icc bunfight - split from france thread
Mar 19 2006 13:13
Quote:
At the ICC’s public meeting in Paris the young generation were well represented. The level of questions asked was very impressive: What are the differences between today and 1968?; What is the meaning of the movement?; Is it a proletarian movement?; What are the differences with the riots? The discussion was very powerful and it was very inspiring to see the earnestness and enthusiasm of the younger participants. To be able to help them grapple with the questions they posed was moving. This was even more so, given that only a few months ago, comrades were discussing the terrible impact of the riots.
What, you mean you had three young people at a meeting 
Mar 17 2006 12:23
#2
Already, and right on cue, the "anarchists" are setting up the fascist bogeyman. Fascism (or thugs that call themselves "fascist") are absolutely incidental to this specific attack on working class youth from the French state and the question here is not "anti-fascism", but support and solidarity with this section of the working class, the denounciation of the French state as well as its leftist and trade union accomplices. But the brewing up of the "anarchists" anti-fascism falls right behind the actions of the French state by obscuring the real nature of the attack and by, through the great "anti-fascist alliance", pointing to a false (insignificant in this case) enemy and by trying to get those under attack to identify with their "anti-fascist" enemies - stalinists, leftists and democrats.
Mar 17 2006 12:36
#3
baboon wrote:
Already, and right on cue, the "anarchists" are setting up the fascist bogeyman. Fascism (or thugs that call themselves "fascist") are absolutely incidental to this specific attack on working class youth from the French state and the question here is not "anti-fascism", but support and solidarity with this section of the working class, the denounciation of the French state as well as its leftist and trade union accomplices. But the brewing up of the "anarchists" anti-fascism falls right behind the actions of the French state by obscuring the real nature of the attack and by, through the great "anti-fascist alliance", pointing to a false (insignificant in this case) enemy and by trying to get those under attack to identify with their "anti-fascist" enemies - stalinists, leftists and democrats.
Ha ha amazing stuff. Actually what we've done is report fascist attacks - with the co-operation of the government - on the workers' movement, thus helping demonstrate to other workers that fascism is not in their interests.
You absolute muppet. The only "alliance" hinted at by the reporting is the one between the capitalist state and the fascists - who are on the same side in this conflict against the working class. 
Mar 18 2006 13:13
#4
John,
you say you merely "reported fascist attacks... helping to demonstrate to other workers that fascism is not in their interests" and the only alliance you refer to is between the government and the fascists. That's exactly what you said. But the alliance that you are resurrecting, the alliance that you are constantly resurrecting, is the anti-fascist alliance - you are just parroting the ideology behind it. It's the alliance with the remnants of stalinism, leftism and the democratic state. Anti-fascism in this very clear and dramatic expression of the class struggle is not only a complete diversion, a complete waste of time and space, but an expression of a united front with the enemies of this struggle - the left, the unions and the state. It's the latter, not fascism (which is nothing but a bogeyman to frighten the children back into the arms of the state) which will pose the most serious problems to this (presently) expanding struggle.
This present struggle is the anti-thesis of this winter's riots in the suburbs because the strength of it lies in its consciousness, its organisation and its spread. For this to turn into riots or attacks on cars would show a severe weakness and cripple the steps that have been taken. The French press are now playing up incidental acts of violence trying to show the students up as mindless idiots, thus driving a wedge between them and the rest of the class. These lies by the press (as well as the blackout on news in GB) have to be denounced by showing the consciousness which is underlying and propeling this movement forward.
Mar 18 2006 13:35
#5
baboon wrote:
you say you merely "reported fascist attacks... helping to demonstrate to other workers that fascism is not in their interests" and the only alliance you refer to is between the government and the fascists. That's exactly what you said. But the alliance that you are resurrecting, the alliance that you are constantly resurrecting, is the anti-fascist alliance - you are just parroting the ideology behind it. It's the alliance with the remnants of stalinism, leftism and the democratic state.
What utter utter nonsense. What you've done here, is take your little ICC obsession with anarchists siding with the bourgeoisie against fascists, and trying to see it everywhere. So if an anarchist site mentions fascists you start foaming at the mouth, when in fact what we did was report a fascist attack by fascists supporting the government - with police collusion - on a working class demonstration.
What would you have us do, lie and say that the fascists didn't attack the workers, and the bourgeois government didn't assist them, and that actually fascists are alright really?
Mar 18 2006 22:17
#6
alibadani wrote:
Well if thousands of cars were bieng burnt that would be exciting. All that maturity, thoughtfullness, solidarity, debating, self-organising stuff is BORING. Assemblies at the Censier=YAWN! Occupation of the Sorbone=exciting. WHat did you expect ALF?
I'm sorry but that's really patronising and borderline offensive. Not to mention really fucking counter-productive. As if I'm some kinda violence fetishist. My point was...actually, fuck it, why do I have to defend myself against the ICC??
I guess I brought this attack on myself by trying to engage with you.
Mar 18 2006 22:35
#7
Alf wrote:
I've just been speaking on the phone to one of our comrades in France. He spoke at the Censier assembly the other day. He told the assembly that he had been talking on the phone to his son who lives in England; his son said that he had heard nothing about the events in France until the press published pictures of burning cars. My comrade said to the assembly: 'You know that the government controls the media, so who's interest does it serve to present this whole movement as just more rioting in the street?'. He was roundly cheered because the class conscious section of the students is totally opposed to the substitutionist violence used by certain kinds of anarchists, which is so easily manipulated by the state.These events show very sharply the line that separates the methods of struggle of the working class, and the 'classic' methods of anarchism, 'direct action' by irresponsible minorities. Those anarchists who see themselves as partisans of collective struggle and organisation really have to reflect on this. I suggest reading what Rosa Luxemburg wrote in the Mass Strike: that the 1905 struggles (which gave rise to the first soviets) revealed the historical bankruptcy of 'anarcho-communism' which was unable to offer anything more than this kind of falsely radical minority violence which is unreleated to the real needs of the struggle (and which has nothing to do with the authentic class violence of the proletariat).
And Baboon is perfectly right about anti-fascism. This is is a political question not an empirical one. Anti-fascism is clearly a diversion from the class struggle, a barrier against it, not something you can just tack on to it. Here again there's no room for ambiguity.
We agree about the need to provide more information about the assemblies. The comrade I spoke to is writing something now and it will be sent to you soon.
right you lying lil Admin edit: revol please don't flame!
a) no one has said the protesters should go burn some cars for the craic.
b) most people on Libcom have argued that the burning of cars and other acts of destruction carried out in the winter riots where more a sign of weakness than strenght.
c) The burning of cars is completely context based, burning a car for no reason is not a sign of militancy but of weakness, a lack of alternative avenues. However if the police assault the occupations and a pitched battle ensues I will have no issue taken with the burning of cars.
d)The ICC are as fucking relevant to this struggle as I am.
e) Youse fucks in the ICC have been unable to take serious issue with any of the coverage the comrades at libcom have been publishing (and I have to say I am deeply impressed with it, they really deserve much respect!). So you just pull out more bullshit strawmen about bourgeois anti fascism and anarchists fetishing of violence.
f) I think you'll find that anarcho communism was very fucking relevant to the russian working class well after 1905, whether it was in the Ukraine or in the streets of Petrograd or in the naval barracks of Kronstadt, anarcho communism sided always with the working class against the state capitalist surrogate bourgeois that was the Bolshevik party.
Mar 18 2006 22:39
#8
You tell 'em...
Mar 18 2006 22:54
#9
Rattail - were you...defending me?? 
Mar 19 2006 00:35
#10
I think you should all calm down and listen to what we are saying. Revol, your virulent language is not called for and should not be permitted. We are not saying that all anarchists are advocating this kind of violence. This has always been a conflict inside anarchism, between those who are trying to defend a class perspective, and those who are drawn to individualistic, substitutionist actions; in between these two poles there are many degrees of ambiguity. What the events in France are showing is that ambiguity on this question is openly untenable, because the ruling class is clearly using these actions against the movement on the one hand, and on the other hand the clearest section of the students and wage workers involved in this movement have openly declared their opposition to them.
The slurs about 'doing something' are totally empty, given that it's evident that we have been very directly involved in this movement.
Over the past few months we have noted a real improvement in the tone of the discussions we have had with different people on these boards and we do not want to go back to the way it was earlier on. Libcom as a whole benefited from this improvement - in particular, the banning of flaming from nearly all the categories - because it makes it much more likely that new elements looking to discuss revolutionary politics will not be turned away by futile abuse and insults.
Mar 19 2006 01:09
#11
I agree that the forums have become much more productive. I also think that Revol's criticisms were justified, even if his insult was not.
I think slurs about "doing something" are empty, but they were a response to criticism from the ICC who had yet to show that they had done anything. You criticised the blog, in my opinion wrongly, but more importantly you demonstrated the divisiveness you claim to oppose. You started criticising anachists and talking about anti-fascist diversion. While you may feel strongly about this you could have phrased this more sensibly. Instead of atacking us for having supported reactionary anti-fascism. Which we had not done. You could have pointed out that this was a potential danger.
I haven't seen Revol attack a new poster once. I have rarely seen it happen. If you want to move out of the ghetto try to exhibit the positivity that you claim others lack. Just because you don't use the word cunt does not mean that your posts are not attacks. Personally I think that your first post was flaming, it was irrelevant. It attacked a position that had not been advanced and criticised people needlessly. I'm not asking people to wak on eggshells but respect is a two way street.
Also, it is not "evident" that you have been directly involved. It is evident that you have produced a leaflet.
Either be constructive, which the conciliatory tone of your last post indicates is possible, or expect to be criticised in a destructive manner. If you show respect to others then they will show it to you.
I have sympathy with some of what you say, no one here wants to see these expressions of anger co-opted by a party or a union, or even defeated. Supporting the blog and providing news articles would be more productive than simply attacking them.
Mar 19 2006 01:09
#12
Alf wrote:
I think you should all calm down and listen to what we are saying. Revol, your virulent language is not called for and should not be permitted. We are not saying that all anarchists are advocating this kind of violence. This has always been a conflict inside anarchism, between those who are trying to defend a class perspective, and those who are drawn to individualistic, substitutionist actions; in between these two poles there are many degrees of ambiguity. What the events in France are showing is that ambiguity on this question is openly untenable, because the ruling class is clearly using these actions against the movement on the one hand, and on the other hand the clearest section of the students and wage workers involved in this movement have openly declared their opposition to them.The slurs about 'doing something' are totally empty, given that it's evident that we have been very directly involved in this movement.
Over the past few months we have noted a real improvement in the tone of the discussions we have had with different people on these boards and we do not want to go back to the way it was earlier on. Libcom as a whole benefited from this improvement - in particular, the banning of flaming from nearly all the categories - because it makes it much more likely that new elements looking to discuss revolutionary politics will not be turned away by futile abuse and insults.
Fuck off you patronising pimps of Bordigan boil pus. As if people on Libcom are not aware of the problems of alot that sails under the circle A, as if calling themselves libertarian communists is not a bout demarcation as an explicitly class struggle position.
We may as well insult the ICC for the crimes of Stalinism as youse all come under the wing of so called "Marxism", or how about we start denounding you for the SWP's cosying up to reactionary muslim associations and cheerleading the Iraqi "resistance"?
As for your whinging about forum behaviour, well considering your organisations reputation and contemporary form for base shit slinging, I really think it's youse who should consider yourselves lucky not to be banned.
Now kindly fuck off and let the rest of us engage with the actual issues.
p.s. Does it not kill you that for all your suppoused "Internationalism" a bunch of kids in London are leading the way in circulating information regarding these struggles? Where's your French section? Has he joined your australian section? Will their intervention be in the form of a suicide attack on the metro?
Mar 19 2006 05:30
#13
revol68 wrote:
Where's your French section? Has he joined your australian section? Will their intervention be in the form of a suicide attack on the metro?
If this is a reference to the ex-ICC member in Australia becoming a Muslim it's pretty off-base to say the least. I've met him twice (once in his ICC days and once post-conversion). He's a Muslim but he's not a fundamentalist and certainly doesn't support terrorism.
I disagree with the ICC on a range of issues but they don't deserve the abuse they regularly get here and they stand head and shoulders above generic anarchism in their analysis.
cheers
Pete
Mar 19 2006 05:33
#14
Peter wrote:
revol68 wrote:
Where's your French section? Has he joined your australian section? Will their intervention be in the form of a suicide attack on the metro?If this is a reference to the ex-ICC member in Australia becoming a Muslim it's pretty off-base to say the least. I've met him twice (once in his ICC days and once post-conversion). He's a Muslim but he's not a fundamentalist and certainly doesn't support terrorism.
I disagree with the ICC on a range of issues but they don't deserve the abuse they regularly get here and they stand head and shoulders above generic anarchism in their analysis.
cheers
Pete
oh good another ICC cyber spectre.
Your right of course, it was silly of me to think he would have turnt to fundamentalism, afterall if he'd wanted that kind of thing he would have stayed in the ICC.
Mar 19 2006 06:36
#15
Alan_is_Fucking_Dead wrote:
alibadani wrote:
Well if thousands of cars were bieng burnt that would be exciting. All that maturity, thoughtfullness, solidarity, debating, self-organising stuff is BORING. Assemblies at the Censier=YAWN! Occupation of the Sorbone=exciting. WHat did you expect ALF?I'm sorry but that's really patronising and borderline offensive. Not to mention really fucking counter-productive. As if I'm some kinda violence fetishist. My point was...actually, fuck it, why do I have to defend myself against the ICC??
I guess I brought this attack on myself by trying to engage with you.
Dude, I wasn't addressing you. I don't remember your posts. I was addressing Alf who seemed strangely out of character with his quote about 100 anarchists who can do no more than piss. Or something like that. Alf is annoyed at the lack of interest about what he thinks are the truly exciting things happening.
My point was to explain to Alf that such a response wasn't surprising. The shit that matters isn't as interesting to many folks as shit like "fascist" attacks and burning cars.
I don't speak for the ICC, in fact I'm probably doing them a disfavor, being a Bordigan puss pimple and what not. It does seem like the ICC is getting a lot more hits on its website since it began intervening on these forums.
Revol you're fucking hilarious dude. Those insults are great.
Mar 19 2006 06:42
#16
revol68 wrote:
oh good another ICC cyber spectre.
Really I'm not. Just have a look at the website linked below, the pamphlets my comrades and I have produced contain texts by communists who the ICC has denounced as modernists - Aufheben, Gilles Dauve, the SI, Wildcat (both the German and UK ones). Of people who post here I'm far closer to Redtwister than any of the ICC types.
I don't want to go through a laundry list of things I disagree with the ICC on because I don't think I have to to say that the abuse directed at the ICC is pathetic.
You disagree with them, fine, but there are people on this forum with far more dubious views than the ICC who don't get anywhere near the same amount of abuse. But of course they claim the nearly meaningless identity of anarchist which lets them into the club. What was it Debord said about anarchists? Something like 'they tolerate each other so they would tolerate anything'?
Pete
[Edit: I thought the Treason URL was in my signature. Anyway it's http://treason.metadns.cx ]
Edit 2: I put a space before the close bracket so it should work now. Thanks to Alan for putting the correct link in below.
Mar 19 2006 10:39
#17
Quote:
Really I'm not. Just have a look at the website linked below, the pamphlets my comrades and I have produced contain texts by communists who the ICC has denounced as modernists - Aufheben, Gilles Dauve, the SI, Wildcat (both the German and UK ones). Of people who post here I'm far closer to Redtwister than any of the ICC types.
Hi Peter, welcome to the forums. You'll find plenty of people here with a greater or lesser affinity to some of the names you posted.
The ICC made some decent contributions since they've posted here - we genuinely appreciate the information about censier even if it's been posted to slag us off for example. However, often their posts are against a straw man of people's views, not their actual arguments - and redtwister has been on the end of this misrepresentation as much any of us.
We've also had some very strange occurrences with a couple of ICC, or ICC sympathiser logins switching user and replying as each other, so it's become a bit of a running joke on the forums that each new ICC member/sympathiser is simply a new login. You''re clearly not though, and apologies for the frosty reception.
Quote:
But of course they claim the nearly meaningless identity of anarchist which lets them into the club. What was it Debord said about anarchists? Something like 'they tolerate each other so they would tolerate anything'?
I think you'll find there's very little tolerance of the views of a lot of anarchists on here - enough that we've had dozens of people complain that we've "driven" them away, and that the forums are hostile.
Pete
Quote:
[Edit: I thought the Treason URL was in my signature. Anyway it's http://treason.metadns.cx]
We switched sigs off so we don't get stupid ones, but thanks for the site.
Mar 19 2006 10:42
#18
Mar 19 2006 12:20
#19
Although Rattail's got a point about most things on here, this is an anti-flaming forum. Admin have banned other posters for less. C'mon, quit the cronyism and sort it out fellas. 
Mar 19 2006 13:02
#20
Alan_is_Fucking_Dead wrote:
Rattail's
hypocrite 
I think its a shame that Revol has allowed his valid criticisms to be sidetracked by including insults.
Mar 19 2006 13:06
#21
Alan_is_Fucking_Dead wrote:
Although Rattail's got a point about most things on here, this is an anti-flaming forum. Admin have banned other posters for less. C'mon, quit the cronyism and sort it out fellas. ;)
I came to yer fecking defence and this is the thanks i get.
As for this newbie coming in here like some jumped up western Sheriff, well i've news for you. I've been beating down on the beatneks and liberal scum that infest anarchism whilst you were wiping your jism from the lamenated edition of "When Insurrection Dies".
Mar 19 2006 13:20
#22
Peter wrote:
revol68 wrote:
oh good another ICC cyber spectre.
Really I'm not. Just have a look at the website linked below, the pamphlets my comrades and I have produced contain texts by communists who the ICC has denounced as modernists - Aufheben, Gilles Dauve, the SI, Wildcat (both the German and UK ones). Of people who post here I'm far closer to Redtwister than any of the ICC types.
I don't want to go through a laundry list of things I disagree with the ICC on because I don't think I have to to say that the abuse directed at the ICC is pathetic.
You disagree with them, fine, but there are people on this forum with far more dubious views than the ICC who don't get anywhere near the same amount of abuse. But of course they claim the nearly meaningless identity of anarchist which lets them into the club. What was it Debord said about anarchists? Something like 'they tolerate each other so they would tolerate anything'?
Pete
[Edit: I thought the Treason URL was in my signature. Anyway it's http://treason.metadns.cx]
yeah guy debord was prtty bang on when he slated the state of the anarchist millieu.
Unfortunately he was also a jumped up lil art student who beyond generic calls for workers councils didn't have much concretely interesting to say. His notion of the spectacle was nothing more than an over egged reading of Marx's fetishism of commodity vis a vis Lukacs and the Frankfurt School, and his only way of reintroducing the subject was in the form of an ahistorical essence and desire, that apparently had something to do with ripping up the paving stones and finding a beach.
And I love how youse noveuax left communists seem to think youse are doing something new, paving a new path, when in actual fact youse are more akin to a half aborted leninist feteous that has somehow managed to survive but only by being preserved in a vat of reified marxian semiotics.
Mar 19 2006 14:26
#23
Hey, can you post the url for treason again. When I click I get a page can't be found message.
Mar 19 2006 16:18
#24
Mar 19 2006 17:27
#25
knightrose wrote:
Hey, can you post the url for treason again. When I click I get a page can't be found message.
It's cos Peter accidentally put a bracket in the link:
Mar 19 2006 17:36
#26
Alan's post from the other thread - sorry 'bout that.
Alan wrote:
To be fair, it was a bourgeios anti-fascist (?) alliance borne out of a common enemy in the ICC. If you'd have backed the ICC cos of your dislike of Rollins it would have entirely discredited you.
Also, more importantly, your posts would be so much better if you dropped 14-year-old-emo-girl-posting-drunk-on-livejournal-esque* usage of profanity. Swearing is great when done well, but you've yet to pinpoint it. Your analysis is irritatingly accurate, but it would be easier to find were it not hidden in between conjecture on posters' penis sizes, stance on Northern Ireland or plain out patronisation (is that a word?) of those less intelligent than you.
There. Can I quit being constructive now??
EDIT: *In fact, it may just be easier for you to quit acting like a 14 year old emo girl. Razz There. I flamed. Am I gonna get censured now??
EDIT 2: Shit, move this again will ya?? And can Admin post when they split a thread??
Mar 19 2006 19:24
#27
I find it deeply unfortunate that while comrades in France battle with the might of the bourgeois state, some participants on this board appear to have lost its direction and seem more interested in battling each other.
First of all, some history. It was Rosa Luxemburg who, before the Russian Revolution had began to settle, embarked on a wide ranging critique of the Bolsheviks policies - and yet, despite her critique she was in complete solidarity with the Bolsheviks. The workers movement has always tried to critique its own theory and practice and this is driven by its all-consuming need to understand its own experience. Being a revolutionary allows no room for ego, for bruised feelings when another comrade criticises your work - what matters is not the fine feelings of this or that individual but the movement as a whole.
As far as I can see, not being a member of the ICC but a supporter, they have attempted to engage with the issues being raised by the French situation in precisely that critical spirit employed by Luxemburg. They stated, quite openly, their disagreements with the method behind the reportage undertaken by member of LibCom. Nowhere have they said that the blog in itself is a bad thing, that attempting to distribute news about the events is useless. Their concern seems to be that the reporting of the events needs to become better tool for the international working class and what is wrong with that?!
In response, some participants have claimed that the ICC has done nothing but criticise. It is true that they did not contribute to the blog - and they have responded to that criticism, by encouraging their French comrades to write something for it. But let's put this in perspective. Firstly, the ICC is an organisation in its own right and has a responsibility to produce its own analysis of the events according to its political positions - this analysis (which included reporting of the most important elements of the struggle) have been posted on its own website and both comrades and sympathisers of the ICC have pointed libcom members towards them. Secondly, they have also actively intervened in the struggle, speaking in assemblies and expressing their total solidarity with the struggle. As Alf has already pointed out, comrades of the ICC are the parents of some of the students involved in the struggle.
Lastly, this business about posters switching IDs and the implication that some of the sympathisers are fake. Firstly, at their own admission, there are some comrades of the ICC that can barely find the on-switch for a computer let alone manage posting on a bulletin board, so no doubt some mistakes were made. I seem to recall I cocked up my own first post and it took about three attempts before I could separate my ass from my elbow.
But more importantly, the ICC intervene as an organisation not as individuals so in one sense it doesn't really matter which comrade is intervening under which id. There's no conspiracy here, they are just trying to work out the best way to intervene and are learning as they go.
As for their sympathisers, I'm afraid we do actually exist! I support the ICC because I believe they are the clearest expression of proletarian class consciousness in the world today. I support their interventions in this forum because there are quite clearly elements here who - whatever their differences with the ICC and its supporters - have a genuine concern to contribute to the class movement. It is the duty of the ICC to seek out and support those elements, to engage in discussion with them, in order to draw out the greatest level of clarity in service to the working class. And it is thus the duty of the ICC's supporters to assist them in that task to the best of their ability.
It is incumbent upon all the genuine elements here to put aside the bad feeling and get back to the real task, which is looking for ways to express solidarity with our brothers in France. We will disagree on the way to do this - so let's discuss, openly and honestly, passionately if need be how best to go about it. But let's do it without rancour - that can only serve the class enemy.
Mar 19 2006 20:24
#28
Quote:
I support the ICC because I believe they are the clearest expression of proletarian class consciousness in the world today.
thats just genuis, class consciousness of course being measured in obscure ramblings and not in the actual collective activity of the proletariat.
Mar 19 2006 21:49
#29
Demogorgon303 wrote:
I find it deeply unfortunate that while comrades in France battle with the might of the bourgeois state, some participants on this board appear to have lost its direction and seem more interested in battling each other.
I know, I can't believe those cocks from the ICC started slagging us off instead of showing solidarity.
Mar 19 2006 22:36
#30
No surprise that I welcome Demogorgon’s post, which is a very clear attempt to explain where we are coming from. I also welcome the efforts of Peter to argue against the unpolitical abuse of the ICC, and the comments of other – libertarian - comrades who have tried to bring things back to the path of discussion, and have been prepared to recognise that we have made some useful contributions to these boards. Just two points, then I would prefer to take things back to the thread about the meaning of these events.
First, we are not denigrating the work of libcom on publicising the events, nor are we ‘jealous’ about it. In fact we encourage it and have made reference in our latest statement (‘Welcome to the new generation of the working class’) to the efforts of the ‘wildcat’ information networks to break the wall of silence erected by the ruling class. If any of our posts have given this impression, it was not intended, and I am sure that our supporters would concur with that.
Second, on ‘cyber spectres’. Every time this accusation has been raised, it has been refuted. All the ICC members and supporters who have done posts are real, separate people, and if necessary, we are prepared to prove it. The one example of mixed identities you can point is the one between myself and jaycee. And I admit we do often use the same computer – he’s my son, so it’s not very surprising. I am glad that there was a retraction of the accusation against Peter, but really, this game should stop.
Better "three young people" who can discuss politics seriously than 100 anarchists who can do no more than take the piss.
We've set down our overall analysis of the movement, which we have developed not from 'on high' but through direct participation in the assemblies and coordinations. Why don't people respond to that?