The most working-class anarchist group is...

[LLETSA]

ra only changed from their fash-bashing and 'ra -supporting in the mid-90s. you seem to suggest they should have done so five or six years earlier.

How can you draw this bizarre conclusion from my stating that the IWCA seem to me the only group that recognises that times have changed since the 1970's and '80's?

By the way, I didn't notice that RA had withdrawn support for the IRA. Where did they issue a statement? I must have missed it.

 

[Pickman's model]

How can you draw this bizarre conclusion from my stating that the IWCA seem to me the only group that recognises that times have changed since the 1970's and '80's?

By the way, I didn't notice that RA had withdrawn support for the IRA. Where did they issue a statement? I must have missed it.

whatever happened to the 1990s?

 

[LLETSA]

do you support the iwca's participation in local government elections?

Yes indeed.

 

[LLETSA]

whatever happened to the 1990s?

All right, if you insist, I'll revise what I said to include the nineties as well.

However, what I was actually getting at was that the final nail in the coffin of the old Bolshevik - inspired left, already sick and exhausted in the seventies and eighties, came with the fall of the Communist regimes. Since then, I feel that that left has attempted to limp on while pretending that this had nothing much to do with their own way of thinking and organising. They have, in short, drawn few worthwhile conclusions, and are destined to go on repeating the same old things ad infinitum, probably with fewer and fewer new recruits. Anarchism, meanwhile, seems set to continue to merely define itself against the Leninist left and to remain in the political ghetto in which it has spent most of its existence.

In that respect the nineties was pretty much the same as today for both. But, as I say, I'll include them if you prefer.

 

[LLETSA]

so, in yr view, red action wasted a fuck of a lot of time chasing fascists and supporting the ira?

In any case, why are you and so many others on here so obsessed with RA?

Even to the extent of demanding comment from me about them. I'm just an individual who happened to post on their discussion page, that's all.

 

[montevideo]

I have no intention of presenting my personal political manifesto a la Flowers in the Attica and certain others. But there is no need to; for what it is worth I have already made it clear, in this thread and others, what I agree with politically. Perhaps you only see what you want to see.

The old left is dead. Anarchism as a movement never got started. Both could probably go on repeating the same old stuff and doing the same old things ad infinitum. As far as I am concerned, the only group that truly recognises that times have changed since the seventies and eighties and is thus in any way viable is the IWCA. (This is not to say that individual anarchists do not see the need to organise in the same way.)

yet you insist anarchists must present their politics for you to examine & criticise? No matter.

So in regard to the old left, iwca & its way of organising is the new leftism?

Essentially the iwca have given up on the workplace as the primary source of class antagonism & re-orientated itself in a defined yet unspecified geographical area. The Working Class no longer come into being by their work activity but by where they live. This means their experience of capitalism ceases to be a direct political one but & instead becomes simply a social one, or a means of winning measures against The Council/Local Government. The Council/Local Government thus replaces capitalism as the class enemy. Long term of course the iwca are building party political support, that, as with all leftism, is the motivation behind its methods. In the mean time people are encouraged to accept reformism as a way of empowering themselves.

The one & only progressive thing about the iwca is its structure, lifted almost completely from anarchist organising technique. No surprises there then.

Again with all leftism, old & new, the need to control is paramount. As i've said before 'rule' is not in there accidentally. If the iwca was genuinely interested in the needs of working class people beyond political capital, then you'd used the slogan 'working class self-organisation as self-emanicipation'

But if that was the case, we would have no need for 'parties' would we?

 

[LLETSA]

"Working on the same plantation, chanting the same recitation...."

'working class self-organisation as self-emanicipation'

Go down a storm on the estates that one. And in the workplaces for that matter....

 

[LLETSA]

So in regard to the old left, iwca & its way of organising is the new leftism?

Where did I say that?

And where did I say that I was speaking in any way for the IWCA?

What I was saying was that I like what they are doing and see nobody doing anything that's better. Or even coming close.

 

[LLETSA]

yet you insist anarchists must present their politics for you to examine & criticise? No matter.

No. What I have been asking throughout this thread is why the anarchists have been so defensive and abusive about what was a mild criticism of anarchism - which I was, incidentally, not the only one, or even the first one, to make. Arising from that was the query as to why they seem, if this thread is anything to go by, to have nothing beyond this to say. Far be it from me to request that anarchists present the whole body of theory 'for my examination and criticism.' Perish the thought: "I'd rather see Dave Lee Travis play MacBeth."

You, on the other hand seem to have been positively straining at the leash to do precisely that for pages and pages now.

 

[Pickman's model]

In any case, why are you and so many others on here so obsessed with RA?

Even to the extent of demanding comment from me about them. I'm just an individual who happened to post on their discussion page, that's all.

the more you post, the more i feel i was correct that getting rid of you was one of the reasons they've ceased having a discussion page.

 

[swarthy thug]

the more you post, the more i feel i was correct that getting rid of you was one of the reasons they've ceased having a discussion page.

Hardly.

 

[Pickman's model]

Hardly.

yr probably another reason.

 

[swarthy thug]

yr probably another reason.

Did you ever show yer anarcho guff there.Letssas right the ra boards might have been bombaded with right wing knuckleheads,but there where never as irritible as some on hear.

 

[Pickman's model]

Did you ever show yer anarcho guff there.Letssas right the ra boards might have been bombaded with right wing knuckleheads,but there where never as irritible as some on hear.

 

[LLETSA]

the more you post, the more i feel i was correct that getting rid of you was one of the reasons they've ceased having a discussion page.

Actually they emailed me and informed me that I was the sole reason for their decision. In fact, it was in anticipation of my posting on their future website that they began to look at different ways of responding to the fash. So I can be viewed as ultimately responsible for the formation of the IWCA.

 

[Pickman's model]

Actually they emailed me and informed me that I was the sole reason for their decision. In fact, it was in anticipation of my posting on their future website that they began to look at different ways of responding to the fash. So I can be viewed as ultimately responsible for the formation of the IWCA.

and returning unwillingly to the real world...

 

[LLETSA]

and returning unwillingly to the real world...

Sometimes I can't help but get the feeling that you and some others on here think that this IS the real world.

 

[audiotech]

Originally Posted by swarthy thug
'Did you ever show yer anarcho guff there.Letssas right the ra boards might have been bombaded with right wing knuckleheads,but there where never as irritible as some on hear.'

Translation:

Did you post on the RA boards?

The fascists who posted on the RA boards were stupid, but not as annoying as some who post on here.

 

[LLETSA]

Again with all leftism, old & new, the need to control is paramount. As i've said before 'rule' is not in there accidentally. If the iwca was genuinely interested in the needs of working class people beyond political capital, then you'd used the slogan 'working class self-organisation as self-emanicipation'

Point out where on the IWCA website they outline their ambition to rule OVER the working class. Or what even implies that.

 

[montevideo]

Go down a storm on the estates that one. And in the workplaces for that matter....

why? People on estates & in workplaces don't understand long words?

"yeah comrade, rule, the proles understand rule, everyone understands a bit of ruling"

 

[montevideo]

Where did I say that?

And where did I say that I was speaking in any way for the IWCA?

What I was saying was that I like what they are doing and see nobody doing anything that's better. Or even coming close.

it was a question. Because you don't come out with what you actually think beyond platitudes & vague assertions, i have to ask to find out just where you're coming from.

No-one's saying you are speaking on behalf of the iwca, least of all me.

 

[LLETSA]

Essentially the iwca have given up on the workplace as the primary source of class antagonism & re-orientated itself in a defined yet unspecified geographical area. The Working Class no longer come into being by their work activity but by where they live. This means their experience of capitalism ceases to be a direct political one but & instead becomes simply a social one, or a means of winning measures against The Council/Local Government. The Council/Local Government thus replaces capitalism as the class enemy. Long term of course the iwca are building party political support, that, as with all leftism, is the motivation behind its methods. In the mean time people are encouraged to accept reformism as a way of empowering themselves.

The one & only progressive thing about the iwca is its structure, lifted almost completely from anarchist organising technique. No surprises there then.

Again with all leftism, old & new, the need to control is paramount. As i've said before 'rule' is not in there accidentally. If the iwca was genuinely interested in the needs of working class people beyond political capital, then you'd used the slogan 'working class self-organisation as self-emanicipation'

But if that was the case, we would have no need for 'parties' would we?

Similarly, please point out where they say that it is not capitalism that is the enemy but local government.

Have you ever considered the possibility that they might be involved in the activity that they are because, rather than clinging to the comfort blanket of age-old theory, they are trying to present some kind of alternative to real people - many of whom are responding positively. I see nothing in their publicity that implies a 'leave it to us' mentality. Are they not involved in encouraging people to take action for themselves? Is it not the IWCA that, alone among all political organisations, as far as I can see, actually continues to campaign on the issues on which it tries to get its representatives elected regardless of whether they actually are? You, on the other hand, substitute the left's 'build the party' fetish with a sometime-never faith that working class people will spontaneously embrace the organisational methods, if not the theories, of anarchism.

 

[montevideo]

Point out where on the IWCA website they outline their ambition to rule OVER the working class. Or what even implies that.

Which is in essense all down to what is meant by rule. Any ideas?

The below could have been equally applicable wouldn't you say

Working class control in working class areas

Working class power in working class areas

Working class priority in working class areas

yet we get rule?

 

[LLETSA]

No-one's saying you are speaking on behalf of the iwca, least of all me.

Again with all leftism, old & new, the need to control is paramount. As i've said before 'rule' is not in there accidentally. If the iwca was genuinely interested in the needs of working class people beyond political capital, then you'd used the slogan 'working class self-organisation as self-emanicipation'

....

 

[LLETSA]

Which is in essense all down to what is meant by rule. Any ideas?

The below could have been equally applicable wouldn't you say

Working class control in working class areas

Working class power in working class areas

Working class priority in working class areas

yet we get rule?

Yes: 'WORKING CLASS rule in working class areas.'

Sigh....

 

[LLETSA]

Which is in essense all down to what is meant by rule. Any ideas?

The below could have been equally applicable wouldn't you say

Working class control in working class areas

Working class power in working class areas

Working class priority in working class areas

yet we get rule?

If the working class was controlling an area, or exercising power in an area, then who exactly would be ruling that area?

As for 'working class priority,' what does that mean?

 

[LLETSA]

why? People on estates & in workplaces don't understand long words?

"yeah comrade, rule, the proles understand rule, everyone understands a bit of ruling"

Think about it - who, among any of the parties, uses such language in campaigning? Understanding it is neither here nor there.

Who are you quoting in the last sentence? Not me nor anything I've ever read about the IWCA. Desperate.

 

[reallyoldhippy]

This means their experience of capitalism ceases to be a direct political one but & instead becomes simply a social one, or a means of winning measures against The Council/Local Government

That's a bit of a jump, isn't it. Just because an organisation dismisses workerism, doesn't mean it jumps in bed with liberals. There is more to working class than work, you know.

The one & only progressive thing about the iwca is its structure, lifted almost completely from anarchist organising technique.

You mean they've stolen it? "how dare they use non-hierarchical structure, the bastards"

 

[montevideo]

Think about it - who, among any of the parties, uses such language in campaigning? Understanding it is neither here nor there.

Who are you quoting in the last sentence? Not me nor anything I've ever read about the IWCA. Desperate.

But that's not what you said, nothing to do with parties. You said [ironically] it would down a storm on estates & workplaces. Why do you think people on estates or in workplaces would react badly to self-organisation or indeed self-emancipation?

Yes: 'WORKING CLASS rule in working class areas.'

Sigh....

i'll keep it simple: why do you think the iwca used the word 'rule' in their slogan rather than some equally applicable alternatives? What do you think the iwca mean when they use the term 'rule'?

 

[Chuck Wilson]

Anyone of you anarchists attend this talk at the Glasgow Anarchist Day School last November?

'ANARCHISM AND MARXISM: Exploding the mythology behind the apparent polar oppositions in the left and some suggestions for how we can avoid the childish "yah-booh" sloganeering which has coloured our relations with our comrades in the socialist parties, without compromising on our politics. (Thomas - Glasgow based Libertarian Socialist)'