Griffin and BNP strategy

[ViolentPanda]

Wheres your evidence? Its a bit of a uncalled slur isnt it?

What, that you talk toss and occasionally lie? Hardly a slur. More of a fact of life that most of the posters you've made insinuations and snide remarks about of the years could confirm, if they wished to.

Why so defensive? It's not like you've got a good reputation to uphold, is it?

 

[tbaldwin]

What, that you talk toss and occasionally lie? Hardly a slur. More of a fact of life that most of the posters you've made insinuations and snide remarks about of the years could confirm, if they wished to.

Why so defensive? It's not like you've got a good reputation to uphold, is it?

So you cant point to a single example? No evidence eh....touch ironic.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So you cant point to a single example? No evidence eh....touch ironic.

What did I say four or five posts ago, before your demand for evidence in post #3000?

I said "Like I'm going to go over 6 years of threads. pfftt.", so it's a bit disingenuous of you to make demands and rant on about "no evidence", isn't it?

As for being ironic, it's only ironic if I pretend that you asked for evidence before I said I wasn't going to go through six years-worth of threads.

 

[tbaldwin]

What did I say four or five posts ago, before your demand for evidence in post #3000?

I said "Like I'm going to go over 6 years of threads. pfftt.", so it's a bit disingenuous of you to make demands and rant on about "no evidence", isn't it?

As for being ironic, it's only ironic if I pretend that you asked for evidence before I said I wasn't going to go through six years-worth of threads.

Cant say i am exactly impressed, if you think im a liar, point out where ive lied.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I'll be polite.
I'm happy to accept, for example MC5's views as valid because I know of his work.
I'm not happy to accept tbaldwin's views without substantiation because he's talked so much toss (as well as baldfacedly lying) in the past.
TBH/attica: I accept that he believes what he says, and I know he's got his treasured doctorate so that the world knows how clever he is, but I also am well aware of how other politicised people view him (due to his self-aggrandising and occasionally destructive actions over the years). He likes to tar anyone who disagrees with his pronouncements as "ultra-left" (see above, for example). What does that say for the "genuineness" of his conclusions, hmm?
You: Your arguments are hard to follow, you veer into irrelevancy and personal attack at the slightest provocation, and the company you keep is poor. No doubt you feel the same with regard to me.

you need to read what I have said. I never mentioned attica. I am not talking about generalities, I am talking about the specific discussion in this thread.

Also I find your attitude elitist. I keep poor company everyday, their called ordinary non political (by your standards) working class people.
Edited to add. When you mentioned keeping the poor company, it seemed you were still referring to Balders etc. It's now occurred to me you were referring to the swp. If so, in answer to your question. Yes, Your arguments are hard to follow, you veer into irrelevancy and personal attack at the slightest provocation, BUT to me it is sectarian to paint all anarchist's as "poor company", as it to paint all trots as "poor company". It seems contradictory to say, we shouldn't ignore working class fascists because of the poor company they keep, but we should ignore working class trots because of the company they keep.

I don't believe that everyone should accept what I say, but I do believe that arguments should be taken to their conclusion, rather than people using devices ("ooh, you're ultra-left! You smell!" etc) to avoid responding or to allow them to pontificate.

again, you need to read what I said. I never mentioned everybody accepting what you say, I was talking about your inability to accept genuine disagreement. To accept people can genuinely disagree with you. It is impossible for every argument to be taken to their conclusion, our different life experiences, politics etc. will lead us to different conclusions. That shouldn't make us enemies, but it too often does for u75 anarchists.

Let me get this right: I'm not allowed {by you} to draw a different conclusion from you, even though you've just told me I must allow others to do so?
Oh dearie me!

again read, I said not being able to believe that people can genuinely disagree with you, is absurd, and leads you to silly conclusions. An opinion, I could be wrong about.

Ja, und mein Gans schreibt ein Roman!

I really find this an intriguing mystery. Why would I lie? How could I convince you I am not lying?

Again, you seem to find it completely impossible that anyone can hold a different opinion to you, genuinely. For you, it all seems to be about ego, not wanting to be wrong. For me, it is totally illogical to say anything else than what I have said. Why would I be against any victory against fascism? The more strategies we have, the more chance of success. Not only that, your strategy is about overthrowing capitalism, as much as defending against fascism. Why wouldn't I wish you every success? I've said loads of times, if I had a choice between a Leninist revolution, and an anarchist revolution, I'd choose the anarchist every time. Edited to add. To me achieving communism/anarchism, the goal, is more important than winning this sectarian squabble. To me we should be comrades, we want exactly the same thing, we just disagree about how to achieve it.

Perhaps you need to re-read those instances where you believe that people don't agree to disagree. I can think of a couple of posts just on this thread whee people have done exactly that.

butchers?

 

[TremulousTetra]

What did I say four or five posts ago, before your demand for evidence in post #3000?

I said "Like I'm going to go over 6 years of threads. pfftt.", so it's a bit disingenuous of you to make demands and rant on about "no evidence", isn't it?

As for being ironic, it's only ironic if I pretend that you asked for evidence before I said I wasn't going to go through six years-worth of threads.

but that's your problem, you cant understand the difference between a genuine disagreement, and a liar. You've just call me a liar, (which is of little concern because any Internet debating forum is an irelevance to any logical person), you say that they SW CC are lying. It appears according to you , everybody is lying, if they disagree with you.

I do not think you're lying, I believe you're completely genuine, your just wrong.

 

[TremulousTetra]

The (unspoken) caveat being "...and we'll be happy to lend our knowledge and organisational skills to the working classes...", and that's not just the attitude of the Swappies (just in case you think I'm picking on them!) but of far too many "revolutionary left" groupings.

Yeah, fair comment. We believe the organised fascists, and capitalist, need an equally organised working class to smash them. The working class is not even, as we have discussed there is contradictory levels of consciousness. And the most revolutionary of the working class, need to organise, to win the argument with the working class that they should create classless society.

Just out of interest. In your experience if you talk to 100 ordinary people, and you say, what we need to achieve is a classless society, how many would automatically understand what you are talking about, and say yes?

Which is all very well (and "orthodox Marx" too). as well as accurate, but only as far as it goes, and in the ridiculousness and vileness of a post-industrial neo-liberal economy and the concomitant effects of that on social relations, it isn't enough to view everything through that lens. IMO a "wide-angle" view is more appropriate, one that accepts that the modern "working class(es)" consist not only of those who serve capital directly, in the workplace, but those of us who, for one reason or another, have been discarded by Capitalism.

there is nothing particularly new about the existence of those of us who, for one reason or another, have been discarded by Capitalism. The Marxist analysis of the working classes has always included them. But the fact remains, the point of struggle, is at the means of production. Today as always in every form of class society that has existed, those who controlled the means of production, control society.

As I've said to other posters on other threads, his posts are combative, and because they are (and because those they're replying to tend to skim-read them, from what I can make out, before rattling of an offended reply ), people often ascribe to him positions that are not ones he holds/

have no idea what his position is on anything, he refuses to discuss it. So you are right.

Be honest. How many times have you seen, at political gatherings (whatever the group/sect), a speaker take the easy route of preaching to the converted rather than trying to enthuse new blood?
Me, I've seen it so many times in the last 30 years that I'm a cynic.

I would never have guessed. however, a meeting, is not the same as trying to build an anti fascist mass movement. Starting with those who support fascism, is illogical. That doesn't mean you ignore them.

 

[FreddyB]

Just out of interest. In your experience if you talk to 100 ordinary people, and you say, what we need to achieve is a classless society, how many would automatically understand what you are talking about, and say yes?

Even if they all did what does it mean? It's a lot of bollocks expecially in the context of organising against fascism now. Some jam tomorrow classless society is utterly useless for anything -It's now that matters, what we do today about the problems we have now.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

That's just Ultra Left rubbish Larry. I have't read your Borderland piece on HnH yet, I hopefully will do so.

Says it all really--not examined the opposing view, but you dismiss it with insulting language.

Just because I have said they may have had an effect does not indicate support for them - you are just mirror image opposites sometimes. I am making a clear intellectual point that you have no evidence that they have not had an effect, .

The charitable interpretation is that you cannot read. I did not deny an effect--I spoke of a court case and massive free advert for the BNP. Arising from the very documentary Lowles boasts about. You choose to ignore this and claim I deny Searchlight have had an effect. No, I don't deny it, merely highlight a different one than what their apologists claim.

ultra left has been called immature and it certainly looks like that is the case going on the anti fascist evidence around here. Making 'the most radical gestures' against them but lacking any alternative, certainly on a national level.

I posit an alternative, that of course you haven't read....

ultra left have got away with their impotent bullshit for far too long.

If the cap fits, wear it!

 

[audiotech]

I'd just like to add that I fear that butchersapron could be right and even more fearful that Larry O'Hara who disagrees with butchersapron, and puts forward the idea that the BNP could gain power, could be right also?


.....

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Larry O'Hara who disagrees with butchersapron, and puts forward the idea that the BNP could gain power.....

I think that last possibility very unlikely--it is just that I would never rule out the possibility 100%. That, however, is merely having an open mind.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Just out of interest. In your experience if you talk to 100 ordinary people, and you say, what we need to achieve is a classless society, how many would automatically understand what you are talking about, and say yes?

Even if they all did what does it mean? It's a lot of bollocks expecially in the context of organising against fascism now. Some jam tomorrow classless society is utterly useless for anything -It's now that matters, what we do today about the problems we have now.[/QUOTE] you're absolutely right, my question was "just out of interest", trying to better understand vps butchs notion of contradictory levels of consciousness.

However, this topic, consciousness (where the vast majority of ordinary people's heads are at politically), is directly linked to the fight against fascism, because it's about strategy. If you don't answer these questions, it's a bit like us all going on a coach trip, but not telling the driver where we going, you end up going nowhere fast. The fascists and the capitalists strategise, and so should anti-fascists.

For example what I understand the anarchists vp butch to be saying is, if you do not have an alternative not just to fascism, but to the causes of fascism, capitalism, you're going to be involved in a labour of sisyphus. Everytime you roll back the threat of fascism, it comes back again, because you haven't got rid of the causes. Not only that, that in the fight against fascism you employ anarchy. The means and the ends are the same thing. The only way to create anarchy in the future, is to be anarchy in the present. So for them, it isn't just about getting stuck in, there is also immediate strategy shaped by their long-term strategy, goals and objectives.

Now for me, the notion of contradictory levels of consciousness, creates obvious problems for this strategy. And I am interested how the anarchists vp and butch square the circle.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I think that last possibility very unlikely--it is just that I would never rule out the possibility 100%. That, however, is merely having an open mind.

You saying butch doesn't have an open mind?

 

[FreddyB]

you're absolutely right, my question was "just out of interest", trying to better understand vps butchs notion of contradictory levels of consciousness.

However, this topic, consciousness (where the vast majority of ordinary people's heads are at politically), is directly linked to the fight against fascism, because it's about strategy. If you don't answer these questions, it's a bit like us all going on a coach trip, but not telling the driver where we going, you end up going nowhere fast. The fascists and the capitalists strategise, and so should anti-fascists.

For example what I understand the anarchists vp butch to be saying is, if you do not have an alternative not just to fascism, but to the causes of fascism, capitalism, you're going to be involved in a labour of sisyphus. Everytime you roll back the threat of fascism, it comes back again, because you haven't got rid of the causes. Not only that, that in the fight against fascism you employ anarchy. The means and the ends are the same thing. The only way to create anarchy in the future, is to be anarchy in the present. So for them, it isn't just about getting stuck in, there is also immediate strategy shaped by their long-term strategy, goals and objectives.

Now for me, the notion of contradictory levels of consciousness, creates obvious problems for this strategy. And I am interested how the anarchists vp and butch square the circle.

I think the square only exists in your head. What is this consciousness really, what does it boil down to, if it's "where peoples heads are politically" I think it's meaningless. People have material problems that need to be dealt with that are caused by capitalism/the political establishment but there's really no need to even use the word capitlism when dealing with them. Any moves by working class people to improve their lot on their own terms are anti capitalist/radical whether you give them the label or not.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I think the square only exists in your head. What is this consciousness really, what does it boil down to, if it's "where peoples heads are politically" I think it's meaningless. People have material problems that need to be dealt with that are caused by capitalism/the political establishment but there's really no need to even use the word capitlism when dealing with them. Any moves by working class people to improve their lot on their own terms are anti capitalist/radical whether you give them the label or not.

Any move, like fascism? Voting tory, or Labour? All this is done by working class people motivated to improve their lot. Convincing the working class people to improve their lot on their own terms that are anti capitalist/radical, is THE battle for ideas. The dominant ideas in every class society that has existed, has always been the ruling classes ideas. That's not in my head, it's observable in history, and something we have to deal with today.

 

[Random]

The dominant ideas in every class society that has existed, has always been the ruling classes ideas. That's not in my head, it's observable in history, and something we have to deal with today.

Yes, we all know that Leninists like you are convinced that the working class can only achieve freedom from capitalist delusions through your party's intervention. The results of this Leninist middle class nonsense have been both pathetic and disastrous. That's observable from history.

 

[Random]

butchersapron

butchers

butchersapron

butch

Still obsessed, I see.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Cant say i am exactly impressed, if you think im a liar, point out where ive lied.

I did at the time(s). You blustered and then stropped S. O. fucking P.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Any move, like fascism? Voting tory, or Labour? All this is done by working class people motivated to improve their lot. Convincing the working class people to improve their lot on their own terms that are anti capitalist/radical, is THE battle for ideas. The dominant ideas in every class society that has existed, has always been the ruling classes ideas. That's not in my head, it's observable in history, and something we have to deal with today.

The dominant ideas in society being those of the ruling class doesn't preclude the working class developing their own alternatives without being convinced by a vanguard party. The battle for ideas can be fought without the need for leninism.

Louis MacNeice

 

[ViolentPanda]

you need to read what I have said. I never mentioned attica. I am not talking about generalities, I am talking about the specific discussion in this thread.

Also I find your attitude elitist. I keep poor company everyday, their called ordinary non political (by your standards) working class people.

I'm talking about TBH etc, you muppet!

Edited to add. When you mentioned keeping the poor company, it seemed you were still referring to Balders etc. It's now occurred to me you were referring to the swp.

Nope. If I were referring to the Swappies I'd mention by name, like I always do.

If so, in answer to your question. Yes, Your arguments are hard to follow, you veer into irrelevancy and personal attack at the slightest provocation, BUT to me it is sectarian to paint all anarchist's as "poor company", as it to paint all trots as "poor company". It seems contradictory to say, we shouldn't ignore working class fascists because of the poor company they keep, but we should ignore working class trots because of the company they keep.

Nice, but irrelevant given I wasn't talking about trots in general or Swappies in particular.

again, you need to read what I said. I never mentioned everybody accepting what you say, I was talking about your inability to accept genuine disagreement. To accept people can genuinely disagree with you. It is impossible for every argument to be taken to their conclusion, our different life experiences, politics etc. will lead us to different conclusions.

Our experiences will lead us to different circumstantial conclusions (i.e. what's sauce for the goose isn't necessarily sauce for the gander), but they don't alter the factual basis on which an argument is made.
Perhaps what you're trying to say is interpretations will vary depending on perspective?

That shouldn't make us enemies, but it too often does for u75 anarchists.
again read, I said not being able to believe that people can genuinely disagree with you, is absurd, and leads you to silly conclusions. An opinion, I could be wrong about.

I really find this an intriguing mystery. Why would I lie? How could I convince you I am not lying?

I don't think you're lying, I think you're fooling yourself by believing you're more "inclusive" and/or tolerant than you actually are. We all like to believe we're better than we actually are. You, me and everyone else.

Again, you seem to find it completely impossible that anyone can hold a different opinion to you, genuinely. For you, it all seems to be about ego, not wanting to be wrong. For me, it is totally illogical to say anything else than what I have said. Why would I be against any victory against fascism?

You're missing the point. It isn't about who is wrong or right, it's about whether strategies and tactics are appropriate.
You see, while I believe with all my heart that victory against the hard right is important, I'm not impressed by "little victories", unless they're part of a strategy toward a "big victory". Just reacting (which is unfortunately what much anti-fascism has been pretty much doomed to in the last decades) may get the scum off the street short-term, but it does little toward a long-term solution, just as (IMO) adopting an "expose the BNP"/"vote Labour" doesn't work long-term (in that it perpetuates the socio-economic issues that have led to resurgence). That's why I can't throw myself behind UAF or HNH. Because while their intentions may be pure, their tactics don't propose a reasonable solution (and no, I don't mean internment camps for the BNP and NF! ).

The more strategies we have, the more chance of success.

Most strategists and philosophers would disagree with you, as do I.
What's important, IMO is to have a choice of strategies, and to choose the strategy with the best hope of success, not to operate several dozen strategies in parallel, with different anti-fascists accidentally pissing on each others' shoes.

Not only that, your strategy is about overthrowing capitalism, as much as defending against fascism.

This is something that really pisses me off about the current crop of anti-fascists: Why should it be about "defending against fascism"? Why is it rarely about taking the (intellectual and physical) fight to them and putting them on the defensive anymore?

Why wouldn't I wish you every success? I've said loads of times, if I had a choice between a Leninist revolution, and an anarchist revolution, I'd choose the anarchist every time.

I'm not that fond of the Beatles either.

Edited to add. To me achieving communism/anarchism, the goal, is more important than winning this sectarian squabble. To me we should be comrades, we want exactly the same thing, we just disagree about how to achieve it.

Does my picking holes in your argument(s) mean that I don't agree with your aims?
Or does it perhaps mean that while I believe you could be going about things the wrong way (and I do!!!), that I believe your aims are just?

butchers?

Nope, others from all shades of the spectrum.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Still obsessed, I see.

why have you repeated the same links four times, and then edited them in a deceitful manner?

 

[Random]

why have you repeated the same links four times, and then edited them in a deceitful manner?

all part of the big conspiracy

 

[ViolentPanda]

but that's your problem, you cant understand the difference between a genuine disagreement, and a liar.

Oh, I know the difference.

You've just call me a liar, (which is of little concern because any Internet debating forum is an irelevance to any logical person)...

No, I didn't. The only person that I've called a liar on this thread is tbaldwin.

you say that they SW CC are lying.

Not quite, I said they're a bunch of power-grasping (veritable king shits of turd mountain!!) careerists in whose interest it would be to dupe the membership.

It appears according to you , everybody is lying, if they disagree with you.

Your analysis, as usual, is impeccable inaccurate.

I do not think you're lying, I believe you're completely genuine, your just wrong.

Where as I think you're a wrong'un.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yeah, fair comment. We believe the organised fascists, and capitalist, need an equally organised working class to smash them. The working class is not even, as we have discussed there is contradictory levels of consciousness. And the most revolutionary of the working class, need to organise, to win the argument with the working class that they should create classless society.

I don't personally believe you need such "purity". I'd argue that a good example set before people tends to take on a momentum of its own. This is what happened in the '70s with the NF. It wasn't just the marches and protests that did the job, it was people from one estate or road or close getting together to fuck the Nazis off, and folks on other estates etc realising "we don't have to put up with that shit either, lets do what those folk down the road did", and gradually you had an informal network, where people would phone each other if the slugs were canvassing locally, so a welcome party could be arranged. It doesn't have to be primarily about doctrine or dogma, let alone about a revolutionary vanguard!

Just out of interest. In your experience if you talk to 100 ordinary people, and you say, what we need to achieve is a classless society, how many would automatically understand what you are talking about, and say yes?

Probably about 50%, but that's mainly due to local issues about education etc, where locals have caught on that you're more likely to get decent facilities etc if you're in an area that's more "middle-class" than if the local area is mostly council estates.
I think that there's a lot of shit talked about "class" when referring to peoples' awareness of either their own class position, or about the effects of class, because we've been indoctrinated for the last 50 years or more that class is irrelevant, and that it's the individual that's important, just as we've been indoctrinated to believe that there's little alternative to our national and local political establishments and institutions.

there is nothing particularly new about the existence of those of us who, for one reason or another, have been discarded by Capitalism. The Marxist analysis of the working classes has always included them. But the fact remains, the point of struggle, is at the means of production. Today as always in every form of class society that has existed, those who controlled the means of production, control society.

I think you've missed my point, which is that if rhetoric is exclusivist or perceived as exclusivist, your average w/c crip may not realise that the term "working class" actually includes them, and will be deterred from giving your politics and policies a fair hearing.
If you don't let people know explicitly that you're for them, some of them are going to assume you're against them.

have no idea what his position is on anything, he refuses to discuss it. So you are right.

I would never have guessed. however, a meeting, is not the same as trying to build an anti fascist mass movement. Starting with those who support fascism, is illogical. That doesn't mean you ignore them.

Yeah, but you have to start somewhere, and if your starting point is to waffle about past victories to your current members, rather than representing to non-members exactly why you're the best route to denying their area to fascists, then you're on a hiding to nothing, don't you think?

 

[ViolentPanda]

you're absolutely right, my question was "just out of interest", trying to better understand vps butchs notion of contradictory levels of consciousness.

However, this topic, consciousness (where the vast majority of ordinary people's heads are at politically), is directly linked to the fight against fascism, because it's about strategy. If you don't answer these questions, it's a bit like us all going on a coach trip, but not telling the driver where we going, you end up going nowhere fast. The fascists and the capitalists strategise, and so should anti-fascists.

For example what I understand the anarchists vp butch to be saying is, if you do not have an alternative not just to fascism, but to the causes of fascism, capitalism, you're going to be involved in a labour of sisyphus. Everytime you roll back the threat of fascism, it comes back again, because you haven't got rid of the causes. Not only that, that in the fight against fascism you employ anarchy. The means and the ends are the same thing. The only way to create anarchy in the future, is to be anarchy in the present. So for them, it isn't just about getting stuck in, there is also immediate strategy shaped by their long-term strategy, goals and objectives.

Now for me, the notion of contradictory levels of consciousness, creates obvious problems for this strategy. And I am interested how the anarchists vp and butch square the circle.

I don't believe there's a circle to square. You're assuming policy when the best strategy is to not tie yourself to a preconceived "line", and to address situations as and when they occur. "Anarchy" is an ongoing state, not a goal to be aimed at, attained and codified/fossilised.

 

[tbaldwin]

I did at the time(s). You blustered and then stropped S. O. fucking P.

You sad bastard. You claim i'm a liar but cant post to one post that proves it? You have over 10,000 to choose from.
But much as you wish you could prove that anyone who doubts your authority is a liar this time yoiuve failed.....Oh well.....

 

[TremulousTetra]

Yes, we all know that Leninists like you are convinced that the working class can only achieve freedom from capitalist delusions through your party's intervention.

[/QUOTE]So Freddy vp, butch, and random DO agree with the swp, that the dominant ideas in any society are those of the ruling class, because of the intervention of the ruling class. You also agree that they can be moved towards fascism, because of the intervention of the fascists. But, you still haven't squared the circle for me. How do anarchist's etc change this consciousness, without intervening? You seem to any be against intervention, are you? I dont think you are, I think what you're realy saying it is OK for anarchist to intervene in the class struggle, but not Leninist. Why?>

Yes, we all know that Leninists like you are convinced that the working class can only achieve freedom from capitalist delusions through your party's intervention.

that is another strawman random. swp Lenninist's don't say that the working class can only achieve freedom from capitalist "delusions" through swp intervention, in fact quite the opposite. The phrase that is heard over and over, is "ideas change in struggle". This is exactly the same notion as Freddy B was applying, that's why I agreed with him.

Just out of interest. In your experience if you talk to 100 ordinary people, and you say, what we need to achieve is a classless society, how many would automatically understand what you are talking about, and say yes?

Even if they all did what does it mean? It's a lot of bollocks expecially in the context of organising against fascism now. Some jam tomorrow classless society is utterly useless for anything -It's now that matters, what we do today about the problems we have now.

you're absolutely right

It is this idea which is the foundation stone of the united front. In SA, Respect, UAF, Poll Tax, etc, it's about the dominant ideas in society of the ruling class been challenged, because the working class has develop their own alternatives to achieve their aims. Revolutionaries dont change people's ideas, the class struggle does. Revolutionary anarchists, Lenninst's, etc are merely acting as the memory of the class, the university, but in the end only the the working class can decide whether or not to take up these memories lessons from the past. It is impossible to impose them, because as the swp and anarchist's agree, the emancipation of the working class, has to be the act of the working class.

So, the ANL was a perfectly legitimate form of intervention according to practices you lot have outlined imho. The same or may not be said at the moment, about the UAF imho.

 

[The Black Hand]

Days of rage

TBH/attica: I accept that he believes what he says, and I know he's got his treasured doctorate so that the world knows how clever he is, but I also am well aware of how other politicised people view him (due to his self-aggrandising and occasionally destructive actions over the years). He likes to tar anyone who disagrees with his pronouncements as "ultra-left" (see above, for example). What does that say for the "genuineness" of his conclusions, hmm?

Destructive actions? I'd love to destroy most of the fekking irrelevant so called London 'anarchists' who do nothing useful, who create no realistic political alliances and so on. Instead they are fetishistically clinging onto an ultra left version of politics of purity - they will always be fekking useless. It fills me with no joy to say this, but having been there and done it, seen what they are like and so on those are the conclusions I have come too. They have no way of being with people other than anarchists, and that is one of the reasons why the anarchist movement has shed so many good people who move on.

Ultra left is easy to understand, it is those who eschew work in united and or popular fronts, who are critical of charities without any alternative, who are critical of Trade Unions without a mass membership organisation, who generally can't work with other groups of civil society who are not anarchist. That is what the anarchists are like, that is why they have fallen out with me cos I have called it as it really is.

That bizarre rationalisation about the genuineness of my conclusions is just pure rubbish. The logic, framework and descriptions of my theoretical and evidence gathering approaches are clear. That you do not critisize them and come up with baseless generalisations says that it is YOUR conclusions that are suspect. If you were genuine you would critisise the arguments themselves not the person saying it. Politics not people should ALWAYS be the starting point for political debate.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I don't believe there's a circle to square. You're assuming policy when the best strategy is to not tie yourself to a preconceived "line", and to address situations as and when they occur. "Anarchy" is an ongoing state, not a goal to be aimed at, attained and codified/fossilised.

1st that doesn't make thise any clearer

For example what I understand the anarchists vp butch to be saying is, if you do not have an alternative not just to fascism, but to the causes of fascism, capitalism, you're going to be involved in a labour of sisyphus. Everytime you roll back the threat of fascism, it comes back again, because you haven't got rid of the causes. Not only that, that in the fight against fascism you employ anarchy. The means and the ends are the same thing. The only way to create anarchy in the future, is to be anarchy in the present. So for them, it isn't just about getting stuck in, there is also immediate strategy shaped by their long-term strategy, goals and objectives.

what we're aiming for though is a classless society. in achieving that how does your ""Anarchy" is an ongoing state" differ from my " The means and the ends are the same thing. The only way to create anarchy in the future, is to be anarchy in the present. " Am I mirepresenting you?

 

[ViolentPanda]

You sad bastard. You claim i'm a liar but cant post to one post that proves it? You have over 10,000 to choose from.
But much as you wish you could prove that anyone who doubts your authority is a liar this time yoiuve failed.....Oh well.....

You live in your own little dreamworld, don't you?

BTW, I don't have any authority, and don't pretend to (I speak for no-one but myself, whereas you're forever speaking for "most people", aren't you?), so don't try and pull that petty shite, there's a good boy.