Anarchism. being somehow privileged or more advanced than others>

[ViolentPanda]

So you DON'T valorise anarchist forms of "acting politically" over fascist?

Are you stupid?
The forms of "acting politically" are much the same regardless of the ideology of the activist(s) concerned. What I might be said to valorise is my political philosophy over theirs, which doesn't make one person "more advanced" than the other. it merely highlights political conviction.

 

[frogwoman]

a bnp cadre can be just as dedicated, just as knowledgeable about society, politics etc as a marxist or an anarchist can. the point is that they want different things. and they think that different methods are or are not acceptable to get what they want to what an anarchist would. so for example they could throw a hissy at the thought of smashed windows at Fortnum's but find it acceptable to beat up someone for the crime of being a "paki" etc.

i disagree with vp in that while i don't think most anarchists and marxists fetishise pacifism, and indeed some people do advocate violent revolution etc (or think its necessary) i don't think most would be as ready to use violence as a political weapon as the fash would. that doesn't mean they wouldn't use it or think it is terrible. it just means they'd want to avoid it, whereas one of the reasons why some people become attracted to the far right is because they're attracted to violence.

that doesn't mean violence is always wrong etc, i just think that a lot of people on the left, even people who advocate it, wouldn't really be ready to use it, at least in the current conditions.

the other ways in which fash etc use aren't really that unique to the far right. selling papers, putting stickers up (lol). these are exactly the same things the far left do. they're not stupid and as we see what they do isn't necessarily any less effective.

 

[1%er]

Comfortable people with comfortable lives arguing about the irrelevant, politics in Europe 2012.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Comfortable people with comfortable lives arguing about the irrelevant, politics in Europe 2012.

You say that now, but when I smash down your door, shit on your carpets and neckshot your pets, you'll sing a different tune.

 

[JHE]

You say that now, but when I smash down your door, shit on your carpets and neckshot your pets, you'll sing a different tune.

Do you find it therapeutic to post things like that?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Do you find it therapeutic to post things like that?

Do you find it therapeutic to post your Islamophobia?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Are you stupid?
The forms of "acting politically" are much the same regardless of the ideology of the activist(s) concerned. What I might be said to valorise is my political philosophy over theirs, which doesn't make one person "more advanced" than the other. it merely highlights political conviction.

I don't think there is any "might", you do indeed valorise your political philosophy, and your aims more than those of fascism, Don't you?. I would also say you are closer to an understanding of that philosophy, those aims, and an understanding of how to achieve them, more than fascists, wouldn't you?

 

[Athos]

So give an example.

For instance I think you actually believe a lot of what you say.

 

[Athos]

Does it? What's your definition of the various classes then?

That's a bit tangential to this thread. If you start another on that issue, I'll take a look.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't think there is any "might", you do indeed valorise your political philosophy, and your aims more than those of fascism, Don't you?. I would also say you are closer to an understanding of that philosophy, those aims, and an understanding of how to achieve them, more than fascists, wouldn't you?

Do I have a better understanding of my philosophy than I have of a particular fascist's philosophy? Highly likely. Can I claim that my understanding of my philosophy, and my understanding of how to put it into action is greater, more profound than his understanding of his philosophy and his understanding of how to put it into action? Of course I can't.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Do I have a better understanding of my philosophy than I have of a particular fascist's philosophy? Highly likely. Can I claim that my understanding of my philosophy, and my understanding of how to put it into action is greater, more profound than his understanding of his philosophy and his understanding of how to put it into action? Of course I can't.

couldn't agree with you more.

Look, I'm not trying to be clever here, I'm trying to state an obvious fact;

your understanding of your philosophy, and your understanding of how to put into action is greater , more profound than his understanding of YOUR philosophy and YOUR understanding of how to put it into action



Can we agree on this?

 

[TremulousTetra]

For instance I think you actually believe a lot of what you say.

no comrade, I meant you to give me an example of when they have intentionally lied

I believe they've been telling lies; to the working class, to each other and to themselves.

I asked you if they had intentionally lied, and you said yes. so when they say in 40+ years of publications they advocate and intend to promote the emancipation of the working class by the working class, are they lying?

 

[SpineyNorman]

no comrade, I meant you to give me an example of when they have intentionally lied

All the fucking time. The most startling example of their dishonestly was, and I think I may have read about it on here, the way they tried to airbrush out of history their "troops in" headlines over Ireland. But they lie habitually. The numbers from every single demo. Lies about the reasons why people leave/get expelled. In fact dishonesty is about the only principle on which they're consistent.

I asked you if they had intentionally lied, and you said yes. so when they say in 40+ years of publications they advocate and intend to promote the emancipation of the working class by the working class, are they lying?

Yes.

 

[ViolentPanda]

couldn't agree with you more.

Look, I'm not trying to be clever here, I'm trying to state an obvious fact;

your understanding of your philosophy, and your understanding of how to put into action is greater , more profound than his understanding of YOUR philosophy and YOUR understanding of how to put it into action



Can we agree on this?

Yes.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Even after all this time you can't grasp the difference between what Marx and Engels did, which was to explicate a new set of political theories to a new audience, theories which required them to engage with the working class on a particular level to facilitate that explication, a dynamic that ran both ways (Marx etc drew from their interaction and used it to inform revision and evolution of their work);

and in so doing they contributed to the emancipation of the working class, by the working class. They did this EVEN THOUGH they were not working class. You cannot rule out people like Athos, his ability to contribute, purely because he is*middle-class, can you?

And what the SWP do, which is to retail a version of codified Marxian theory as a dogma, while assuming a position as "politicals of the working class", as "working class, ideologically", with very little of the dynamic of revision and evolution of theory that existed in Marx's time.

The SWP seeks a role with the working classes, rather than being of us, they are "for" us, because of their beliefs regarding our "role" in the realisation of their dogma.

you see where you go wrong, is you state that as fact. You state that as if that is the declared aim of the socialist workers party, where in fact the declared aim is completely the opposite. That is the truth isn't it"?

even after all this time you cannot grasp there is a difference between saying, this is my interpretation of the SWP's intentions, and this is the stated intentions of the SWP.
The SWP have never said that, in fact they said completely the opposite. You choose to believe that your analysis of their actions proves that their actions, contradicts their stated aims. Fine. I have a different opinion.

Who are these middle class people, what right do they have, to decide or state what the interests of the working classes are, what is in our interests?

they have no right to decide. Just as Karl Marx and Engels had no right to decide. They do have a right to state what they believe. Once this is stated, the choice is that of the working class. They can choose to accept, reject, whatever they want. As they say over and over in the SWP, your ideas are tested in a class struggle. only the working class can decide whether those stated interests, are in fact the interests of the working class.

*I know this is up for debate yet Athos, but so far I would describe someone who was a solicitor, I would say his relationship to the means of production would be defined as middle-class.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Yes.

Now in a purely directional sense, in a none elitist sense, I see no problem whatsoever in saying you are more advanced towards anarchist philosophy, and fascists are further away, more rearward, more backwards. that is nothing but a statement of the obvious.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Now in a purely directional sense, in a none elitist sense, I see no problem whatsoever in saying you are more advanced towards anarchist philosophy, and fascists are further away, more rearward, more backwards. that is nothing but a statement of the obvious.

And if you'd couched your original point in as careful language as you eventually did, we wouldn't have had all the argy-bargy, would we?

 

[frogwoman]

I don't think there is any "might", you do indeed valorise your political philosophy, and your aims more than those of fascism, Don't you?. I would also say you are closer to an understanding of that philosophy, those aims, and an understanding of how to achieve them, more than fascists, wouldn't you?

I really don't think so. in fact with my point about violence and the idea of a revolution, which will inevitably involve violence either on the part of the state or on the part of or between "revolutionaries" (including revolutionaries with different ideas of how to get there), i would say that some - SOME - on the left have less of an understanding of their political aims and how to get to those aims less than the fash do.

I'm not saying that this applies necessarily to anyone on here. (by the way, i include myself in this, if we were in a real life revolutionary situation i'd probably be cacking myself).

The difference between the extreme left and the extreme right isn't about who is cleverer than who. The left is about defending the interests of the working class etc but it also involves an intellectual understanding of why fascism, capitalism,etc do not do this, and a feeling that it is wrong. What I mean is not any moralistic bullshit, but its the fact that that most ideological marxists would not look at something like workfare and think "the bourgeoisie and reactionary forces are holding back world-historical progress by preventing the rise of the ascendant layer in society" (although some would!) they would look at it (hopefully!) and think "that poor sod being forced for nothing, I could be forced to work for nothing, my friends, neighbours, etc could be as well."

what im saying is not that the left don't use violence but that there's like a different attitude to it on the whole. at least in today's conditions. not that they wouldn't or shouldn't use it if the situation arised, but it's far more seen as a last resort, or at least not something to always be used, than on the far right.

(stop me if im talking crap btw)

 

[Athos]

And if you'd couched your original point in as careful language as you eventually did, we wouldn't have had all the argy-bargy, would we?

Which is why I asked him about 10 times to explain precisely what he meant by it.

 

[Athos]

no comrade, I meant you to give me an example of when they have intentionally lied

I asked you if they had intentionally lied, and you said yes. so when they say in 40+ years of publications they advocate and intend to promote the emancipation of the working class by the working class, are they lying?

Where to start? it'd be harder to give an example of when they were telling the truth.

Spiney has set out a few, above.

 

[Athos]

*I know this is up for debate yet Athos, but so far I would describe someone who was a solicitor, I would say his relationship to the means of production would be defined as middle-class.

I know that I shouldn't rise to your attempts to needle me, and that your assessment of my class is irrelevant.

But, for the record, I have never owned the means of production or had the ability to buy the labour power of others, and have always had to sell my own labour power to survive. In a Marxian sense, that makes me a worker.

And my social and economic background could only be described as working class: local comp, first in my family to stay at school past 16, parents are blue-collar workers etc.

But, more important are my loyalties, self-identification, and politics.

What I really hate is this prolier-than-thou bullshit. The idea that just doing a certain job immediately excludes you from a particular class is over-simplistic bollocks. I became a solicitor because, in my naivety, I thought it was a way to protect the weak from the strong. What of it?

I'm a working class man who won't be told to know his place by the likes of you.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Which is why I asked him about 10 times to explain precisely what he meant by it.

We hope (against hope, obviously!) that he'll one day do as most of us who are trying to make a serious point do, and actually proof-read the post before replying, but pretty much accept that asking for an explanation is the order of the day.

 

[ViolentPanda]

and in so doing they contributed to the emancipation of the working class, by the working class. They did this EVEN THOUGH they were not working class.

Yes dear, I've already said that.

You cannot rule out people like Athos, his ability to contribute, purely because he is*middle-class, can you?

It's a sad comment on your argument that trying to have one over on individual posters is more important to you than actually having a sustainable argument.

you see where you go wrong, is you state that as fact. You state that as if that is the declared aim of the socialist workers party, where in fact the declared aim is completely the opposite. That is the truth isn't it"?

"What is truth?" asked Pontius Pilate. In other words, it's a matter of perspective. Like many of those critical of the SWP, I've read various of the books that past and present members of the CC have put out; dipped into and out of their mag and paper, and formed an opinion based on a combination of that reading material and personal experience.
Your beliefs draw you toward one conclusion, mine draw me toward another. The difference between us is that I have no ideological or emotional attachment to the SWP, you do, and like many of their adherents, you're not beyond fibbing to get their "message" across.

even after all this time you cannot grasp there is a difference between saying, this is my interpretation of the SWP's intentions, and this is the stated intentions of the SWP.
The SWP have never said that, in fact they said completely the opposite. You choose to believe that your analysis of their actions proves that their actions, contradicts their stated aims. Fine. I have a different opinion.

Of course you do. You're ideologically invested.

they have no right to decide. Just as Karl Marx and Engels had no right to decide. They do have a right to state what they believe. Once this is stated, the choice is that of the working class. They can choose to accept, reject, whatever they want. As they say over and over in the SWP, your ideas are tested in a class struggle.

Which is doubtless why the ideas that the SWP proffer are as yet untested, given the long history of attempts to impose a party line on communities that they've fetched up in.

only the working class can decide whether those stated interests, are in fact the interests of the working class.

Don't tell me, tell the SWP.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I know that I shouldn't rise to your attempts to needle me, and that your assessment of my class is irrelevant.

But, for the record, I have never owned the means of production or had the ability to buy the labour power of others, and have always had to sell my own labour power to survive. In a Marxian sense, that makes me a worker.

And my social and economic background could only be described as working class: local comp, first in my family to stay at school past 16, parents are blue-collar workers etc.

But, more important are my loyalties, self-identification, and politics.

What I really hate is this prolier-than-thou bullshit. The idea that just doing a certain job immediately excludes you from a particular class is over-simplistic bollocks. I became a solicitor because, in my naivety, I thought it was a way to protect the weak from the strong. What of it?

I'm a working class man who won't be told to know his place by the likes of you.

Look, just face it, rmp3 is considerably more working class that yow! (apols to Mark Williams & Harry Enfield).

 

[bluestreak]

is this a thread where a trot explains to anarchists that he believes anarchists think they know what's best for the working classes better than the working classes do themselves; unlike the trots, who act as the vanguard for the revolution on behalf of the working classes who don't know that they want revolution but secretly they know they do.

 

[TremulousTetra]

And if you'd couched your original point in as careful language as you eventually did, we wouldn't have had all the argy-bargy, would we?

so you agree with, "Now in a purely directional sense, in a none elitist sense, I see no problem whatsoever in saying you are more advanced towards anarchist philosophy, and fascists are further away, more rearward, more backwards."

 

[chilango]

so you agree with, "Now in a purely directional sense, in a none elitist sense, I see no problem whatsoever in saying you are more advanced towards anarchist philosophy, and fascists are further away, more rearward, more backwards."

I have a problem with that...

...it's meaningless,banal and irrelevant to any of the more pertinent issues raised by the thread.

 

[1%er]

Do you find it therapeutic to post your Islamophobia?

Is being anti Islamist covered by Islamophobia or is that allowed?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Is being anti Islamist covered by Islamophobia or is that allowed?

That generally depends on the base predicates of your anti-Islamism, surely?

 

[1%er]

That generally depends on the base predicates of your anti-Islamism, surely?

But one can be anti Islamist but not anti Islam surely?