Why anarchism as a method of action doesn't work.

[TremulousTetra]

you lying cunt

I cant get my head around the suggestion that there are NO, none, common principles amongst anarchists, which can define them and distinguish them. In other words, [the suggestion] that the term anarchism is completely meaningless.

the reason I say there is a suggestion of the above in the comments of Anarchists on here, is because every time you try to discuss anarchism, they refuse. Often on the basis, there isn't one anarchism. I fully understand there isn't one anarchism, but to the same extent. There isn't one. Marxism, Trotskyism, Lenninism. That does not stop us from discussing those topics.

Notice suggestion, not statement.

 

[Pickman's model]

the reason I say there is a suggestion of the above in the comments of Anarchists on here, is because every time you try to discuss anarchism, they refuse. Often on the basis, there isn't one anarchism. I fully understand there isn't one anarchism, but to the same extent. There isn't one. Marxism, Trotskyism, Lenninism. That does not stop us from discussing those topics.

Notice suggestion, not statement.

and who was suggesting that the term anarchism is completely meaningless?

 

[TremulousTetra]

if 'neither anarchists or socialists' can substitute themselves for the self activity of the working class then why the fuck do you witter on about it so?

because I love your wit and repartee. and I love how precious anarchists are to criticism. 8 pages lol.

And in this thread to highlight that there is a greater propensity towards substitutionism, among anarchists who love to ignore the will of the majority and do their own thing. A bit like scabs

Dons tin hat

 

[Pickman's model]

because I love your wit and repartee. and I love how precious anarchists are to criticism. 8 pages lol.

And in this thread to highlight that there is a greater propensity towards substitutionism, among anarchists who love to ignore the will of the majority and do their own thing. A bit like scabs

Dons tin hat

but you've said that neither anarchists nor socialists can substitute themselves for the self activity of the working class. and this being so how can you say that anarchists do in fact do what you say they cannot?

 

[TremulousTetra]

and who was suggesting that the term anarchism is completely meaningless?

stop being an idiot. If you say every time the topic of anarchism is raised, we cannot discuss anarchism because it is so diverse, you render the term meaningless. There has to be a set of principles, some kind of definition of anarchism. I have my definition of anarchism. I have my set of principles which I think defines anarchism. to me the term anarchism is not meaningless. But I would like to hear what anarchists on here have to say for themselves. Looks like that is never going to happen.

 

[TremulousTetra]

but you've said that neither anarchists nor socialists can substitute themselves for the self activity of the working class. and this being so how can you say that anarchists do in fact do what you say they cannot?

Oh fuckoff pickman, you cant be that stupid.

 

[ViolentPanda]

All ready clarified what was meant when I said "working with working class MOVEMENTS" [my emphasis in my original post];

You haven't clarified anything, you dug yourself in deeper. Interesting that you can't see that.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What's your problem with 110? ie the Socialist workers party have never stated they want to take over the state and wield on behalf of the working class, that is a misrepresentation of Marxism.

No-one claimed that the SWP had stated that. You're misrepresenting others as making claims that they've not made.

Fuck me, you'd think that if anything, a dogmatist could keep their bullshit straight!

 

[ViolentPanda]

if 'neither anarchists or socialists' can substitute themselves for the self activity of the working class then why the fuck do you witter on about it so?

You know what, I've only ever seen very limited manifestations of (IMO misguided) anarchists trying to do that, but have seen (through the infiltration of movements, the "packing" of community meetings etc) quite a few manifestations of some organisations claiming to be "socialist" doing so, and deluding themselves that in so doing they "become one" with the community whose political actions they're appropriating for their own purposes.

 

[ViolentPanda]

the reason I say there is a suggestion of the above in the comments of Anarchists on here, is because every time you try to discuss anarchism, they refuse.

That's right, none of us has ever tried to engage with you, have we?

None of us, having engaged with you, have had misrepresentations of what we've said thrown back at us, have we?

Often on the basis, there isn't one anarchism. I fully understand there isn't one anarchism, but to the same extent. There isn't one. Marxism, Trotskyism, Lenninism. That does not stop us from discussing those topics.

Your error, as you've repeatedly been informed, is conflating an over-arching philosophy from which people individually and collectively assemble "ways of life" ("anarchism") with narrowly-defined (compared to "anarchism") ideologies that take most of their substance from an interpretation of the corpus of the work of a relative handful of people.

 

[ViolentPanda]

but you've said that neither anarchists nor socialists can substitute themselves for the self activity of the working class. and this being so how can you say that anarchists do in fact do what you say they cannot?

Because he's a gobshite?

 

[Poo Flakes]

because I love your wit and repartee. and I love how precious anarchists are to criticism. 8 pages lol.

...

Dons tin hat

You actually raised some interesting points in the original post, but the conversation has gone to pot. The fundamental question, which many left-wing activists would agree with, is whether the occupy movement is detrimental to left-wing causes.

I doubt the occupy wall street movement could be considered anarchist or even socialist. It looks like the petty bourgeious complaining about some of the most obvious problems of capitalism. For an anarchist or socialist, the banking crisis should have been entirely predictable and does not really warrant any specific attention.

Judging from the educational curriculum in our best schools and also the kinds of publications of most promiment British journalists, academics and politicians, there seems a very narrow, imperialistic historical narrative where Winston Churchill has a prominent, almost demagogic, role (the BBC's recent coverage of the Falklands is comparable to the most explicit propoganda one could find). I fear the original poster has fallen foul of the problem which is endemic across Britain, which can largely be based on this;

400 BC - Plato invents democracy
0 - Jesus is born
1066 - Britain becomes a democracy
1800s - Britain helps democratise the world
1914-1918 - A series of unfortunate circumstances creates catastrophe
1939-1945 - Britain prevails against evil
1989 - Evil is finally defeated
1990-2010 - Shitty technological cliches used to describe how everyone wants to be like us

 

[Random]

because I love your wit and repartee. and I love how precious anarchists are to criticism. 8 pages lol.

You're a boring troll, RMP3.

 

[Pickman's model]

Oh fuckoff pickman, you cant be that stupid.

you've made two claims -

a) that neither anarchists nor socialists can substitute themselves for the self activity of the working class;

b) that anarchists have substituted themselves for the working class.

these claims cannot both be true

how do you square this particular circle? i manage to through my conviction that you're a shitferbrains twat: but how do you manage it?

 

[Pickman's model]

stop being an idiot. If you say every time the topic of anarchism is raised, we cannot discuss anarchism because it is so diverse, you render the term meaningless. There has to be a set of principles, some kind of definition of anarchism. I have my definition of anarchism. I have my set of principles which I think defines anarchism. to me the term anarchism is not meaningless. But I would like to hear what anarchists on here have to say for themselves. Looks like that is never going to happen.

name names who has been saying that we cannot discuss anarchism because it is so diverse?

 

[TremulousTetra]

That's right, none of us has ever tried to engage with you, have we?

Never mind me, point to a serious discussions on here with anyone about anarchism.considering how many anarchists there are on here, the serious discussions when you do a search an incredibly low.

None of us, having engaged with you, have had misrepresentations of what we've said thrown back at us, have we?

. Virtually every post pedantically picks apart what I have said, takes a few words out of 2 or 3 paragraphs, and misrepresents what I mean. That you cant even acknowledge words are open to interpretation, filtered by our political perspectives is ridiculous. You are constantly trying to squeeze my words into your perception of Socialist worker. And even when I explain to you what I mean by things like, working with working-class MOVEMENTS, you cannot acknowledge your mistake.

Socialist worker get constantly misrepresented on here, but you're not doing it disingenuously, You actually belive all the bullshit. I don't even recognise the party that is discussed on here. ie a few words is taken out of context from Lindsey German, and then said socialist worker has given up on gay rights. Pickman saying something like, SW intentionally fuckup the workers movement. You something like,the the SW CC deceive it's own membership, and have no interest in creating a classless society.. but when you and anarchism is genuinely misunderstood back to you, you cant accept it.

Your error, as you've repeatedly been informed, is conflating an over-arching philosophy from which people individually and collectively assemble "ways of life" ("anarchism") with narrowly-defined (compared to "anarchism") ideologies that take most of their substance from an interpretation of the corpus of the work of a relative handful of people.

probably because keep repeating that, which doesn't actually make sense to me, isn't going to move us forward.


BTW I have never lied on here, there is no point. I find it funny that is the only way you can interpret my comments.

 

[Pickman's model]

Pickman saying something like, SW intentionally fuckup the workers movement.

link or stfu

 

[TremulousTetra]

you've made two claims -

a) that neither anarchists nor socialists can substitute themselves for the self activity of the working class;

b) that anarchists have substituted themselves for the working class.

these claims cannot both be true

how do you square this particular circle? i manage to through my conviction that you're a shitferbrains twat: but how do you manage it?

anarchists AND socialist have tried to substitute themselves for the self activity of the working class. I've given the example of James Connolly, the socialist. However, I am arguing neither socialist nor anarchists can practically substitute themselves for the self activity on the working class, because the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class. I am arguing, it is illusory to believe Socialists or anarchists they can bring about a classless society, social revolutionaries should try to promote the self activity of the working class, FOUR. ONLY THEY CAN ANTICIPATE THEMSELVES.

I have said this many times, I don't know why you're asking me to explain it again.

 

[TremulousTetra]

link or stfu

given you before.

 

[Poo Flakes]

Socialist worker get constantly misrepresented on here, but you're not doing it disingenuously, You actually belive all the bullshit. I don't even recognise the party that is discussed on here. ie a few words is taken out of context from Lindsey German, and then said socialist worker has given up on gay rights. Pickman saying something like, SW intentionally fuckup the workers movement. You something like,the the SW CC deceive it's own membership, and have no interest in creating a classless society.. but when you and anarchism is genuinely misunderstood back to you, you cant accept it.

I think that the Socialist Workers Party is full of very learned and interesting members; Owen Jones for example. However, they always seem to be at the core of divisions in working-class movements. The SSP split in Scotland, Respect in England. Maybe it is unfair. I just do not understand why they have not merged with other small organisations, accept that socialism needs a united voice, and they seem happy to control one small party even when it loses ground to the BNP. The anarchists seem far more united.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Never mind me, point to a serious discussions on here with anyone about anarchism.considering how many anarchists there are on here, the serious discussions when you do a search an incredibly low.[

We're talking about this with reference to you, you lemon. You referred to "every time" you try and talk about anarchism.

. Virtually every post pedantically picks apart what I have said, takes a few words out of 2 or 3 paragraphs, and misrepresents what I mean. That you cant even acknowledge words are open to interpretation, filtered by our political perspectives is ridiculous.

You have a pretty poor understanding and usage of language if you believe that sentences made up from words to form a context are "open to interpretation". That's the whole idea of context - to make the words far less amenable to interpretation.

You are constantly trying to squeeze my words into your perception of Socialist worker. And even when I explain to you what I mean by things like, working with working-class MOVEMENTS, you cannot acknowledge your mistake.

Another good example of context is illustrated here, insofar as you're trying to divorce your own words from the context you originally used them in, so that they say something different from your original intention.

Fucking brilliant. You've just shot yourself in the foot again!

Socialist worker get constantly misrepresented on here, but you're not doing it disingenuously, You actually belive all the bullshit. I don't even recognise the party that is discussed on here. ie a few words is taken out of context from Lindsey German, and then said socialist worker has given up on gay rights. Pickman saying something like, SW intentionally fuckup the workers movement. You something like,the the SW CC deceive it's own membership, and have no interest in creating a classless society.. but when you and anarchism is genuinely misunderstood back to you, you cant accept it.

The way it seems to me is that there are two or three options, and that's all.

1) That the SWP, through the "democratic centralism" of the CC, deliberately fuck up the "workers movement" (whatever the fuck that is).

2) That the constant screw-ups are not the product of malice, but of ineptness,
or
3) That there's some kind of agenda at work beyond being a fringe political organisation, whether that's providing a living for the CC, or sucking a tramp's armpit.

probably because keep repeating that, which doesn't actually make sense to me, isn't going to move us forward.


BTW I have never lied on here, there is no point. I find it funny that is the only way you can interpret my comments.

Someone who's been indoctrinated doesn't see the stuff they spout as lies, but as a "revealed truth". It's why you're so similar to bible-thumpers.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think that the Socialist Workers Party is full of very learned and interesting members; Owen Jones for example. However, they always seem to be at the core of divisions in working-class movements. The SSP split in Scotland, Respect in England. Maybe it is unfair. I just do not understand why they have not merged with other small organisations, accept that socialism needs a united voice, and they seem happy to control one small party even when it loses ground to the BNP. The anarchists seem far more united.

You say "seem", I say "are proveably".

 

[butchersapron]

I think that the Socialist Workers Party is full of very learned and interesting members; Owen Jones for example. However, they always seem to be at the core of divisions in working-class movements. The SSP split in Scotland, Respect in England. Maybe it is unfair. I just do not understand why they have not merged with other small organisations, accept that socialism needs a united voice, and they seem happy to control one small party even when it loses ground to the BNP. The anarchists seem far more united.

Owen Jones is in the labour party not the SWP.

 

[Pickman's model]

given you before.

link or stfu

 

[Pickman's model]

anarchists AND socialist have tried to substitute themselves for the self activity of the working class. I've given the example of James Connolly, the socialist. However, I am arguing neither socialist nor anarchists can practically substitute themselves for the self activity on the working class, because the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class. I am arguing, it is illusory to believe Socialists or anarchists they can bring about a classless society, social revolutionaries should try to promote the self activity of the working class, FOUR. ONLY THEY CAN ANTICIPATE THEMSELVES.

I have said this many times, I don't know why you're asking me to explain it again.

this being the case why did you say not three hours ago that 'neither anarchists or socialists can substitute themselves for working class self activity'? either they are able to do this, as you claim to have argued previously, or they can't as you argued earlier today. which is it?

 

[Pickman's model]

given you before.

out of curiosity, how would you characterise the swp's behaviour in the socialist alliance if you deny that the swp were deliberately harming 'the workers movement'.

 

[articul8]

what was with all the cryptic stuff re Casually Red? Seemed to be inferred he was a plastic paddy pro Real IRA-er?

 

[The39thStep]

I think that the Socialist Workers Party is full of very learned and interesting members; Owen Jones for example. However, they always seem to be at the core of divisions in working-class movements. The SSP split in Scotland, Respect in England. Maybe it is unfair. I just do not understand why they have not merged with other small organisations, accept that socialism needs a united voice, and they seem happy to control one small party even when it loses ground to the BNP. The anarchists seem far more united.

Good grief

 

[LiamO]

Ah for jaysus there's paple to be sorting yet.

Oh god i heard abut this fillumm about al-jazieria.

So you are trolling a man from the North of Ireland by writing 'wittily' in a Dublin accent? How ingenious. And you even got in the the empathetic vowel thing. Hilarious. Oh you are juxtaposing his generalisations with yours. How my sides ache.

 

[LiamO]

you do accept that there are 'lifestyle' type anarchos and 'class struggle ' type anarchos' , and they're about as close politically / ideologically as RA would once have been to new left type hippies who would also have identified themselves as 'Reds' ?

There you are. All settled nicely in one simple sentence. Could have saved all that pissiness, couldn't we?