placing Red Action then the IWCA theorethically

[The39thStep]

Sorry Fed; Ewan Gibbs in Socialist Appeal

 

[Fedayn]

Sorry Fed; Ewan Gibbs in Socialist Appeal

Aaah right, I know him.

 

[dennisr]

This is quite a good alternative history from one of Nigels ex comrades

I said that here a long while ago and got panned for it as 'a sectarian' - guess that's because I'm still one of 'Nigel's cdes'

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Nigel - the essay referred to wasn't the book

He meant the Trotsky bit on militias? Yes I've read it. Not one of his better articles, but his broad point that the workers movement will often have to defend itself through the organised application of physical force is one I agree with.

Then again I've never made any pacifist criticisms of AFA in the first place, so quite what the relevance is supposed to be I'm not sure.

 

[dennisr]

quite what the relevance is supposed to be I'm not sure.

straw men have always been easier to knock down

 

[past caring]

The essay referred to wasn't the Trotsky bit on militias, either.

Just to make it easier.....it's here.

 

[dennisr]

The essay referred to wasn't the Trotsky bit on militias, either.

Just to make it easier.....it's here.

This is a very quick reply after a very, very quick skim read of both parts. I hadn't seen the thread on this document

It raises the ideas of economic democracy - and the second part is an intro to some ideas of what that idea of economic democracy could be (some interesting stuff) - as a response to the (perceived...) failings of the left in countering neo-liberal arguments because of its (perceived...) reliance on state control of the economy. The first bit is the interesting one. The second one the detail on the possible alternatives on offer (raising this as an initial discussion document). And it seems to me that the arguments in the first bit are the ones that can be expanded on and discussed rather than any discussions on possible models of the alternative (or even "our neo-liberalism" as it is called...) to the neo-liberal economic model. It seems to raise more questions than it answers

Thats a lot of interesting comments on the the fundamentally different conclusions drawn by right and left wing 'libertarian' thinkers, expanded on using marx's ideas on alienation of labour, and the pulling apart of right-wing neo-liberal thought - 'free-market' capitalist ideas - "What Hayek did was to destroy the democratic essence of classical liberal ideas in order to provide a philosophical justification for, and defence of, private, undemocratic, top-down control of the economy and the means of production, cloaked in the Enlightenment ideal of individual freedom." Nothing much I would disagree with there.

The problem is that this is posed as the main discussion after the rapid dismissal of the old left (who are all - social democrat fabians/LP and communist leninists 'state control' fans). The marxist left are seen as still harping on about these old 'state controls' and this is, apparently, why neo-liberal ideas dominate. Thats quite some leap - it comes across the sort of leap one does when they are trying to fit a preconceived theory (the centrality of the libertarian v state to the arguement) to what has actually happened.

So here are some questions:

How did the pre-neo-liberal ideas last for so long? How come the now irrelevant ideas of what I guess one is calling 'state socialists' (both leninists, stalinists and social democrats) and state capitalists (ie mixed/market economy capitalists) suddenly stopped being so irrelevant? When did this change (timeframes)?

It seems to me that the collapse of the then existing 'alternative' to capitalism - in the form of the (grossly distorted...) planned economies of the stalinist bloc - was the turning point in the development of neo-liberal political ideas as a serious alternative and the collapse of the emulation of the stalinist states in the economically underdeveloped ("neo-colonial") world. Clearly, these ideas did not simply develop in a vacuam or because the books written by the supposed statist-left were to suddenly to boring to read.

And there are plenty of other questions - Why are many of the anti-neo-liberal, anti-capitalist globalisation arguments so dependent on state intervention / demands upon the state / even demands for greater state intervention (ie defend the NHS/Education etc) ?

Now that's not to dismiss 'libertarian' left arguments as better than 'statist' (although the 'statist' intentions of the 'statist' left are taken as read in this document).

All this assumes that the left is irrelevant. That the working class as been almost completely atomised as a social unit. That working class communities have been broken. That the trade unions no longer have any social weight in society. That the hard-right makes all of the running within working class communities. (Fuck it almost fits in with some liberal Channel 4 or Guardianesque dismissal of the proles on occasion). I think these are big assumptions to make. I fully agree that all of these things have happened to a certain extent. I also agree that this means some methods, forms of organisation and the approach of the left has to change - I would like to see an expansion of how the IWCA think this has actually been a completed or almost completed process though? - Examples, longer/in depth analysis etc before I am convinced - the follow on arguments about theoretical alternatives can only run on from an understanding of what can only be seen as a fundamental social change.

I guess its back to the same old questions I always raise about RA/IWCA. Yep, it nice to see the expanded discussion on economic alternatives and re-freshing to see the determination to drop the old 'left' cliches in the manner this is raised but there are fundamental 'leaps of faith' I really would need to be convinced of or if we can simply dismiss the failures of the 'left' (or the left libertarians for that matter) on their ideas (worn out ones or not...) rather than the bigger social reality we have all lived through for the last 20 years before we can discuss what alternatives we should be putting forward (and should that not be left to 'the people' themselves?)

 

[The39thStep]

I said that here a long while ago and got panned for it as 'a sectarian' - guess that's because I'm still one of 'Nigel's cdes'

Not sure what you mean Dennis, are you saying you agree with that drivel?

 

[The39thStep]

He meant the Trotsky bit on militias? Yes I've read it. Not one of his better articles, but his broad point that the workers movement will often have to defend itself through the organised application of physical force is one I agree with.

Then again I've never made any pacifist criticisms of AFA in the first place, so quite what the relevance is supposed to be I'm not sure.

The difference with AFA is that they moved it from a defensive use of physical force to an offensive one

 

[laptop]

How did the pre-neo-liberal ideas last for so long? How come the now irrelevant ideas of what I guess one is calling 'state socialists' (both leninists, stalinists and social democrats) and state capitalists (ie mixed/market economy capitalists) suddenly stopped being so irrelevant?

In part, because "freedom" is a powerful idea: powerful enough to get enough people to act against their own interests...

In part, because an economistic analysis has limits; especially in diagnosing its own weakness. Most of your comment seemed to me to be spectuacularly missing the point.

The paper is a brave attempt to formulate a challenge to that: "economic democracy".

I need to re-read-it... in my copious spare time.

 

[dennisr]

In part, because "freedom" is a powerful idea: powerful enough to get enough people to act against their own interests...

In part, because an economistic analysis has limits; especially in diagnosing its own weakness. Most of your comment seemed to me to be spectuacularly missing the point.

The paper is a brave attempt to formulate a challenge to that: "economic democracy".

I need to re-read-it... in my copious spare time.

How did I 'spectacularly miss the point' then? If I missed the use of the term I don't think that results in misunderstanding the content in this case?

You think this essay is primarily about the power of an idea - of 'freedom'?
I didn't get that from it. I saw the state control v libertarian arguement as central - posed as 'pretend' freedoms v 'real' freedoms (to put is crudely)

But - yer - half an hour's skim read isn't going to be enough time with this tome

 

[SpecialBranch]

I go balls deep on Red Action's analysis, theories and views.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

With or without protection?

 

[Pickman's model]

I go balls deep on Red Action's analysis, theories and views.

Thank you for bumping the thread to tell us that

 

[DaveCinzano]

Nothing can protect you 100% against RA

 

[JimW]

So much action it's red raw.

 

[SpecialBranch]

So much action it's red raw.

With added carpet burn.

 

[SpecialBranch]

With or without protection?

Without of course. Fucking square!

 

[SpecialBranch]

Thank you for bumping the thread to tell us that

Nice one, anytime.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

red raw action

 

[Pickman's model]

Nice one, anytime.

Any other aged threads you'd like to comment on?

 

[SpecialBranch]

I'll be looking.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

 

[DaveCinzano]

Six years isn't necromancy, it's barely more than a moment to ponder. I've had longer shits than six years.

 

[SpecialBranch]

I have to try harder then lol.