people, gays and women in our groups, but they are a minority (disproportionate to their percentage in society).

So we can play with steriotypes all day. But what's the point.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 03:31 am
The funniest notion ever: Rich, white, suburban kids in the United States going to demonstrations with faces covered calling themselves anarchists and talking about oppression. (Something they would know soooooo much about, ya know :P ) hahaha. Not to say that all anarchists are like that. But dude that's soooo punk rock. But most go back to being so-called productive members of society when they get bored with their psuedo beliefs. Once again THIS IS NOT A REFLECTION OF ALL ANARCHISTS The other anarchists on the other hand for the most part either marginalize themselves through purist ideology or take themselves way too seriously.
CC has gone down the tubes.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by William [email protected] 12, 2007 10:22 am
The bulk of the Socialist party were fairly well off white university students (some even went to oxford) At least, this was my experience whilst involved. I came across as many ethnic people as I have done in the Anarchist movement, although my experience is that the average age group within (organised) Anarchism is generally lates 20s, to early 40s, whereas in the SP it's probably a lot younger. And like the SP, we do have black people, gays and women in our groups, but they are a minority (disproportionate to their percentage in society).

So we can play with steriotypes all day. But what's the point.
Anarchists and bourgeois socialists in my view are glorified hippies. What I've noticed around here are in this era of imperialist war what do the anarchists do? Host a bake sale fundraiser to fund the next bake sale fundraiser.

But hey what do I know I'm just an authoritarian communist "who is all about domination and submission"

Now what will be funny is when they overthrow the state with their anarchist movement. Lets pretend it won't be in nevervember. Then how funny it will be when one of them gets mugged by a crack head. There will be no authority to bring justice. (not that I'm an advocate for american cops) This anarchist will go home and be like "mommy, I don't like my anarchy anymore *sob*"

Anarchists love to bash down people who are doing good stuff so often like Fidel for example. So many of these little kids complain he's so oppressive and authoritarian. But when some one of a different view would like to work with them on single issue they have nothing to do with it. So, a lot of people who call themselves anarchists are narrow minded.

They are also inconsiquencial.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by petey+December 12, 2007 01:41 am--> (petey @ December 12, 2007 01:41 am) Anarchism? Is'nt that the lack of government? History has shown time and again that when there is no authority the thugs with the biggest guns rule the land. Then you get warlords and if the ones with the biggest guns want to take advantage of this and exploit the situation you get a bully. Anarchism is really just as bad as fascism or capitalism. The only solution I see is a more centralised leftist government. One that would keep bully like thugs from running the streets. So yeah, call me authoritarian all you want but I like Fidel Castro's society way better than any anarchist dreamland. [/b]
And you are in the commie club? I think your membership should be revoked for that idiocy. Anarchism is not about having a lack of Government, but a lack of state. Seeing that for an anarchist movement to succeed it would have had to violently over throw the existing system, I some how doubt that dealing with some thugs will be a problem.


Originally posted by [email protected]
The funniest notion ever: Rich, white, suburban kids in the United States going to demonstrations with faces covered calling themselves anarchists and talking about oppression. (Something they would know soooooo much about, ya know tongue.gif ) hahaha. Not to say that all anarchists are like that. But dude that's soooo punk rock. But most go back to being so-called productive members of society when they get bored with their psuedo beliefs. Once again THIS IS NOT A REFLECTION OF ALL ANARCHISTS The other anarchists on the other hand for the most part either marginalize themselves through purist ideology or take themselves way too seriously.
Even the middle class kids of the USA are still part of the working class, once they go to work and so they are oppressed by the bourgeoisie.


petey
Anarchists and bourgeois socialists in my view are glorified hippies. What I've noticed around here are in this era of imperialist war what do the anarchists do? Host a bake sale fundraiser to fund the next bake sale fundraiser.

But hey what do I know I'm just an authoritarian communist "who is all about domination and submission"

Now what will be funny is when they overthrow the state with their anarchist movement. Lets pretend it won't be in nevervember. Then how funny it will be when one of them gets mugged by a crack head. There will be no authority to bring justice. (not that I'm an advocate for american cops) This anarchist will go home and be like "mommy, I don't like my anarchy anymore *sob*"

Anarchists love to bash down people who are doing good stuff so often like Fidel for example. So many of these little kids complain he's so oppressive and authoritarian. But when some one of a different view would like to work with them on single issue they have nothing to do with it. So, a lot of people who call themselves anarchists are narrow minded.

They are also inconsiquencial.
Yeah, because Anarchists aren't willing to fight? What about the Spanish Revolution? What about the EZLN (yes, I know they are somewhere between Communists and Anarchists)? I don't think what Fidel is doing is necessarily bad. However, any state is oppressive. That is the fact, and even a communist should agree with that, since the end goal is a stateless society.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by lvleph+December 12, 2007 05:19 pm--> (lvleph @ December 12, 2007 05:19 pm)
Originally posted by petey+December 12, 2007 01:41 am--> (petey @ December 12, 2007 01:41 am) Anarchism? Is'nt that the lack of government? History has shown time and again that when there is no authority the thugs with the biggest guns rule the land. Then you get warlords and if the ones with the biggest guns want to take advantage of this and exploit the situation you get a bully. Anarchism is really just as bad as fascism or capitalism. The only solution I see is a more centralised leftist government. One that would keep bully like thugs from running the streets. So yeah, call me authoritarian all you want but I like Fidel Castro's society way better than any anarchist dreamland. [/b]
And you are in the commie club? I think your membership should be revoked for that idiocy. Anarchism is not about having a lack of Government, but a lack of state. Seeing that for an anarchist movement to succeed it would have had to violently over throw the existing system, I some how doubt that dealing with some thugs will be a problem.


[email protected]
The funniest notion ever: Rich, white, suburban kids in the United States going to demonstrations with faces covered calling themselves anarchists and talking about oppression. (Something they would know soooooo much about, ya know tongue.gif ) hahaha. Not to say that all anarchists are like that. But dude that's soooo punk rock. But most go back to being so-called productive members of society when they get bored with their psuedo beliefs. Once again THIS IS NOT A REFLECTION OF ALL ANARCHISTS The other anarchists on the other hand for the most part either marginalize themselves through purist ideology or take themselves way too seriously.
Even the middle class kids of the USA are still part of the working class, once they go to work and so they are oppressed by the bourgeoisie.


petey
Anarchists and bourgeois socialists in my view are glorified hippies. What I've noticed around here are in this era of imperialist war what do the anarchists do? Host a bake sale fundraiser to fund the next bake sale fundraiser.

But hey what do I know I'm just an authoritarian communist "who is all about domination and submission"

Now what will be funny is when they overthrow the state with their anarchist movement. Lets pretend it won't be in nevervember. Then how funny it will be when one of them gets mugged by a crack head. There will be no authority to bring justice. (not that I'm an advocate for american cops) This anarchist will go home and be like "mommy, I don't like my anarchy anymore *sob*"

Anarchists love to bash down people who are doing good stuff so often like Fidel for example. So many of these little kids complain he's so oppressive and authoritarian. But when some one of a different view would like to work with them on single issue they have nothing to do with it. So, a lot of people who call themselves anarchists are narrow minded.

They are also inconsiquencial.
Yeah, because Anarchists aren't willing to fight? What about the Spanish Revolution? What about the EZLN (yes, I know they are somewhere between Communists and Anarchists)? I don't think what Fidel is doing is necessarily bad. However, any state is oppressive. That is the fact, and even a communist should agree with that, since the end goal is a stateless society. [/b]
One man's oppressor is another man's liberator.

Anarchist vanguard? Are they friends with the Stalinist Trots? :P That last part is a joke.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 04:52 pm
Anarchists and bourgeois socialists in my view are glorified hippies. What I've noticed around here are in this era of imperialist war what do the anarchists do? Host a bake sale fundraiser to fund the next bake sale fundraiser.

Beyond being politically naieve. I find that personally the most insulting comment I have ever read on this forum. :angry:

I've met fucking war veterains from spain, and Anarchists around the world who have taken bullets for the fight against capitalism, notably while i was in Oaxaca. I've been to the graves of people who did more than just take bullets. I've met Anarchists who have dedicated every ounce of their time to the cause of Labour, struggling within unions, workplaces and communities whilst leninists sell their papers. And for you to insult them the way you just have, and to associate them with a fucking Liberal trend within american culture is fucking pathetic.

I realise this is an emotive responce, but the lack of connection to reality in your post does not warrent any more.


There will be no authority to bring justice. (not that I'm an advocate for american cops) This anarchist will go home and be like "mommy, I don't like my anarchy anymore *sob*"

No, in an anarchist society a criminal will be brought to justice before a court. Assuming he or she is caught by the police (or whatever you want to call it). Anarchist societies have still had these mechanisms, but have lacked a central decision making organ in regard to theri mandating. And it worked fine every time.


Anarchists love to bash down people who are doing good stuff so often like Fidel for example.

I recognise his achievements. I also recognise those of capitalism, and fascism where due recognition is neccisary. I simply don't endorse him.


They are also inconsiquencial.

So are leninists. Although in some areas we're doing marginally better than you. Particularly in Germany where the Anarchist "Free Workers Union" managed to facillitate a factory occupation and begin production again.

[Marsella]

Anarchists and bourgeois socialists in my view are glorified hippies.

Well, let's conduct an experiment comparing the level of hippyness between yourself (as a representative of Leninists) and William Everard (as a representative of anarchists).

William Everard:

[img]http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/9669/dsc0106pe2oq3.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' class='attach' />

(He is the good looking one)

You (Petey):

No pictures of other members, unless (like with WE), you are sure it is "safe"

(I don't need to point you out, do I?)

Now, this may be difficult for you to make an objective decision, but who looks more like a hippie between the both of you?

[lvleph]

[img]http://www.xs4all.nl/~ernstmul/images/yahoo/35.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' class='attach' /> To the last two posts. I was a little too pissed to comment on all the things said.

EDIT: We need an applause emoticon!

[Forward Union]

2 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
2 Members: William Everard, Devrim

This makes me inexplicably nerveous.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 06:36 pm

Anarchists and bourgeois socialists in my view are glorified hippies.

Well, let's conduct an experiment comparing the level of hippyness between yourself (as a representative of Leninists) and William Everard (as a representative of anarchists).

William Everard:

[img]http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/9669/dsc0106pe2oq3.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' class='attach' />

(He is the good looking one)

You (Petey):


No pictures of other members, unless (like with WE), you are sure it is "safe"

(I don't need to point you out, do I?)

Now, this may be difficult for you to make an objective decision, but who looks more like a hippie between the both of you?
So now it's about judging people as hippies based on visual appearance as opposed to actions and words. Like the whole rights of the individual as compared to the betterment of the whole. Anarchists somehow believe the individual rights go hand in hand with the whole. Because narcisistic behavior never exists, right? But hey, we can go ride bicycles and claim that we've made a difference.

W.E.: If you you found that one comment that I made earlier so insulting. Why don't you come to Milwaukee and make it so your counter-parts in the "anarchist movement" here do something that would show me otherwise. Like make them do something a little bit more productive than sitting and talking in their little elitist bake sale clubs. Who knows maybe you would be the key to getting them off thier snobby high horse attitude of being pure in practice.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by William [email protected] 12, 2007 06:52 pm

2 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
2 Members: William Everard, Devrim

This makes me inexplicably nerveous.
So nervous that you can't spell it.

Why?

Devrim

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 07:28 pm
Anarchists somehow believe the individual rights go hand in hand with the whole.
That sentence doesn't make sence.


Because narcisistic behavior never exists, right? But hey, we can go ride bicycles and claim that we've made a difference.

Please stop deliberately confusing Class Struggle Anarchism with various froms of pacificst liberalism that infect it near where you live. You're old enough to tell the difference.


If you you found that one comment that I made earlier so insulting. Why don't you come to Milwaukee and make it so your counter-parts in the "anarchist movement" here do something that would show me otherwise.

Because I live in England and have a job.


Like make them do something a little bit more productive than sitting and talking in their little elitist bake sale clubs. Who knows maybe you would be the key to getting them off thier snobby high horse attitude of being pure in practice.

They don't sound worth my time either. You get little clubs of pricks who like to call themselves anarchists from time to time. Just ignore them. Anyway, speaking of "high horse attitude" I'm going to start ignoring you from now on. Bye!

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by William [email protected] 12, 2007 07:38 pm
Anyway, speaking of "high horse attitude" I'm going to start ignoring you from now on. Bye!
Yeah because when you have a problem with someone the most mature thing is to run away from it right? :P

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 07:28 pm
W.E.: If you you found that one comment that I made earlier so insulting. Why don't you come to Milwaukee and make it so your counter-parts in the "anarchist movement" here do something that would show me otherwise. Like make them do something a little bit more productive than sitting and talking in their little elitist bake sale clubs. Who knows maybe you would be the key to getting them off thier snobby high horse attitude of being pure in practice.
It is pretty pathetic to blame all of the anarchists for the sort of hippy lifestylism that calls itself anarchism in the US. Of course if the anarchists returned the favour, and blamed people who call themselves Marxists for everything that pseudo-marxists had done, we would be here for a long time hearing about far greater crimes against the working class than 'hippyism'.

Devrim

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by Devrim+December 12, 2007 07:57 pm--> (Devrim @ December 12, 2007 07:57 pm)
[email protected] 12, 2007 07:28 pm
W.E.: If you you found that one comment that I made earlier so insulting. Why don't you come to Milwaukee and make it so your counter-parts in the "anarchist movement" here do something that would show me otherwise. Like make them do something a little bit more productive than sitting and talking in their little elitist bake sale clubs. Who knows maybe you would be the key to getting them off thier snobby high horse attitude of being pure in practice.
It is pretty pathetic to blame all of the anarchists for the sort of hippy lifestylism that calls itself anarchism in the US. Of course if the anarchists returned the favour, and blamed people who call themselves Marxists for everything that pseudo-marxists had done, we would be here for a long time hearing about far greater crimes against the working class than 'hippyism'.

Devrim [/b]
Where did I claim this to be about all anarchists? My comment was not about all anarchists but my personal experiance in dealing with people who call themselves "anarchists" where I'm from.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 08:11 pm
Where did I claim this to be about all anarchists? My comment was not about all anarchists but my personal experiance in dealing with people who call themselves "anarchists" where I'm from.
So what is going on is that you are arguing with someone who is a member of an anarchist organisation on a different continent and basing your arguments on the fact that the people who call themselves anarchists in your small town are liberal hippies.

As long as we are clear about what is going on here.

It sounds pretty well thought out, and logical to me.

Devrim

[Jazzratt]

petey: You said (without any qualification) "Anarchists and bourgeois socialists in my view are glorified hippies. ".

Stop back-pedalling, admit you're wrong and move on.

[Ultra-Violence]

petey i can Definatly understand were your coming from somtimes i dont even want to have anything to do with the fuckinf piece of shit anarchit movement in America honest truth cuase like your said before MANY not All are FUCKING HIPPYS! i swear to god most of the kids *white care more about fucking Animal liberation than about the fucking class war and racism and fucking the unequal disrubtion of whealth Honest to god dang truth and Me as a person of color who has fucking had to fucking fight for everything in his life deal with bullshit all the time *harrasment from cops not having fucking food in the fridge etc...i honeslty feel no conection Between Me and them other than the fact that they like punkrock?! so its like wtf? you know they to fucking worried abot bieng fucking crusty and vegan etc.. I dunno just my feelings about the movemt and petey i know rxaclty WTF your talking about. They talk shit about castro commies etc.. and like3/4 of them havent even read marx?!

i dunno even in the far left i feel thiers a color divide

[Marsella]

Well, if anything, all communist organizations which I have dealt with, have been middle-aged, white, male and Stalinist. About as appealing as watching grass grow.

Anarchists have been the opposite.

But I don't pretend to project that to all communists or all communist parties.

[black magick hustla]

Some of the best communist militants in history have been anarchists.

I always thought that the question wasn't between different communist ideologies--but the position organizations or individuals took on certain questions. Kroptotkin was an "anarchist", but he took a pro-war position in WWI, while many other anarchists did take the real communist position.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 08:35 pm
petey: You said (without any qualification) "Anarchists and bourgeois socialists in my view are glorified hippies. ".

Stop back-pedalling, admit you're wrong and move on.
Have you ever stopped to think why I did not insert the word "all" in the begining of that sentence? Of course some people love taking statements out of context.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by Ultra-[email protected] 12, 2007 08:39 pm
petey i can Definatly understand were your coming from somtimes i dont even want to have anything to do with the fuckinf piece of shit anarchit movement in America honest truth cuase like your said before MANY not All are FUCKING HIPPYS! i swear to god most of the kids *white care more about fucking Animal liberation than about the fucking class war and racism and fucking the unequal disrubtion of whealth Honest to god dang truth and Me as a person of color who has fucking had to fucking fight for everything in his life deal with bullshit all the time *harrasment from cops not having fucking food in the fridge etc...i honeslty feel no conection Between Me and them other than the fact that they like punkrock?! so its like wtf? you know they to fucking worried abot bieng fucking crusty and vegan etc.. I dunno just my feelings about the movemt and petey i know rxaclty WTF your talking about. They talk shit about castro commies etc.. and like3/4 of them havent even read marx?!

i dunno even in the far left i feel thiers a color divide
Wow thanks for inspiring me to keep going on this.

[Ultra-Violence]

Anarchists have been the opposite.

But I don't pretend to project that to all communists or all communist parties.

True anarchist are a very diverse group of people but its Usauly the they way the white kids think is the way that your supose to think if your to be even considerd apart of the "movment" meaning Vegan,Staunch supporter of animal rights and liberation,Dont even mention marx or you get the boot. Again im talking form my experinces from were i live and its not like im saying its all bad every were but im just saying i can feel what petey is talking about

And from my expiernces the commies for one thing are OLD but not white majority black were i live
and some mestizo and white sprinkled in thier and i notice most people of color were i live are usualy maosit,socailst,and jsut plain o'l commies

anarchism doesnt conect to them really the reasons why i picked it up is cuase Anarchist are the bulk of the people were i live and i really like Kropotkins teachings great guy IMO even tho he was a prince still awsome dude

the Anarchist prince :D

[Devrim]

Originally posted by petey+December 12, 2007 09:05 pm--> (petey @ December 12, 2007 09:05 pm)
[email protected] 12, 2007 08:35 pm
petey: You said (without any qualification) "Anarchists and bourgeois socialists in my view are glorified hippies. ".

Stop back-pedalling, admit you're wrong and move on.
Have you ever stopped to think why I did not insert the word "all" in the begining of that sentence? Of course some people love taking statements out of context. [/b]
It doesn't make any difference grammatically. A plural subject without an article is general.

Compare

Dogs are mammals.

All dogs are mammals.

The meaning is the same. The second places what in this sentence is unnecessary stress on the noun, but the first one does not imply that there are dogs that are not mammals.


Devrim

[Ultra-Violence]

Wow thanks for inspiring me to keep going on this.

sure no problem i was skimming around and i read your post and i was like YUP! thats exactly how i feel to :o Mexika Tiahui!

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by Devrim+December 12, 2007 09:13 pm--> (Devrim @ December 12, 2007 09:13 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 09:05 pm

[email protected] 12, 2007 08:35 pm
petey: You said (without any qualification) "Anarchists and bourgeois socialists in my view are glorified hippies. ".

Stop back-pedalling, admit you're wrong and move on.
Have you ever stopped to think why I did not insert the word "all" in the begining of that sentence? Of course some people love taking statements out of context.
It doesn't make any difference grammatically. A plural subject without an article is general.

Compare

Dogs are mammals.

All dogs are mammals.

The meaning is the same. The second places what in this sentence is unnecessary stress on the noun, but the first one does not imply that there are dogs that are not mammals.


Devrim [/b]
Not true all of the time.

but what does this matter? If you look back through my posts on this thread I had specificly said in bold text "THIS IS NOT A REFLECTION OF ALL ANARCHISTS"

[An archist]

Originally posted by petey+December 12, 2007 09:34 pm--> (petey @ December 12, 2007 09:34 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 09:13 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 09:05 pm

[email protected] 12, 2007 08:35 pm
petey: You said (without any qualification) "Anarchists and bourgeois socialists in my view are glorified hippies. ".

Stop back-pedalling, admit you're wrong and move on.
Have you ever stopped to think why I did not insert the word "all" in the begining of that sentence? Of course some people love taking statements out of context.
It doesn't make any difference grammatically. A plural subject without an article is general.

Compare

Dogs are mammals.

All dogs are mammals.

The meaning is the same. The second places what in this sentence is unnecessary stress on the noun, but the first one does not imply that there are dogs that are not mammals.


Devrim
Not true all of the time.

but what does this matter? If you look back through my posts on this thread I had specificly said in bold text "THIS IS NOT A REFLECTION OF ALL ANARCHISTS" [/b]
Allright then, find the people you're talking about and debate them or insult them or whatever and stop writing nonsense here.

[Marsella]

\Not true all of the time.

No it is true all of the time.

My English is not good, but even I know this.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by An archist+December 12, 2007 09:45 pm--> (An archist @ December 12, 2007 09:45 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 09:34 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 09:13 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 09:05 pm

[email protected] 12, 2007 08:35 pm
petey: You said (without any qualification) "Anarchists and bourgeois socialists in my view are glorified hippies. ".

Stop back-pedalling, admit you're wrong and move on.
Have you ever stopped to think why I did not insert the word "all" in the begining of that sentence? Of course some people love taking statements out of context.
It doesn't make any difference grammatically. A plural subject without an article is general.

Compare

Dogs are mammals.

All dogs are mammals.

The meaning is the same. The second places what in this sentence is unnecessary stress on the noun, but the first one does not imply that there are dogs that are not mammals.


Devrim
Not true all of the time.

but what does this matter? If you look back through my posts on this thread I had specificly said in bold text "THIS IS NOT A REFLECTION OF ALL ANARCHISTS"
Allright then, find the people you're talking about and debate them or insult them or whatever and stop writing nonsense here. [/b]
Oh, I've been doing that. With the collaboration and help of COMRADE CRUM.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:05 am
CC has gone down the tubes.

Exactly what I was thinking considering that a member can say this gem and be apart of the CC;


Anarchism? Is'nt that the lack of government? History has shown time and again that when there is no authority the thugs with the biggest guns rule the land. Then you get warlords and if the ones with the biggest guns want to take advantage of this and exploit the situation you get a bully. Anarchism is really just as bad as fascism or capitalism. The only solution I see is a more centralised leftist government. One that would keep bully like thugs from running the streets.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Oh don't bother taking anything else I say into account. Just take that one post that I wrote in one of those wierd emotional states and use it as a tool to attack me. But hey I hold nothing against anarchists, so why not try to change that and convince me that my perspective on anarchists where I live is more universal than I thought?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:13 pm
Oh don't bother taking anything else I say into account. Just take that one post that I wrote in one of those wierd emotional states and use it as a tool to attack me. But hey I hold nothing against anarchists, so why not try to change that and convince me that my perspective on anarchists where I live is more universal than I thought?
I know you didn't say "all anarchists" but you did say "anarchists" using it as a universal noun, without making any specification or caveat. So I think you and I both know what you meant, but regardless.

You have either changed you mind about anarchists, or didn't convey it properly to begin with, so let's not dwell!

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by William Everard+December 12, 2007 11:14 pm--> (William Everard @ December 12, 2007 11:14 pm)
[email protected] 12, 2007 10:13 pm
Oh don't bother taking anything else I say into account. Just take that one post that I wrote in one of those wierd emotional states and use it as a tool to attack me. But hey I hold nothing against anarchists, so why not try to change that and convince me that my perspective on anarchists where I live is more universal than I thought?
I know you didn't say "all anarchists" but you did say "anarchists" using it as a universal noun, without making any specification or caveat. So I think you and I both know what you meant, but regardless.

You have either changed you mind about anarchists, or didn't convey it properly to begin with, so let's not dwell! [/b]
Wow, I finaly see a gleam of hope. One step in the direction of being civil. Don't worry you just have to take what I say and try to figure out what is serious and what is not. Now obviously, the other factor would be since I'm rarely using precise terms for I like being vague and leaving more to the imagination, you might have trouble interpereting my use of words. The reason I do this is that you can tell alot about a person based on how they jump to conclusions. For example there are people who jump to the assumption that they are being attacked. Those people are being deffensive and/or put things in a negitive light which is a dead giveaway of being wronged too many times in their lifetime. Other people might look into the comment with curiosity. Those people are usualy open minded and not judgemental. They want to see where people are coming from in what they have to say. There are other variations of reaction to vague comments but I don't feel like going into it.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 06:13 pm
Oh don't bother taking anything else I say into account.
Oh right, thanks comrade, I forgot this pearl of wisdom;


Now what will be funny is when they overthrow the state with their anarchist movement. Lets pretend it won't be in nevervember. Then how funny it will be when one of them gets mugged by a crack head. There will be no authority to bring justice. (not that I'm an advocate for american cops) This anarchist will go home and be like "mommy, I don't like my anarchy anymore *sob*"

No where in this thread have I seen you withdraw your positions on Anarchism, thus I must conclude these are your current thoughts on the subject.


But hey I hold nothing against anarchists, so why not try to change that and convince me that my perspective on anarchists where I live is more universal than I thought?

This isn't about 'converting' anyone but rather it's about you embracing bourgeois misconceptions and general ignorance of Anarchism. Disagreeing with Anarchists is one thing but disagreeing with them because you view there politics as wanting lawlessness, chaos and so forth is just silly and lumping them with Fascists and capitalists is just ridiculous.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 12, 2007 11:43 pm--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 12, 2007 11:43 pm)
[email protected] 12, 2007 06:13 pm
Oh don't bother taking anything else I say into account.
Oh right, thanks comrade, I forgot this pearl of wisdom;


Now what will be funny is when they overthrow the state with their anarchist movement. Lets pretend it won't be in nevervember. Then how funny it will be when one of them gets mugged by a crack head. There will be no authority to bring justice. (not that I'm an advocate for american cops) This anarchist will go home and be like "mommy, I don't like my anarchy anymore *sob*"

No where in this thread have I seen you withdraw your positions on Anarchism, thus I must conclude these are your current thoughts on the subject.


But hey I hold nothing against anarchists, so why not try to change that and convince me that my perspective on anarchists where I live is more universal than I thought?

This isn't about 'converting' anyone but rather it's about you embracing bourgeois misconceptions and general ignorance of Anarchism. Disagreeing with Anarchists is one thing but disagreeing with them because you view there politics as wanting lawlessness, chaos and so forth is just silly and lumping them with Fascists and capitalists is just ridiculous. [/b]
It must be confusing to sift out where I'm being serious and where I'm not. For that confusion I am sorry.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 11:39 pm
Wow, I finaly see a gleam of hope. One step in the direction of being civil. Don't worry you just have to take what I say and try to figure out what is serious and what is not. Now obviously, the other factor would be since I'm rarely using precise terms for I like being vague and leaving more to the imagination, you might have trouble interpereting my use of words. The reason I do this is that you can tell alot about a person based on how they jump to conclusions. For example there are people who jump to the assumption that they are being attacked. Those people are being deffensive and/or put things in a negitive light which is a dead giveaway of being wronged too many times in their lifetime. Other people might look into the comment with curiosity. Those people are usualy open minded and not judgemental. They want to see where people are coming from in what they have to say. There are other variations of reaction to vague comments but I don't feel like going into it.
I think you're looking too far into things, sigmund!

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by William Everard+December 12, 2007 11:50 pm--> (William Everard @ December 12, 2007 11:50 pm)
[email protected] 12, 2007 11:39 pm
Wow, I finaly see a gleam of hope. One step in the direction of being civil. Don't worry you just have to take what I say and try to figure out what is serious and what is not. Now obviously, the other factor would be since I'm rarely using precise terms for I like being vague and leaving more to the imagination, you might have trouble interpereting my use of words. The reason I do this is that you can tell alot about a person based on how they jump to conclusions. For example there are people who jump to the assumption that they are being attacked. Those people are being deffensive and/or put things in a negitive light which is a dead giveaway of being wronged too many times in their lifetime. Other people might look into the comment with curiosity. Those people are usualy open minded and not judgemental. They want to see where people are coming from in what they have to say. There are other variations of reaction to vague comments but I don't feel like going into it.
I think you're looking too far into things, sigmund! [/b]
Finaly you seem to show a less serious side.

[lvleph]

I think Petey is an Keyboard Communist and claims to be better than people, but what are you doing Petey?

I try to be active, as much as someone with a job can be. I have been part of organizing our local Anarchist Federation. I have helped serve with Food Not Bombs for years (and yes some are hippies). But the message is important. Our local Anarchist go and protest racism, they organize the work place as best as an Anarchist in the south can. I personally, have organize a mass resignation to take place on the 9th of January (and it looks as though it is going to actually happen). I think you need to stop taking shit get off your computer and organize.

I, personally, believe that at least communism is better than capitalism and would support a communist revolution, if an Anarchist one could not occur. My friends and I discuss Marx's positive qualities. There are those elitest out there that would shun us, but fuck them why do I care.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 02:03 pm
I think Petey is an Keyboard Communist and claims to be better than people, but what are you doing Petey?
Fighting for the WCW.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Getting back to the question,

No, anarchists are generally opposed to centralization.

No offense to anarchists here (as not all anarchists are this way) but many anarchists not only oppose any type of government, central planning, but anarchists movements (and anarchists themselves) usually do not want to associate with those outside of their "movement" - i.e. communists or any other workingclass movement outside of their own. The don't attempt to unite on any issues- they are more likely to separate the proletariat than unite it- on any basis. Not only does that make central planning impossible- but it is also highly unlikely for the movement to truly be a "movement"- they see all forms of "authority" as "repressive" without considering anything beyond the narrow scope of "fuck police" "fuck the state" "kill castro" etc.

Now, I don't intend to start more shit with this. I am simply pointing out that the term "anarchist vanguard" is a complete contradiction- i.e. vanguard implies centralization, anarchists aren't willing to centralize.

petey made some good points about this. The only issue I take with anarchists (the rest aside) is they purposely exclude from their movement. It is not a proletarian movement (and if they want to argue that it is they shouldn't be so narrow minded in that "all authority is bad"); which, regardless if they admit or not, is why anarchism cannot work, and why such a "community" they suggest cannot exist. They don't want to "unite" therefore you can't have a "community". Also, it cannot be ignored (in my opinion anyway), that if anarchists were to succeed in abolishing the state, that not everyone is going to agree on all issues. It will be chaotic, and the nature of their movement (opposition to centralization of any kind) is going to exaggerate this conflict. Some kind of "utopia" isn't going to come about. There's no transition. There's no unity. There's no community. What will happen is you'll have workers killing workers. Now, what is the purpose of that?

[Ultra-Violence]

Now, I don't intend to start more shit with this. I am simply pointing out that the term "anarchist vanguard" is a complete contradiction- i.e. vanguard implies centralization, anarchists aren't willing to centralize

but vanguard can mean alot of things to IMO it doesnt necceraly mean *vanguard were goana run shit* no i also think it can mean class concious individuals educating and *guiding the working class
Like it or not all of us here are the vanguard of the revolution like it or not IMO

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Ultra-[email protected] 13, 2007 10:59 am


Now, I don't intend to start more shit with this. I am simply pointing out that the term "anarchist vanguard" is a complete contradiction- i.e. vanguard implies centralization, anarchists aren't willing to centralize

but vanguard can mean alot of things to IMO it doesnt necceraly mean *vanguard were goana run shit* no i also think it can mean class concious individuals educating and *guiding the working class
Like it or not all of us here are the vanguard of the revolution like it or not IMO
anarchists don't include all proletarians. their movement isn't a working-class movement. they separate themselves from the rest of the working class. regardless of their position on "authority" anarchism is not a working class movement. if it was they would unite with other proletarian movements (i.e. communist) but instead they further divide themselves from proletarian movement. that is why the term "anarchist vanguard" is a contradiction. they aren't willing to unite. they aren't willing to expand their movement.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by Comrade Nadezhda+December 13, 2007 12:04 pm--> (Comrade Nadezhda @ December 13, 2007 12:04 pm)
Ultra-[email protected] 13, 2007 10:59 am


Now, I don't intend to start more shit with this. I am simply pointing out that the term "anarchist vanguard" is a complete contradiction- i.e. vanguard implies centralization, anarchists aren't willing to centralize

but vanguard can mean alot of things to IMO it doesnt necceraly mean *vanguard were goana run shit* no i also think it can mean class concious individuals educating and *guiding the working class
Like it or not all of us here are the vanguard of the revolution like it or not IMO
anarchists don't include all proletarians. their movement isn't a working-class movement. they separate themselves from the rest of the working class. regardless of their position on "authority" anarchism is not a working class movement. if it was they would unite with other proletarian movements (i.e. communist) but instead they further divide themselves from proletarian movement. that is why the term "anarchist vanguard" is a contradiction. they aren't willing to unite. they aren't willing to expand their movement. [/b]
How is it not a Working Class movement? It is a socialist movement and therefore by definition is a worker movement.

[KC]

but vanguard can mean alot of things to IMO it doesnt necceraly mean *vanguard were goana run shit* no i also think it can mean class concious individuals educating and *guiding the working class
Like it or not all of us here are the vanguard of the revolution like it or not IMO

The latter is the actual definition; the former is the straw man set up by "anti-authoritarian" leftists.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by petey+December 13, 2007 02:31 pm--> (petey @ December 13, 2007 02:31 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2007 02:03 pm
I think Petey is an Keyboard Communist and claims to be better than people, but what are you doing Petey?
Fighting for the WCW. [/b]
ahahahahahjahaahahaaha

you should have stayed as a keyboard communist instead chap

[lvleph]

Originally posted by Marmot+December 13, 2007 03:18 pm--> (Marmot @ December 13, 2007 03:18 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 02:31 pm

[email protected] 13, 2007 02:03 pm
I think Petey is an Keyboard Communist and claims to be better than people, but what are you doing Petey?
Fighting for the WCW.
ahahahahahjahaahahaaha

you should have stayed as a keyboard communist instead chap [/b]
That just makes him a capitalist pig now. lol

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

oh yeah, because calling to indite the whole Bush regime for war crimes is such a terrible thing to do.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 10:39 am
oh yeah, because calling to indite the whole Bush regime for war crimes is such a terrible thing to do.
WCW=World Championship Wrestling

What did you intend it to stand for? That was the only reference I could find to those letters.

BTW, that is working inside the bourgeois system.

Even your choice of words suggested the Wrestling. lol I thought it was a joke when you said it, so I ignored it.

[Jazzratt]

WCW = World Can't Wait.

A load of reformist bullshit that blames George Bush for the problems the Republicrats cause.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 11:42 am
WCW = World Can't Wait.

A load of reformist bullshit that blames George Bush for the problems the Republicrats cause.
Yeah, when I put in WCW Bush I was able to eventually find it.
BTW, great job they are doing.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 13, 2007 04:50 pm
Getting back to the question,

No, anarchists are generally opposed to centralization.

No offense to anarchists here (as not all anarchists are this way) but many anarchists not only oppose any type of government, central planning, but anarchists movements (and anarchists themselves) usually do not want to associate with those outside of their "movement" - i.e. communists or any other workingclass movement outside of their own. The don't attempt to unite on any issues-
Did you do all that hard-hitting historical research, in your ass?

Anarchists have always allied with various factions. Including the bolsheviks in the Russian Revolution, The Nationalists in Korea and the Spainish Republic, POUM, UGT etc in the Spainish Civil war.

Our failures lay elsewhere.

they are more likely to separate the proletariat than unite it- on any basis. Not only does that make central planning impossible- but it is also highly unlikely for the movement to truly be a "movement"- they see all forms of "authority" as "repressive" without considering anything beyond the narrow scope of "fuck police" "fuck the state" "kill castro" etc.

Now, I don't intend to start more shit with this. I am simply pointing out that the term "anarchist vanguard" is a complete contradiction- i.e. vanguard implies centralization, anarchists aren't willing to centralize.


There's no transition.

Yes there is.


There's no unity.

There's no unity on the authorotarian side of things either.


anarchists don't include all proletarians. their movement isn't a working-class movement. they separate themselves from the rest of the working class.

Not at all. Anarchists intend to facilitate the construction of democratic workers control of workplaces and communities, uniting these workers concils into a national federation, which would freely include anyone, even organised bolsheviks.


petey made some good points

No he hasn't he's been talking utter shite for days.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 04:42 pm
WCW = World Can't Wait.

A load of reformist bullshit that blames George Bush for the problems the Republicrats cause.
Reformist bullshit that only blames Bush?

Oh no they never point out how the democrats do nothing to stop it!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAKjz1KLhjs)

hahaha.

Now back to reality, Sunsara Taylor, who is a member is not only inditing Bush but the dems as well. I remember how she rightfully accused Hillary Clinton of being complicit with the Bush regime at a convention for the WCW in New York City. But you are only showing how anarchists seem to tear down anyone who happens do be building coalitions and willing to work with people of different background on common ground.

[lvleph]

It is reformist and you are admitting it. They condemn parties not the system.

All of this is way off subject.

As an anarchist myself. The biggest problem I see is organizing vast groups. It is very difficult to even organize 50 anarchists, as the Virginia Anarchist Federation has been discovering during conferences. Heck, getting everyone to do a conference is difficult enough.

A vanguard seems to be a contradiction to me, because it suggests a hierarchy. Obviously, anarchists are opposed to hierarchy, so I don't see how the ideas could be compatible.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by petey+December 14, 2007 05:27 pm--> (petey @ December 14, 2007 05:27 pm)
[email protected] 14, 2007 04:42 pm
WCW = World Can't Wait.

A load of reformist bullshit that blames George Bush for the problems the Republicrats cause.
Reformist bullshit that only blames Bush?

Oh no they never point out how the democrats do nothing to stop it!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAKjz1KLhjs)

hahaha. [/b]
They advocated electing Kerry for fuck's sake. No amount of speeches will change that. Plus they are still, essentially, blaming Bush. Saying that the Democrats are complicit in Bush's presidency is still ignoring the wider issues. Cretin.


Now back to reality, Sunsara Taylor, who is a member is not only inditing Bush but the dems as well. I remember how she rightfully accused Hillary Clinton of being complicit with the Bush regime at a convention for the WCW in New York City. But you are only showing how anarchists seem to tear down anyone who happens do be building coalitions and willing to work with people of different background on common ground.

Aren't WCW a front group for Avakian's little cult of nutters?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 05:27 pm
But you are only showing how anarchists seem to tear down anyone who happens do be building coalitions
Anarchists don't attack people who build coalitions in general.

They criticise reformist or anti-working class sentiments within said coalitions. If the campaign itself is a pile of self-indulgant reformist shit, like the WCW thing, then fine, it deserves condemnation. Because it has no redeeming qualities.

We should instead seek to build proper working class alliances that challenge such reformist liberal gang-bangs.

I do however agree that the Anarchists should follow the examples of the FAU who have facillitated the reopening of a bike factory by the workers, or the setting up of union advice centres and offices by the CNT, like this one in barcelona

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Barcelonacntait_%28110%29.JPG/450px-Barcelonacntait_%28110%29.JPG' border='0' alt='user posted image' class='attach' />

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 14, 2007 05:49 pm--> (Jazzratt @ December 14, 2007 05:49 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 05:27 pm

[email protected] 14, 2007 04:42 pm
WCW = World Can't Wait.

A load of reformist bullshit that blames George Bush for the problems the Republicrats cause.
Reformist bullshit that only blames Bush?

Oh no they never point out how the democrats do nothing to stop it!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAKjz1KLhjs)

hahaha.
They advocated electing Kerry for fuck's sake. No amount of speeches will change that. Plus they are still, essentially, blaming Bush. Saying that the Democrats are complicit in Bush's presidency is still ignoring the wider issues. Cretin.


Now back to reality, Sunsara Taylor, who is a member is not only inditing Bush but the dems as well. I remember how she rightfully accused Hillary Clinton of being complicit with the Bush regime at a convention for the WCW in New York City. But you are only showing how anarchists seem to tear down anyone who happens do be building coalitions and willing to work with people of different background on common ground.

Aren't WCW a front group for Avakian's little cult of nutters? [/b]
First you accuse them of advocating for Kerry. Then say they are a front group for the RCP. Looks like someone's confused. Note Bob Avakian put out an article in revolution newspaper around the 2006 election saying that a democratic victory will not stop the Bush regime's war jauggernaut.

The WCW call even states:

"There is not going to be some magical "pendulum swing." People who steal elections and believe they're on a "mission from God" will not go without a fight.

There is not going to be some savior from the Democratic Party. This whole idea of putting our hopes and energies into "leaders" who tell us to seek common ground with fascists and religious fanatics is proving every day to be a disaster, and actually serves to demobilize people.

But silence and paralysis are NOT acceptable. That which you will not resist and mobilize to stop, you will learn - or be forced - to accept. There is no escaping it: the whole disastrous course of this Bush regime must be STOPPED. And we must take the responsibility to do it."

and just because the RCP has supported the coalition does NOT mean shit. Many other groups have gotten involved.

"The point is this: history is full of examples where people who had right on their side fought against tremendous odds and were victorious. And it is also full of examples of people passively hoping to wait it out, only to get swallowed up by a horror beyond what they ever imagined. The future is unwritten. WHICH ONE WE GET IS UP TO US."

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 06:26 pm
First you accuse them of advocating for Kerry.
No. I state that they did, because they did in fact tell people to vote democrat in 2004 because they were under the impression that it would be better than Bush.


Then say they are a front group for the RCP.

I asked if they were. I know a lot of chairman Bob's zombies cheer lead for WCW.


Looks like someone's confused. Note Bob Avakian put out an article in revolution newspaper around the 2006 election saying that a democratic victory will not stop the Bush regime's war jauggernaut.

That's because it's true that Bush wouldn't be out of power. But the myopic view of WCW is such that Bush no longer being president is an aim in itself, despite the fact it will happen next year regardless of WCW.


The WCW call even states:

That statement is pretty much "We want to stop Bush and it doesn't matter if the alternative is no different at least they don't mispronounce nuclear or "steal" bourgeois elections". It's a load of self indulgent wank.


and just because the RCP has supported the coalition does NOT mean shit. Many other groups have gotten involved.

Yeah, loads of college campus hippies, a myriad of burn-outs and various hangers-on are involved. This doesn't mean shit.


"The point is this: history is full of examples where people who had right on their side fought against tremendous odds and were victorious. And it is also full of examples of people passively hoping to wait it out, only to get swallowed up by a horror beyond what they ever imagined. The future is unwritten. WHICH ONE WE GET IS UP TO US."

Fighting single issue campaigns which will fizzle out after the stated objectives leaving a hardcore of sheepish old guard is not really the way to go if you want a communist future.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 14, 2007 06:52 pm--> (Jazzratt @ December 14, 2007 06:52 pm)
[email protected] 14, 2007 06:26 pm
First you accuse them of advocating for Kerry.
No. I state that they did, because they did in fact tell people to vote democrat in 2004 because they were under the impression that it would be better than Bush.


Then say they are a front group for the RCP.

I asked if they were. I know a lot of chairman Bob's zombies cheer lead for WCW.


Looks like someone's confused. Note Bob Avakian put out an article in revolution newspaper around the 2006 election saying that a democratic victory will not stop the Bush regime's war jauggernaut.

That's because it's true that Bush wouldn't be out of power. But the myopic view of WCW is such that Bush no longer being president is an aim in itself, despite the fact it will happen next year regardless of WCW.


The WCW call even states:

That statement is pretty much "We want to stop Bush and it doesn't matter if the alternative is no different at least they don't mispronounce nuclear or "steal" bourgeois elections". It's a load of self indulgent wank.


and just because the RCP has supported the coalition does NOT mean shit. Many other groups have gotten involved.

Yeah, loads of college campus hippies, a myriad of burn-outs and various hangers-on are involved. This doesn't mean shit.


"The point is this: history is full of examples where people who had right on their side fought against tremendous odds and were victorious. And it is also full of examples of people passively hoping to wait it out, only to get swallowed up by a horror beyond what they ever imagined. The future is unwritten. WHICH ONE WE GET IS UP TO US."

Fighting single issue campaigns which will fizzle out after the stated objectives leaving a hardcore of sheepish old guard is not really the way to go if you want a communist future. [/b]
That makes sooo much sense considering the WCW was founded after the 2004 election.

Also I find it funny that you know who the alternative would be even though the WCW has not stated who it would be because they want a united front.


That statement is pretty much "We want to stop Bush and it doesn't matter if the alternative is no different at least they don't mispronounce nuclear or "steal" bourgeois elections". It's a load of self indulgent wank.

If you think that we're proclaiming the dems then maybe you should actualy read it at the part where they say


There is not going to be some savior from the Democratic Party.

And aparently when a group attacks the war, torchure, religious extremism, homophobia, anti-immigrant policies and other aspects of the regime its a "single issue campaign"

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I want to say that as much as I disagree with Jazzratt on many an issue, after a post in another thread, I must say I respect Jazzratt for atleast Jazzratt has proven to be consistant in her beliefs.

[Marsella]

I want to say that as much as I disagree with Jazzratt on many an issue, after a post in another thread, I must say I respect Jazzratt for atleast Jazzratt has proven to be consistant in her beliefs

:lol:

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 01:11 am

I want to say that as much as I disagree with Jazzratt on many an issue, after a post in another thread, I must say I respect Jazzratt for atleast Jazzratt has proven to be consistant in her beliefs

:lol:
Someone has the giggles...

[Outinleftfield]

Bakunin doesn't really describe the organization. As long as the brotherhood is organized voluntarily and each cell is autonomous I don't see any conflict with anarchist principles. Anarchy is for voluntary association not against organization, and there's nothing about anarchy that requires these voluntary associations not to keep themselves secret. If you go out with a group of friends and just hang out and keep that a secret that's not authoritarian so it doesn't follow that secret=authoritarian. The organization if it were to try to enforce a nonhierarchical society and socialism would not be any more authoritarian than an open, above-ground anarchist organization doing the same. I think Bakunin meant for the secret brotherhood to work in concert to effectively encourage revolution from the masses.

These principles are already being employed by the ELZN. Nobody knows the identity of Marcos or anyone in that group. Its what Bakunin envisioned. Not saying the movement in Chiapas is anarchist. There are some aspects I disagree with. However it is based in anarchist principles.

[bricolage]

1. Why have you brought this really old thread back to life?
2. Bakunins views here were way off and frankly a load of shit.
3. I would be very very surprised to find any anarchist today that actually subscribes to such views.

[BorealStorm]

What's with the racism towards white people in this thread? Communism is an idea created and carried out by mostly white people. It is not and has never been an anti-white motivation. Really the only thing I can think of here is related to colonialism.

This thread is quite old and I can only hope that people don't tend to post like this now.

[Plagueround]

Please don't bump old threads.