As if you've ever wanted to read it. I doubt you ever heard of before coz it's not some leninist text.Nope, only so many books I have time to read
As if you've ever wanted to read it. I doubt you ever heard of before coz it's not some leninist text.Nope, only so many books I have time to read
Its really hard to follow your stream of gibberish and hackneyed phraseology and set text links.So why argue that you were not saying that? This is why you just come across as a troll. You don't participate in a proper discussion, you are just a frustrating waste of time trying to 'communicate' with.
I've not copied anything from libcom. I posted some useful resources in response to someone's post.summat you've copied from a libcom article.
Which, just like yesterday, is exactly how I feel about responding to the blinkered trot garbage you post on here. It's like you are incapable of properly reading the posts of those who disagree with you. You avoid properly discussing everything and are extremely disingenuous. But ofcourse you are - you're someone with shit authoritarian politics.I cant be arsed going around in tedious circles
That's rich coming from you. And your user name is very apt, which is why it kinda sounds like bellend.Its really hard to follow your stream of gibberish
Again, that's the thing, I agree that anarchist methods for stopping climate change don't look that promising, but I also don't see the chances of building up a socialist movement that's both popular and strong enough to capture the state (whether by electoral or revolutionary methods) and then also principled enough to, uh, do good climate stuff and not just USSR/China mark II, within the required time frame as being great either. So we're probably fucked lol?I have found the anarchists to be much weaker on issues where a campaign is trying to influence the state to do something (other than simply Abolish XYZ). For instance, he last meeting I went to on anarchism, a couple of weeks back, accidentally, was all about very low level organising, building up little communities that would share stuff. When the matter of climate change came up and it was pointed out that sharing a lawnmower (seriously, the talk was about communal lawnmowers!) wouldn't do much, the response was simply 'yeah, but we can't do owt about that really, and it's not going to be that bad.'
Sadly, with something like climate change, if we wait till we have built up strong enough local communities in such a manner and act on 'pure' principles, that's at least 1billion people fucked.
Emphasis addedAye, I've worked with anarchists in many a campaign and they've been excellent comrades, particularly in anti-fascist and housing campaigns (campaigns which most of the 'trad' commies/trots had given up on in favour of something much blander). Some of them could be the most bloody stupid occasionally, but they weren't the most irritating - an honour which goes to either the SWP or CP because of their insistence on dominating.
I have found the anarchists to be much weaker on issues where a campaign is trying to influence the state to do something (other than simply Abolish XYZ). For instance, he last meeting I went to on anarchism, a couple of weeks back, accidentally, was all about very low level organising, building up little communities that would share stuff. When the matter of climate change came up and it was pointed out that sharing a lawnmower (seriously, the talk was about communal lawnmowers!) wouldn't do much, the response was simply 'yeah, but we can't do owt about that really, and it's not going to be that bad.'
Sadly, with something like climate change, if we wait till we have built up strong enough local communities in such a manner and act on 'pure' principles, that's at least 1billion people fucked.
So anarchists have learnt lessons after all- which backs up what I was saying and contradicts what you posted previously. Fucking hell you're a cockring.serge at least indicated the lesson learned that Algerian independence was central
Cockrings prolong pleasure. Belboid on the other hand...So anarchists have learnt lessons after all- which backs up what I was saying and contradicts what you posted previously. Fucking hell you're a cockring.
What? If this is how you construct sentences no wonder you can't understand anyone else's words.Your in such a manner bears no other construction that that I've put on it
Let me put this in simple terms for youWhat? If this is how you construct sentences no wonder you can't understand anyone else's words.
Again, that's the thing, I agree that anarchist methods for stopping climate change don't look that promising, but I also don't see the chances of building up a socialist movement that's both popular and strong enough to capture the state (whether by electoral or revolutionary methods) and then also principled enough to, uh, do good climate stuff and not just USSR/China mark II, within the required time frame as being great either. So we're probably fucked lol?
Yeah, I think both Rojava and Greece around 2015 show how workers can take over and run things when the state has become incapable of doing so. But its a difficult thing to campaign for - 'We want the state and the services it provides to collapse so that we have a chance' is hardly a slogan that will inspire the masses.In terms of realistic possibilities for the medium-term future, I am increasingly sympathetic to the idea that, just as Rojava didn't come from taking the state on head-on and winning but was more taking advantage of the state being temporarily distracted elsewhere, we could well see crumbling states deciding that withdrawing from certain disaster-hit zones would be better or more feasible than trying to maintain order there. Although obviously the material conditions for trying to establish the kingdom of heaven on earth in those areas or whatever would not be that promising.
yeah, that's a repeat of one of your earlier posts (which I responded to), but doesn't mention anything about 'asking if everywhere acted the same' which is the post I replied to on this occasion.Let me put this in simple terms for you
You've told us how you think anarchists are shit at campaigns which aim to influence the government and illustrated this claim with an anecdote about a meeting on climate change with no actual indication that they aimed to influence government policy - indeed you stressed that it only looked at local activities. You then went on to say that if we wait for everywhere to act as they did at your meeting everything's fucked (if we wait till we've built up strong enough local communities in such a manner). In other words you're extrapolating from one meeting to a global scale which as I say is the sign of a stupid wanker.
You have posted nothing to make me reconsider my interpretation of your post being as you've only come out with bluster
Being a member of the SWP years ago taught me a lot about the 'revolutionary' leftist parties. I have heard about significant problems with most, if not all of them (including the Socialist Party and Militant tendency).Many (if not all) of them being corrupt cults that party organisers and CC members use as careers and power trips, helped along with 'democratic' centralism - which is just a way to undemocratically impose the will of the central committee on the party. Militant were just as bad as the SWP at trying to opportunistically take over campaigns, and destroy them when they couldn't do that - the anti-Poll Tax campaigns were a good example of that. I mean it was the likes of Tommy Sheridan who came out of that lot, says it all really.
No, because they were explicitly saying that they were not trying to influence the state directly, that they were just ignoring it and building up an alternative.You say anarchists are weak when trying to persuade the state to do something and illustrate it with a meeting which on your telling isn't trying to do anything of the sort. Don't you see something of a contradiction there?
I will. Knobcheese.Please, do put me back on ignore
I mean, depends if you're talking about a) pressuring the government generally or specifically with regards to climate change, and b) specifically anarchist groups or groups that anarchists are involved in, cos the answers will be different for all of them. If we're talking in general, then I'm sure there's all kinds of examples - the poll tax, anti-war movements, the universal credit campaign are all examples of anarchists aiming to affect government policy. If it's climate change specific, then I guess climate camp in the 2000s, various XR-related activities more recently and stuff like the ZAD in France, various anti-pipeline and resource extraction struggles have all had an element of pressuring the government and also been things that anarchists have been involved in? Probably best off asking someone who's been more involved in XR stuff than me as to what that's looked like, though? I suppose you're unlikely to find anarchists drawing up detailed plans for a Green New Deal, but saying "don't give planning permission to build this oil pipeline" doesn't seem any more statist than "don't invade this country", iyswim?Now, if you want to point out examples where anarchist groups are doing something more to pressure the government, please go right ahead. I do reckon there probably is some direct action they've taken part in, but round here, there is precious little that I've seen.
Cheers for sharing. Have bookmarked those.Also does anyone remember John Sullivan's little pamphlet "Go Fourth and Multiply", later reissued as "As soon as this pub closes." It's a satirical take on the Trot sects. Funny and apt. Sullivan wrote it during some very boring trade union meetings as a way of staying awake.
The demographic in Spain in the 1930s wasn't much better tbh .really enjoying this thread - & it's sibling.
had me speed-rereading soltjenitzyns 'the cancer ward' looking for a passage i thought was in the beginning, discovered that ol vlads april theses made other bolsheviks call him a lunatic & 'the heir of bakunin', rediscovered some disturbing stories bout stalin & lysenko & finally found this bertrand russell quote:
' It should not be forgotten that in Marx's prophetic vision the victory of the proletariat was to come after it had grown to be the vast majority of the population. The dictatorship of the proletariat therefore as conceived by Marx was not essentially anti-democratic. In the Russia of 1917, however, the proletariat was a small percentage of the population, the great majority being peasants. It was decreed that the Bolshevik party was the class-conscious part of the proletariat, and that a small committee of its leaders was the class-conscious part of the Bolshevik party. The dictatorship of the proletariat thus came to be the dictatorship of a small committee, and ultimately of one man - Stalin.'
This.I think the thing is that we should concentrate on the history / highlights of the working class struggle rather than focus on the history of what the anarchists / or Bolsheviks did/ might have done. Yes theres a lot to learn from mistakes but it’s almost with Marxism versus anarchism that we get to the point of parallel histories with selective quotes from either tradition . No doubt if the syndicalists were still around we’d have yet another version .
It’s the working class that is the agency for change not Malatesta or Lenin.
Oh and check out Jessiedog's regular posts for updates on what the seriously fucked up CCP are up to in Hong Kong.
The demographic in Spain in the 1930s wasn't much better tbh .
Bella ciaoRight.
I've read the rest of the thread (not the first part).
The Tankie-type was banned - no need for me to read the first few pages then.
That's good. I'm off to bed now. I have real shit going on in my neck of the world that's far from fucking good.
Enjoy your debate good peeps.
Come Bella. Bed!
Woof
Bella ciao