yuon

I don't think a thread in learning, politics or theory would be appropriate. If you would like to post your replies on board (as opposed to my profile), maybe you could do it in the interaction thread quoted from?
Oh, and of course, these are not the only reasons for the PM system you know...

To clarify though; I have a great deal of respect (politically) for those real internationalist and class struggle anarchists who I believe form part of the revolutionary workers' movement and believe the oppurtunity and necessity for joint work exists. However, anarchists such as yourself (and I sincerely hope this is only my mistaken impression), I would argue, fall outside of it in dead end, disorientating and reactionary swamp of leftism.

Finally, in reply to Red Revolutionary's question regarding national liberation, your response shows clearly the false, and down right reactionary conclusions that the ahistorical and moralistic method (or rather, lack of one) of anarchism leads to. It was in the defence of 'liberty' against 'tyranny' that justified the anarchists who abandoned the working class and crossed over into the camp of the ruling class in defence of the Allies in WWI and WWII. Support for this-or-that imperialism in world war, no different from the support of so-called 'national liberation' or 'anti-imperialist' movements, is a betrayl of internationalism, not its affirmation.

To Apikoros' second question your answer is even less concrete. At first you claim that those involved in the revolution "wouldn't just be the 'working class'" (again the inverted commas sneak in), and in their place substitute "people who work", followed by a question mark! In other words you don't seem to know what you are talking about at all. More than this you go on to say the revolution will be "easy" - all that has to be done is "stop working, the 'mythical general strike'... refuse to take payment for stuff". Not only is your vision of the 'revolution' totally idealistic, it is not even really revolutionary at all. You admit this yourself when you say the "future society might work, the same as now, but without the money"!

Technically I think you quoting me publicly outside the CC actually constitutes leaking information. It's for reasons like that PMs exist *cough cough*

Also, apparently my message is too long so I have to space it over 4 visitor messages - another good reason for PMs...

Anyway, my concern was with the answers you gave in the interaction thread.

To Apikoros' first question you state you agree (albeit watered down and with all sorts of conditions, the use of inverted commas, etc.) with the concept and ackowledge the existance of class struggle. Yet immediately after this you conclude that it "doesn't influence who I work with, or how I work in the real world". To me this is beyond rediculous. Class struggle is the fundamental basis of all of our politics. It is not an abstract or theoretically interesting tidbit!

Thank you.

Like Holden asked me the other day: Is that thanks serious or are you being sarcastic? If it's the former, your welcome. If it's the latter, I hope you understand I was speaking in your defence.