Letters

[which doctor]

http://www.lettersjournal.org/

They recently came out with their first issue. I think it's $2 for a copy, free for prisoners, and free to read online. I'm gonna start reading the first issue right now and report back what I think on it.

[black magick hustla]

I know from where it is.

Frankly, as some guy in libcom said, "this kid seems too infatulated with the aesthetics of nihilism". Everyone has their nihilistic tendencies, but to promote the "dissolution" of organizations is fucking stupid, and is nothing more that crimethinc style nonsense (with some marxist jargon).

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 05:20 pm
I know from where it is.

Frankly, as some guy in libcom said, "this kid seems too infatulated with the aesthetics of nihilism". Everyone has their nihilistic tendencies, but to promote the "dissolution" of organizations is fucking stupid, and is nothing more that crimethinc style nonsense (with some marxist jargon).
After briefly scanning it and reading bits and pieces I've gotten that same impression as well. There isn't much of theoretical importance in the journal, most of it appears rather childish.

[Wanted Man]

I agree with both of you, there just doesn't seem to be much of significance in there. It's as if they only want to emphasize their role in (or rather, outside of) "the milieu", whatever that is supposed to mean. The rejection of the Iraqi resistance is not even based on any rationality, but rather on a fierce dislike for organization in any form. They dismiss the question of "who are you", because they place more importance on pseudo-intellectual windbaggery for its own sake, rather than on the objective role they play in class struggle (which seems to be nil).

They also haven't convincingly explained the idea of being "anti-political" or "anti-left". Maybe you can write something about that, FoB? Because so far, I can't make much out of it. Of course, the fascists have long used the "neither left nor right, but right-on!" rhetoric, substituting class politics for populism, but surely that isn't the intention. It seems more like the idea of placing "revolutionary" far above all else, including "politics" or "leftism".

I'm open to all unusual ideas, and can usually find some merit in them, but I don't see much of use in this kind of thought. Maybe it's the seemingly baseless, histrionic kicking against all forms of hierarchy or even just equality (or "collectivism" or "coercion", if you like the libertarian theories), that conceals the actual ideas behind it. I would love to read about it on a more "materialist" basis.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Van [email protected] 22, 2007 11:03 pm
I agree with both of you, there just doesn't seem to be much of significance in there. It's as if they only want to emphasize their role in (or rather, outside of) "the milieu", whatever that is supposed to mean. The rejection of the Iraqi resistance is not even based on any rationality, but rather on a fierce dislike for organization in any form. They dismiss the question of "who are you", because they place more importance on pseudo-intellectual windbaggery for its own sake, rather than on the objective role they play in class struggle (which seems to be nil).

They also haven't convincingly explained the idea of being "anti-political" or "anti-left". Maybe you can write something about that, FoB? Because so far, I can't make much out of it. Of course, the fascists have long used the "neither left nor right, but right-on!" rhetoric, substituting class politics for populism, but surely that isn't the intention. It seems more like the idea of placing "revolutionary" far above all else, including "politics" or "leftism".

I'm open to all unusual ideas, and can usually find some merit in them, but I don't see much of use in this kind of thought. Maybe it's the seemingly baseless, histrionic kicking against all forms of hierarchy or even just equality (or "collectivism" or "coercion", if you like the libertarian theories), that conceals the actual ideas behind it. I would love to read about it on a more "materialist" basis.
There are much better "materialistic" "anti-politics", like the ones of guilles dauve. Still, I feel that it is dumb to reject dedicated militants and organization.