a marxist history of the world- counterfire

[cesare]

nor do i but i don't let it bother me.

Oh, I'm not bothered but equally I'm not giving him a reason to have yet another pop at me.

 

[Pickman's model]

Oh, I'm not bothered but equally I'm not giving him a reason to have yet another pop at me.

doesn't matter if you do or if you don't; people like him don't need reasons to be tossers.

 

[cesare]

doesn't matter if you do or if you don't; people like him don't need reasons to be tossers.

Well he does seem to have taken against quite a lot of people. But I don't know the backstory to it, cos I only started posting again relatively recently.

 

[discokermit]

People seem to know him on the BTF thread.

i know, it's a puzzler.

 

[Riklet]

(((radical socialists oppressed on bulletin boards by the vanguard of counter-revolutionary elements)))

 

[butchersapron]

This is the sum total of L&L's posts on this thread:

I can. It seems analogous to your relationship with me. You think me a time-waster, yet you waste time on me. I think that's something like what Resistance is saying in that post.

You would be shocked if you counted up how many minutes and hours those seconds have taken from your life.

Good for you. I find it hard to see past the arrogance.

Do you also teach your granny to suck eggs?

Wierd grannys some people have.

It's a bit like a monkey on a typewriter. Eventually some sense will come out of it.

That made me chuckle.

Perfectly put.

Undoubtably some people will have missed post 281. Here it is in all it's glory:

"Ok. Name the books you've read on the second world war from which you derive this bold statement".

I'm so not convinced by your eloquent argument.

My only hope, ( a forlorn one), was to stop you derailing a quite interesting thread. Actually, that's always been my hope. Almost from the beginning.

Just piss off then, Picky.

Yeah, yeah.

You may note that there is not a single post on the topic of the thread, not one. You may also note that every single post is support of attacks on other posters who have contributed to the thread (and attacks not on the content of their posts but on them), attempts to derail or simple abuse. You will undoubtedly have noticed his later whining:

My only hope, ( a forlorn one), was to stop you derailing a quite interesting thread. Actually, that's always been my hope. Almost from the beginning.

.

 

[love detective]

i don't believe ayatollah is real. not that there aren't people like him in the swp, there are, just something doesn't add up.

either that or he's a cunt.

He is very real and has a very credible & admirable history (which doesn't excuse the present however)

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I may have remembered this wrongly. Quite possible, can't be arsed to hunt down the thread. But didn't you. "Louis" on some thread some time ago, actually knock up some ideas for a "21st century" set of progressive objectives, to replace all that boring olde socialist stuff ? I think you did. Didn't some posters say how groovy it was, and they wanted it for an inspirational wall poster ? If so.. you , if my memory is correct, at least had a go at some "alternative narrative". It was actually banal a-historical stuff that would have embarrassed a 14 year old "liberal studies" class trying to put together a "manifesto to sort out all the world's troubles... by everyone just being very, very, nice and considerate to each other"... but hey.. it was a lot more forthcoming than anything put forward by the likes of Butchers, Panda, and their loose claque of nitpickers, misrepresenters of other peoples'arguments, and general "aren't we just sooooo clever" Trolls.

I think we can safely take it that, when challenged by me, Resistence MP3, or anyone else over the years to "put up (some sort of coherent radical alternative narrative or analysis or solution to the capitalist crisis) or shut up", the usual empty nitpicking faction (possibly with the exception of "Louis") , will continue to refuse to put their ideas (if any) "above the parapet" for criticism/review by Urban posters. On the basisapparently that the small space available on Urban (infinite surely ?) just aint enough to portray the complexity and subtlety of their grand analysis ? Soooo, lazy, soooooo, cowardly...soooooooo dishonest. Instead , when challenged or criticised they will continue to behave like the inhabitants of a henhouse which has just had a very rude fox chucked in amongst them !

If you go and look at the posts I think you're refering to - page 12 onwards here - I think you can see that far from trying to rubbish socialism what I'm actually after are ways to progress working class self-emanicipation. Also I don't think audiotec (who if memory serves me correctly comes from and is supportive of the IS tradition?) is in the habit of calling things groovy; it was him who wanted to post my contribution elsewhere.

There is also this thread where I'm not rubbishing socialism but trying to provide some clarity; or at least the space where some clarity might be carved out.

Louis MacNeice

 

[ViolentPanda]

Perfectly put.

To someone with the same ego defects that you manifest, it would seem that way.

 

[ViolentPanda]

i don't believe ayatollah is real. not that there aren't people like him in the swp, there are, just something doesn't add up.

either that or he's a cunt.

Or maybe he's actually a she - it's Lindsey German, folks!

 

[Pickman's model]

Or maybe he's actually a she - it's Lindsey German, folks!

from beyond the grave

 

[Smokeandsteam]

LD is right about Ayatollah's past being more than credible but sadly he's not interested in clarity or even debate - via a message board remember - about how progressive working class politics might be promoted given the objective facts of now.

By way of example on the recent thread about trade unions (sorry don't know how to paste the quote) he stated "We are now in a new era , since the 2008 Crash, of world capitalist crisis, and the many defeats today, combined with the odd victory (the electricians recently for instance) will eventually make trades union members more open to Left militant arguments for resistance, and the election of same to key union positions, at local and national levels, to change the attitudes and direction of the big unions. There really isn't any alternative for the Left but to work to rebuild militant trades unionism"

 

[ViolentPanda]

He is very real and has a very credible & admirable history (which doesn't excuse the present however)

So you're saying he's not Lindsey German?

I feel so cheated!

 

[butchersapron]

It would be good if the ayatollah managed to outline what he sees wrong with the discussions Louis started and to offer some thought out ANALYSIS and SOLUTIONS instead.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

LD is right about Ayatollah's past being more than credible but sadly he's not interested in clarity or even debate - via a message board remember - about how progressive working class politics might be promoted given the objective facts of now.

By way of example on the recent thread about trade unions (sorry don't know how to paste the quote) he stated "We are now in a new era , since the 2008 Crash, of world capitalist crisis, and the many defeats today, combined with the odd victory (the electricians recently for instance) will eventually make trades union members more open to Left militant arguments for resistance, and the election of same to key union positions, at local and national levels, to change the attitudes and direction of the big unions. There really isn't any alternative for the Left but to work to rebuild militant trades unionism"

I hope that carries on to say that it is to be done to act as a bolster for and conduit into the most advanced ranks of the party of the working class; the necessary vehicle for the transformation of class consciousness and therefore class action.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Smokeandsteam]

I hope that carries on to say that it is to be done to act as a bolster for and conduit into the most advanced ranks of the party of the working class; the necessary vehicle for the transformation of class consciousness and therefore class action.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

Sadly not. Clearly an oversight.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Saul Newman made more sense of anarchism in a few pages, than you three have in a quarter of 1 million posts

 

[frogwoman]

I hope that carries on to say that it is to be done to act as a bolster for and conduit into the most advanced ranks of the party of the working class; the necessary vehicle for the transformation of class consciousness and therefore class action.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

Forward to the workers' bomb.

 

[Random]

Saul Newman made more sense of anarchism in a few pages, than you three have in a quarter of 1 million posts

RMP3 sometimes you post things worth reading, and sometimes you just seem hung up on vendettas.

 

[TremulousTetra]

RMP3 sometimes you post things worth reading, and sometimes you just seem hung up on vendettas.

fair comment.

 

[butchersapron]

Saul Newman made more sense of anarchism in a few pages, than you three have in a quarter of 1 million posts

Saul Newman gave a rather disengenous one-sided account designed to hide the large scale crossover between the anarchist tradition that concentrates on the economy and the state as intertwined manifestations of capital (traditionally and currently by far the largest anarchist tradition) and the marxist tradition. He did this because he's a post-anarchist who thinks class and all that flows from it are outdated conceptions and should be dropped. You mistook a polemical piece for an analytical one. He did this in a book designed to defend and publicise the ideas of a paedophile. What a good representative choice of author you made. Well done.

 

[Random]

fair comment.

Just look at Lock and Light, and think "just say no".

 

[TremulousTetra]

Saul Newman gave a rather disengenous one-sided account designed to hide the large scale crossover between the anarchist tradition that concentrates on the economy and the state as intertwined manifestations of capital (traditionally and currently by far the largest anarchist tradition) and the marxist tradition. He did this because he's a post-anarchist who thinks class and all that flows from it are outdated conceptions and should be dropped. You mistook a polemical piece for an analytical one. He did this in a book designed to defend and publicise the ideas of a paedophile. What a good representative choice of author you made. Well done.

so;

Anarchism as a revolutionary political philosophy has many different voices, origins and interpretations. From the individualist anarchism of Stirner, to the collectivist, communal anarchism of Bakunin and Kropotkin, anarchism is diverse series of philosophies and political strategies. These are united, however, by a fundamental rejection and critique of political authority in all its forms. The critique of political authority — the conviction that power is oppressive, exploitative and dehumanizing — may be said to be the crucial politico-ethical standpoint of anarchism.

is wrong?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

so;
is wrong?

Can you imagine an anarchism that dosen't see all power as 'oppressive, exploitative and dehumanizing'? If so then it would seem somewhat wide of the mark.

Louis MacNeice

 

[TremulousTetra]

Saul Newman gave a rather disengenous one-sided account designed to hide the large scale crossover between the anarchist tradition that concentrates on the economy and the state as intertwined manifestations of capital (traditionally and currently by far the largest anarchist tradition) and the marxist tradition. He did this because he's a post-anarchist who thinks class and all that flows from it are outdated conceptions and should be dropped. You mistook a polemical piece for an analytical one. He did this in a book designed to defend and publicise the ideas of a paedophile. What a good representative choice of author you made. Well done.

But if the "the economy and the state as intertwined" his account makes sense of YOUR objections to a WORKERS state, WORKERS party etc, and yours doesn't.

If in socialism, every workplace is controlled by workers councils democratically controlled by the workers in each workplace, and the state apparatus is democratically controlled, and they are both are dialectical whole as you describe, what's the problem?

If you recognise anarchism as he does, anarchism's objection to a WORKERS state makes sense.

Anarchism as a revolutionary political philosophy has many different voices, origins and interpretations. From the individualist anarchism of Stirner, to the collectivist, communal anarchism of Bakunin and Kropotkin, anarchism is diverse series of philosophies and political strategies. These are united, however, by a fundamental rejection and critique of political authority in all its forms. The critique of political authority — the conviction that power is oppressive, exploitative and dehumanizing — may be said to be the crucial politico-ethical standpoint of anarchism. For classical anarchists the State is the embodiment of all forms of oppression, exploitation and the enslavement and degradation of man. In Bakunin’s words, “the State is like a vast slaughterhouse and an enormous cemetery, where under the shadow and the pretext of this abstraction (the common good) all the best aspirations, all the living forces of a country, are sanctimoniously immolated and interred.” 9 The State is the main target of the anarchist critique of authority. It is for anarchists the fundamental oppression in society, and it must be abolished as the first revolutionary act.

This last point brought nineteenth century anarchism into sharp conflict with Marxism. Marx believed that while the State was indeed oppressive and exploitative, it was a reflection of economic exploitation and an instrument of class power.
Thus political power was reduced to economic power. For Marx the economy rather than the State was the fundamental site of oppression. The State rarely had an independent existence beyond class and economic interests. Because of this the State could be used as a tool of revolution if it was in the hands of the right class — the proletariat.
10 The State was only dominating, in other words, because it was presently in the hands of the bourgeoisie. Once class distinctions have disappeared, the State will lose its political character.
11 Anarchists like Bakunin and Kropotkin disagreed with Marx precisely on this point. For anarchists, the State is much more than an expression of class and economic power. Rather the State has its own logic of domination and self-perpetuation, and is autonomous from class interests. Rather than working from the society to the State, as Marx did, and seeing the State as the derivative of economic relations of capitalism and the rise of the bourgeoisie, anarchists work from the State to society. The State constitutes the fundamental oppression in society, and economic exploitation is derived from this political oppression. In other words, it is political oppression that makes economic oppression possible.
12 Moreover for anarchists, bourgeois relations are actually a reflection of the State, rather than the State being a reflection of bourgeois relations. The ruling class, argues Bakunin, is the State’s real material representative. Behind every ruling class of every epoch there looms the State. Because the State has its own autonomous logic it can never be trusted as an instrument of revolution. To do this would be to ignore its logic of domination. If the State is not destroyed immediately, if it is used as a revolutionary tool as Marxists suggest, then its power will be perpetuated in infinitely more tyrannical ways. It would operate, as Bakunin argues, through a new ruling class — a bureaucratic class that will oppress and exploit workers in the same manner as the bourgeois class oppressed and exploited them.

Plus, there are lots of other things that is interpretation make sense of your words I've observed in the last nine years.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Can you imagine an anarchism that dosen't see all power as 'oppressive, exploitative and dehumanizing'? If so then it would seem somewhat wide of the mark.

Louis MacNeice

The one butchers has just described. See above.

Also slightly different, but very important point imo;

the point is to abolish power.

The trouble is, you can't "abolish power". The best you can do is mitigate the adverse effects of abuse of power.

well some socialists and anarchists believe you can do so. in an anarchist/Communist society, even if you could, it would be highly unlikely you would want to, and even if you'd would want to, there would be very little point to abusing 'power', I'm guessing.

Hmm... Not sure about that. Quite an interesting piece on ressentiment and Anarchism by Saul Newman; http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/saul-newman-anarchism-and-the-politics-of-ressentiment.pdf

Some slightly simplistic interpretations throughout (think it's intended for undergrads), but interesting.

 

[cesare]

Apologies, I've lost track of that thread RMP3, I kind of recall responding further to you about power though.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

The one butchers has just described. See above.

So if anarchisms can exist which don't meet Newman's 'crucial politico-ethical standpoint', then his take on what makes anarchism anarchism (and not something else), would seem wide of the mark.

In the space of a few posts you seem to be flatly contradicting yourself by putting firstly Newman forward as making sense of anarchism but then rapidly accepting that his 'crucial politico-ethical standpoint' of anarchism (i.e. it's defining characteristic) isn't correct.

Or is your point that butcher's description is not of anarchism, because it doesn't meet Newman's criteria? If so then you need to be clearer and provide some evidence as to why you opt for Newman.

Louis MacNeice

 

[TremulousTetra]

Apologies, I've lost track of that thread RMP3, I kind of recall responding further to you about power though.

you did. do you mean this response?>

There's no easy answer, but I suggest the starting point is awareness of the use of power and how it plays out often in subtle ways. Worth reading is The 48 Laws Of Power by Robert Greene ISBN 1 86197 278-4

 

[butchersapron]

Is there any thread that he's been on that he hasn't fucked up like this - meandering off on massive misquotes, oddness and stuff from other threads?