The most working-class anarchist group is...

[montevideo]

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)'

it was you slagging off 'the anarchists' for a website despite no relation to anarchism wasn't it chuck?

Anarchism & marxism aren't polar opposites. Anarchism & uk leftism, now there's a different kettle of poisoned indifference.

 

[Chuck Wilson]

No, I was slagging off the type of anarchism that was on a website that bore a striking resemblance to the type of anarchism on the web by Manchester anarchists. Probably by some typical ship in the night sorts that inhabit that weird and wonderful world.

So enlighten me , what is the difference between Marxism and uk leftism ?

 

[montevideo]

No, I was slagging off the type of anarchism that was on a website that bore a striking resemblance to the type of anarchism on the web by Manchester anarchists. Probably by some typical ship in the night sorts that inhabit that weird and wonderful world.

So enlighten me , what is the difference between Marxism and uk leftism ?

ah yes. The type of anarchism that hides away & expresses nothing remotely connected with anarchism, in fact not even recognising itself as anarchism of any sort that type of anarchism chuck?

And just what was it, sherlock, that told you it was 'the anarchists' wot did it? That's right your narrow-minded knee-jerk reactionary bullshit prejudices.

Some anarchists see in marxism (that is the writings of marx) some useful, parallel & complementary ideas. Uk leftism on the other hand is simply party politics played out in the arena of self-interest.

 

[Chuck Wilson]

ah yes. The type of anarchism that hides away & expresses nothing remotely connected with anarchism, in fact not even recognising itself as anarchism of any sort that type of anarchism chuck?

Probably the most dangerous sort Monty.

And just what was it, sherlock, that told you it was 'the anarchists' wot did it? That's right your narrow-minded knee-jerk reactionary bullshit prejudices.

The Manchester Evening News described them as anarchists.I expect them to check their facts. And try not to get too personal.

Some anarchists see in marxism (that is the writings of marx) some useful, parallel & complementary ideas. Uk leftism on the other hand is simply party politics played out in the arena of self-interest.

Which anarchists?
Don't understand the last bit at all.

 

[charlie mowbray]

"The Manchester Evening News described them as anarchists.I expect them to check their facts"
It's in the paper, so it must be true.
Yeah, right.

 

[kropotkin]

....to be honest, they were clearly the sort of people who would call themselves "anarchists". I don't see what is to acheived in denying that.

I don't identify with them.

 

[LLETSA]

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?

They would, like most people, in their majority react badly to the text-book nature of the language you choose to use.

And maybe report you to the Campaign for Plain English. Or whatever it's called.

 

[LLETSA]

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'?

Two of the alternatives you put forward are no different in content than 'rule.'

I'll put it equally simply: where do the IWCA imply that 'Working Class Rule in Working Class Areas' means 'IWCA Rule over Working Class Areas'?

 

[LLETSA]

....to be honest, they were clearly the sort of people who would call themselves "anarchists". I don't see what is to acheived in denying that.

I don't identify with them.

The interesting thing about threads like this is that the adherents of anarchism, like the adherents of Leninism, seem to imagine that they are part of a living movement that has some kind of impact on those outside it. It does not seem to have struck too many of them that they are merely arguing the toss with each other over the finer points of dead ideologies.

The ideologies of yesteryear lost the battle. Progressive politics is nowhere at present. Yesterday's ideogies will not revive it.

 

[charlie mowbray]

And neither will a warmed over municipal Leninism without Lenin

 

[kropotkin]

The interesting thing about threads like this is that the adherents of anarchism, like the adherents of Leninism, seem to imagine that they are part of a living movement that has some kind of impact on those outside it. It does not seem to have struck too many of them that they are merely arguing the toss with each other over the finer points of dead ideologies.

The ideologies of yesteryear lost the battle. Progressive politics is nowhere at present. Yesterday's ideogies will not revive it.

if only people would just listen to you, eh?

It must be very hard to concentrate on real life with this Messianic fervour of Truth.

 

[montevideo]

Two of the alternatives you put forward are no different in content than 'rule.'

I'll put it equally simply: where do the IWCA imply that 'Working Class Rule in Working Class Areas' means 'IWCA Rule over Working Class Areas'?

which is entirely my point. Again why do you think the iwca choose rule instead some some other word equally applicable? What do you imagine the significance, if any, of the word rule?

I have, as yet, not mentioned, or even implied, rule over, that is entirely your construction. Though a revealing one.

They would, like most people, in their majority react badly to the text-book nature of the language you choose to use.

would they indeed. Because you know what The Working Class think don't you? You are more than happy to define 'them' aren't you, use them as a category to make a point, tell us how 'they' would react.

 

[LLETSA]

if only people would just listen to you, eh?

It must be very hard to concentrate on real life with this Messianic fervour of Truth.

On the contrary; I was just stating the bleeding obvious. If I had any kind of Messianic fervour do you think I'd be wasting time posting on here? This is entertainment more than anything else.

Anything to say about your politics?

 

[charlie mowbray]

Anything to say about yours.?

 

[LLETSA]

And neither will a warmed over municipal Leninism without Lenin

Every one of your posts contains the most convincing case for anarchism that I have ever seen.

 

[charlie mowbray]

What? Every one on this thread, or every one full stop?

 

[kropotkin]

Every one of your posts contains the most convincing case for anarchism that I have ever seen.

Do you know what anarchism is?
How do you think it differs most from your politics?

 

[charlie mowbray]

The interesting thing about threads like this is that the adherents of anarchism, like the adherents of Leninism, seem to imagine that they are part of a living movement that has some kind of impact on those outside it. It does not seem to have struck too many of them that they are merely arguing the toss with each other over the finer points of dead ideologies.

The ideologies of yesteryear lost the battle. Progressive politics is nowhere at present. Yesterday's ideogies will not revive it.

Do you mean in Britain, or internationally. Do you know much about the state of progressive politics, in say, France, Italy, or Eastern Europe?

 

[LLETSA]

Anything to say about yours.?

That one again? Don't you read each others' posts? I've already said to Montevideo that he should read back through the thread. You'll see that I have mentioned what I agree with on a number of occasions. Short and to the point. Unlike some windbags I could mention.

Having said that I consider the old ideologies to be dead, I'm hardly likely to keep posting up Attica -style stream of consciousness half-baked regurgitated theory. Am I?

 

[LLETSA]

Do you mean in Britain, or internationally. Do you know much about the state of progressive politics, in say, France, Italy, or Eastern Europe?

Internationally. Neo liberalism brushes off any challenge with ease more or less everywhere. Not that that challenge isn't stronger in some countries than in others.

 

[kropotkin]

I think the old ideologies are dead too
I think your politics are stuck in the past, and are based on an old ideology


Oooh, it is fun, this, isn't it? I can see why you've stuck with it for so long.

 

[charlie mowbray]

Let's leave Attica out of this. Some of your posts have been pretty long, but I wouldn't use the low blow of calling you a windbag. Indulge me a little, and give me a little recap of what you think should be done. Not much to ask, is it?

 

[LLETSA]

What? Every one on this thread, or every one full stop?

On this thread. Don't recall reading any others in which you feature, although I dare say there are plenty. (Not meaning that in a derogatory way.)

 

[LLETSA]

Do you know what anarchism is?
How do you think it differs most from your politics?

It's clear from much of this thread that some anarchists don't seem to know what anarchism is.

 

[charlie mowbray]

Internationally. Neo liberalism brushes off any challenge with ease more or less everywhere. Not that that challenge isn't stronger in some countries than in others.

But don't you think there may be qualitative differences between here, and , say France. Do you know much about the state of either the Left or of anarchism there? And how about Eastern Europe- do you know much about what's goin on there?

 

[charlie mowbray]

It's clear from much of this thread that some anarchists don't seem to know what anarchism is.

Whether that is or is not the case,
do you know what anarchism is?
And how does it differ from your politics? That shouldn't take too much of an effort, should it?

 

[charlie mowbray]

On this thread. Don't recall reading any others in which you feature, although I dare say there are plenty. (Not meaning that in a derogatory way.)

Why can that not be understoood in anything but a derogatory way, unless you just mean there are plenty of threads in which I feature?

 

[LLETSA]

Let's leave Attica out of this. Some of your posts have been pretty long, but I wouldn't use the low blow of calling you a windbag. Indulge me a little, and give me a little recap of what you think should be done. Not much to ask, is it?

Call me a windbag if you want. None of those petit bourgeois scruples here!

And if you want a recap there's a post I put on only yesterday, in response to exactly the same demand from Monte. You can go back and read it and come back with another stunning 'warmed -up Leninism' jibe (without anything to back it up.)

 

[LLETSA]

Back to Beckett....

Why can that not be understoood in anything but a derogatory way, unless you just mean there are plenty of threads in which I feature?

I mean exactly what the words on the page say.

Anyway, I thought you were advising people to stay away from this thread.

 

[kropotkin]

So does your evasive behaviour mean that I too can say if your politics can't even stand up to a little probing, what do you expect them to do when faced with real opposition?

Oooh it is fun. You don't even need to say anything, and my posts don't have to connect in any way with your actual opinions! Brilliant. In fact, there is little/no need for you to write anything at all, as I can assume that I already know everything you think!

Time saving, if nothing else