Does anarchism have a serious future?
- Thread starter Joe Reilly
- Start date
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
..and where's your fish?
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
That's terrible.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I know 
Leaving the room now...
Leaving the room now...
charlie mowbray
The Enforcer
"I can't actually see what any of this has to dow with accusation made by you that Marx was anti-democratic. Vague whitterings, 'eye-witnesses' criticisms by bitter political opponents as to this or that tactic adopted, on this or that issues do not a smoking gun make.
Also this subjective approach side-steps the broader public theoritical conclusions, which is where the case for or against, stands or falls. "
You are , or from where I stand, trapped by ideology. The usual denial, the "subjective" crapola . So how do you explain all the expulsions and denunciations? Strange really when Red Action have long espoused the view that intellectuals captured the workers movement- correct me if I'm wrong?
Also this subjective approach side-steps the broader public theoritical conclusions, which is where the case for or against, stands or falls. "
You are , or from where I stand, trapped by ideology. The usual denial, the "subjective" crapola . So how do you explain all the expulsions and denunciations? Strange really when Red Action have long espoused the view that intellectuals captured the workers movement- correct me if I'm wrong?
They're as bad as liberals now, everyone has an ideology apart from them.
In Bloom's definition of direct democracy works fine for me. And I second the inclusion of popular vote into that definition.
As to countries, federation between assemblies could extend across geographical and regional cultural/language boundaries (which would be as close as you'd get to a country in an international post-revolutionary situation, not as if the British Isles are going to move twenty miles southwest and turn into a peninsula, there'd still be physical boundaries), into an international/intercontinental federation, not just within currently existing nation states, although the number of decisions required to be made at an international level I think would be about none, or not very many.
As to countries, federation between assemblies could extend across geographical and regional cultural/language boundaries (which would be as close as you'd get to a country in an international post-revolutionary situation, not as if the British Isles are going to move twenty miles southwest and turn into a peninsula, there'd still be physical boundaries), into an international/intercontinental federation, not just within currently existing nation states, although the number of decisions required to be made at an international level I think would be about none, or not very many.
Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
Ray said:
Has anyone denied that anarchism is an ideology? I'm not aware of it.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
That depends on what you mean by ideology.
It's a bit rich, not to mention galling, for you to stand behind and defend Marx 100% whilst lamabasting others for dogmatism. You are wrong on Marx and Engels - there is no longer any doubt about their undemocratic, autocratic, bureaucratic personal, and organisational behavior - in the same way that there is none about Bakunin - they both acted liked arses at diffrent periods.
I've given you the benefit of the doubt thus far, but i'm starting to think i may have been wrong in doing so.
You might want to review this thread and take a guess at just where your logic is leading you.
It's a bit rich, not to mention galling, for you to stand behind and defend Marx 100% whilst lamabasting others for dogmatism. You are wrong on Marx and Engels - there is no longer any doubt about their undemocratic, autocratic, bureaucratic personal, and organisational behavior - in the same way that there is none about Bakunin - they both acted liked arses at diffrent periods.
I've given you the benefit of the doubt thus far, but i'm starting to think i may have been wrong in doing so.
You might want to review this thread and take a guess at just where your logic is leading you.
Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
charlie mowbray said:
For reasons I explained previously 'Marx the authoritarian' is a cottage industry. An examanation of an controversial conclusion often finds that the research is somewhat less than say, forensic. It is written, produced and quoted by partisans and is as such, largely meaningless.
And expulsion here, a denunciation there, what of it? Expulsions/resignations happen in every walk of life don't they? And afterall I'm sure your no stranger to a bit of 'denouncing' yourself?
Meanwhile odd isn't it that for the all the bluff and bluster there has not been a single public anti-democratic utterance attributed to Marx that anyone can get their teeth into?
*As for RA the issue was not actually intellectuals per se, but the exclusive orientation of the so-called revolutionary left to universities etc (after '68) resulting in recruitmnent to said organisations in question being entirely dominated by middle class dillettantes. Which was not, RA pointed out, a natural or healthy state of affairs.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
charlie mowbray said:
Hello Charlie - What expulsions and denunciations would they be? You might want to look at Haggy's post (an ex-Hackney IWCAer) to see the lack of denunciation and recrimination between Hackney Independent and the IWCA.
Cheers - Louis Mac
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
"Meanwhile odd isn't it that for the all the bluff and bluster there has not been a single public anti-democratic utterance attributed to Marx that anyone can get their teeth into?"
You know the USSR Joe? Formally and legally socialist - you know the difference between form and content Joe. Get your steel teeth into that.
Very dissapointing this debate actually. You've gone nowhere.
You know the USSR Joe? Formally and legally socialist - you know the difference between form and content Joe. Get your steel teeth into that.
Very dissapointing this debate actually. You've gone nowhere.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
kropotkin said:
Charlie's post doesn't imply what?
Cheers - Louis Mac
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
kropotkin said:
I tought he was talking about the IWCA in general and I was pointing to the amicable post divorce relationship which seemed to be displayed on U75.
No apology needed (unlike some I could mention
) - Louis Mac
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
it helps to read the post! 
Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
butchersapron said:
As for the comment 'there is no longer any doubt' about Marx etc being anti-democratic not a single shred of 'evidence' has been produced. This is mostly because the majority have only ever 'read' Marx through Trotskyist eyes or Anarchist eyes which is to say through the eyes of what are in effect rival tendencies and are simply happy (like black cab drivers) in their bigotry. In any case the thread is not about Marx at all democratic or otherwise.
Ulimately the question is not whether I should be 'given the benefit of the doubt' but whether anarchism should? I outlined why I thought it had failed up to now and would in all probability continue to fail. By failure I mean not being in position physically or intellectually to ever make a significant contribution to the fight against the enemy agenda. What is worse is not seeing the need to even seriously try.
Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
butchersapron said:
What the fuck had the USSR to do with Marx!?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Joe Reilly said:
Joe, you're factually wrong on this - this is no longer an issue. The most sympathetic of biographers or chronicolers no longer seek to deny this. You are out of date and need to read some new work.
No, on this thread, one of the questions most certainly is if you hould be 'given the benefit of the doubt' - i had taken you as a comrade who had battled through leninism to reach a pont where w/c self activity (as a short hand, and as opposed to partyist leads) was now now placed at the centre of your approach.
Now i think that you have reached that conclusion but predicated it on a sectarian and ideological rejection of those who don't agree with you. You're doing what you argue against others doing. You're ideologising your appraoch - luckily no other bugger i've met from the IWCA takes this approach.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Don't be stupid - i was putting forward the idea that form and content dont always conicide - and that to go with form is stupid. That's a marx a-b-c btw.Joe Reilly said:
If you're happy to play dumb, i'm happy to put you right.
Joe Reilly
Well-Known Member
butchersapron said:
So now if you argue against ideology (any ideology) is it becuase your are yourself and 'idelogist'! Not only that but secterian to boot! Talked about fucked up.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Joe Reilly said:
Absolutley not - but if you proclaim fidelity to the writings of one man now and forever, and argue that he never did no wrong, then yes, that is dogmatic and ideological - in the terms that Marx himself first described the concept.
So, go get that beam out of your eye brother - it's getting in teh way of serious business.
The only other option is that you, by dint of being who you are, are non-sectarian, and non-ideological in any way.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
thus mote it bebutchersapron said:
Similar threads
