Are Council Communists Libertarian?

188 posts / 0 new
Last post
btheb
Offline
Joined: 15-03-12
Mar 16 2012 04:30

I have always assumed that the latter is precisely what anarchists were always fighting to defend, but now you guys are basically saying that doesn't matter in terms of the difference between "libertarian" and "authoritarian.
Admin; spam link removed

communal_pie's picture
communal_pie
Offline
Joined: 18-10-08
Mar 16 2012 07:07

"Such are the sewer-morals of ultra-left apparatchiks."

Don't certain people call anarchists that too, and yes I mean including the apparatchik bit too. It's a bit of a stupid thing to say really, but then stupid is as stupid does as they say.

no.25's picture
no.25
Offline
Joined: 14-01-12
Mar 16 2012 08:26

That was some crafty spam.

Lol mciver, I don't even know how to respond to your post, but thank you for taking the time to reply with what seems to be a condensed history of the anarchist expansion of capital and the ICC, but I can't say that you've entirely convinced me. The Marxist Left isn't confined to Left-Communists, but I'm sure you'd have much to say about them as well, for it must be only your tendency (whatever that is) which is free of blight.

Also, I was being sarcastic about the Committees.

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Mar 16 2012 23:12

communal_pie, post 184

Quote:
"Such are the sewer-morals of ultra-left apparatchiks."
Don't certain people call anarchists that too, and yes I mean including the apparatchik bit too. It's a bit of a stupid thing to say really, but then stupid is as stupid does as they say.

So what that 'certain people call anarchists that too...'? Does this deny the antics of ultra-left apparatchiks? And call anarchists what? 'Sewer-morals'? Imagine a business card: Mr M Bakunin Sewer-Morals. My post focused on the specific rampages and statements by ultra-left or left communists, not anarchists, so in regards to anarchists it may be "a stupid thing to say really" or not, depending on the evidence that 'certain people' (?) present. As you don't offer any example, your little retort boomerangs as straight trolling, clanging off your skull. You seem to be a left comm groupie, so yes, if you are one, stupid is as stupid does, as you give away yourself.

n.25

Quote:
Lol mciver, I don't even know how to respond to your post, but thank you for taking the time to reply with what seems to be a condensed history of the anarchist expansion of capital and the ICC, but I can't say that you've entirely convinced me. The Marxist Left isn't confined to Left-Communists, but I'm sure you'd have much to say about them as well, for it must be only your tendency (whatever that is) which is free of blight.

Also, I was being sarcastic about the Committees.

Yes, you were being sarcastic, but allow my expanding the tone, by describing sleazoid infatuations with 'Committees of Public Safety' which apparatchiks really consider as 'necessary evils during the revolution', but mostly leave unmentioned. Why? They willingly blind themselves to the atrocities of their icons, or justify barbarism as 'mistakes'. Fancy that -- exterminating humans like vermin as the 'internationalist Bolsheviks' did -- a ...'mistake' of 'immaturity' because the Whites were doing the same, or because the honest and principled Committeemen became possessed and corrupted by some resident evil called 'the state'. As if they hadn't planned to become statesmen all their political lives, and trained to become exactly that in their rackets and parties.

I wasn't trying to convince you of anything. Being a witness is enough, no need to belong to any tendency (you mean racket). You mention blights. No, nobody is free of them, that includes witnesses and unaligned critics, they too can become 'one-person rackets' if they manipulate and betray their personal integrity, above all their need to be happy to make others happy.

These insights made in 2009 may or may not help answer your query, if one could be free of blight:

Quote:
This strange attempt at a taxonomy of moral types is tending to use definitions based on roles and acts – on who people are and what they do rather than on social relations as a whole. Thus ... asserts that Lenin is a revolutionary and ... identifies inactivity with regard to participation in reformist campaigns as the unacceptable face of Left Communism.

Both sets of assertions follow classic sectarian lines: both externalise error, both end up supplying themselves as examples of righteousness and the correct path, both seem to enjoy their splendid isolation and the opportunity it gives them to exercise sectarian elitism, and their misanthropic contempt for others (which so often is the dominant underlying psychological trait of political activists). The resultant discussion has tended towards the ‘they are wrong, I am right’ variety.

In fact there is no such thing as a ‘revolutionary’ (contra Marx, ‘man’ is not so simply the root of himself) because revolution is an event within social relations and necessarily involves the presence of others. Lenin could not have been simply a ‘revolutionary’ – as he was also an agent of the Austrian and German ruling class. From this we see that he did indeed ‘side with’ or do a deal with a fraction of the ruling class, which is perhaps why his activities under their aegis resembled a jacobinist coup d’etat against the remnants of the ancien regime on the back of, but not particularly in accord with, profound social dislocation and popular revolt.

Nobody has ever achieved the self-identical status of ‘revolutionary’ – revolution does not begin at the level of either the being or the activity of individual existents.

To slightly modify the Lacan/Kojeve line, revolution is the revolution of the Other. In other words, it is not what you or I, or Lenin or Kropotkin does, it is how others receive and reciprocate the messages that are transmitted – the issue at hand is the movement of the entirety of the class and this will always transcend and flow past the ‘principles’ and programmes of ‘revolutionaries’.

Until moralist ‘revolutionaries’ such as ... make the necessary shift in their analysis from individual acts and roles to social relations they will continue to define themselves by who they are not and in consequence will continue to exist in a state of moralising isolation (a fate that will no doubt secretly please them). ...

fort-da game http://libcom.org/forums/theory/difference-between-anarchism-left-communism-14112009?page=3

However, the category 'the entirety of the class', like the 'collective worker', suggests a divinity, an entity needing self-appointed representatives like 'pro revolutionaries', or at worst, a racket type grouping who speaks arrogantly in the name of this entity. Also, to attempt to grasp social relations, not focusing on individual acts and roles, should not mean that individual choices are irrelevant. This said, a good warning -- to moralise against others is emptied of meaning if other alienations are defended, unconsciously or not. Morality does exist, and it is refracted in individual choices, not always happily. Philippe Claudel's Brodeck's Report is a a grim reminder of this, from the dark side of experience.

communal_pie's picture
communal_pie
Offline
Joined: 18-10-08
Mar 17 2012 03:52
mciver wrote:
communal_pie, post 184
Quote:
"Such are the sewer-morals of ultra-left apparatchiks."
Don't certain people call anarchists that too, and yes I mean including the apparatchik bit too. It's a bit of a stupid thing to say really, but then stupid is as stupid does as they say.

So what that 'certain people call anarchists that too...'? Does this deny the antics of ultra-left apparatchiks? And call anarchists what? 'Sewer-morals'? Imagine a business card: Mr M Bakunin Sewer-Morals. My post focused on the specific rampages and statements by ultra-left or left communists, not anarchists, so in regards to anarchists it may be "a stupid thing to say really" or not, depending on the evidence that 'certain people' (?) present. As you don't offer any example, your little retort boomerangs as straight trolling, clanging off your skull. You seem to be a left comm groupie, so yes, if you are one, stupid is as stupid does, as you give away yourself.

Trolling or thickness, I don't know which, probably a little of both, but you are really scraping the barrel here. Why don't you ever contribute something actually constructive apart from just obsessive trolling about the ICC. It makes you seem a little weird and like a pointless so and so.

Also, how do you qualify this:

Quote:
Lenin could not have been simply a ‘revolutionary’ – as he was also an agent of the Austrian and German ruling class.

What are you anyway? One of those conspiracy theorist types..?

Spikymike
Offline
Joined: 6-01-07
Apr 6 2012 13:28

I don't particularly wish to re-start this whole discussion thread having already roused mciver's criticism of my own particular attempts at 'self-labelling' in his thread no 177 but I do al least appreciate his attempts in this thread to more fully explain his own theoretical framework and the linked document by G.M.Tamas 'Telling the truth about class' in his post no 182.

I struggled a bit with that document since I am not very familiar with many of the original contributions of the cross referenced authors (apart perhaps from E.P.Thompson) but I did understand the similarities in the critique of the 'old workers movement' with that of some 'communisers' such as End Notes (though mciver considers these of limited value) and with aspects of the analysis of my Nihilist Communist comrades. I also thought I saw some similarities with the post-1945 periodisation of the real domination of capital in Claude Bitot's text in the library here - someone who is a very traditional marxist in some other respects (on which I also failed to get a discussion going). The document uses a different and interesting comparison between the analysis of the 'later Marx' and that which it identifies as a form of 'Rousseauian socialism' that has still been evident even in many self-proclaimed marxists.

I'm not so far convinced by mciver's or G.M.Tamas's view that there is such a rigid divide in practice between the 'Rousseauian and Marxist' understanding of social change but the linked text certainly deserves a place in the library here and some more consideration than it has so far received.