Liberty and Solidarity
Jul 2 2008 10:25
#62
but you still haven't presented your alternative ideology
Jul 2 2008 12:49
#63
Ariege wrote:
Well, it seems we're in the presence of Sherlock Holmes, and for your next trick what are you going to do? Tell me my shoe size from the brand of tobacco I smoke?
Size 13, and you don't smoke - trick question 
Oct 28 2009 08:24
#64
john wrote:
but you still haven't presented your alternative ideology
They have now:
We Must Win; We Can't Win; How We Will Win.
Understanding Motive Forces and the Motors of Change.
http://www.libertyandsolidarity.org/node/66
Any thoughts, analysis, interpretations of this recent text?
Oct 28 2009 04:17
#65
Quote:
Any thoughts, analysis, interpretations of this recent text?
Yeah. The author is a crazy person.
But of pseudoscience bull.
Oct 28 2009 08:39
#66
Quote:
Almost every activists knows (well, almost every activist SHOULD know), whether they are active in a trade union or workplace organisation, or residents association or community organisation, or whether they are trying to kickstart such organisation, that a successful campaign must be winnable. That is an interesting concept and one that the more impressionistic left will argue contradicts 'anarchism's' or 'socialism's' need to demand the impossible.
I read that far. Then skimmed quickly and when I saw SMART targets I gave up - I get enough of them at work.
That said, what's so new about the statement. To me it's stating the bleeding obvious. I'd never get involved in a campaign if I didn't think it had a chance of winning. Trots do it all the time as part of their transitional demands ideology. AF members would always expect there to be an outside chance of winning. So it's SBO and strawmen time, I think.
Oct 28 2009 08:49
#67
knightrose wrote:
I'd never get involved in a campaign if I didn't think it had a chance of winning. Trots do it all the time as part of their transitional demands ideology. AF members would always expect there to be an outside chance of winning. So it's SBO and strawmen time, I think.
Pretty sure I saw you at Rossport, also your group supports No2ID.Though there are different levels of victories perhaps.
Oct 28 2009 09:10
#68
yearzero wrote:
http://www.libertyandsolidarity.org/node/66
Any thoughts, analysis, interpretations of this recent text?
I must admit I don't know why he needed to write 2000 words when a small paragraph would have done.
The organiser model, it's a good one, it works, and er make sure you fight to win on issues that are actually relevant to a significant number of people.
There you go, one sentence. 
Oct 28 2009 09:30
#69
Quote:
Pretty sure I saw you at Rossport, also your group supports No2ID.Though there are different levels of victories perhaps.
You probably did - but in that case you are arguing about my judgment about whether the campaign was winnable or not. You were in the WSM at the time, weren't you? They have a policy of only getting involved in winnable campaigns - assuming I've read their stuff properly. That'd mean your judgment was as accurate as mine.
The AF does not support No2ID. We were active in Defy ID. We'd thought it would kick off into a campaign similar to the Poll Tax one. It seems likely that we were wrong in that.
Oct 28 2009 09:41
#70
Quote:
In the organiser model, the organiser is encouraged to view individuals not as personalities and pals, but as a dynamic within the struggle. Organisers are taught that they should analyse the social interactions of groups, and look at people's personalities.
which?
Quote:
There is no option left to us now than to focus on the hard science of marketing and mass psychology, and anything less hard-headed is not optimised for victory. . . . remembering that . . . we need to inculcate those leadership characteristics into the whole of our class thru experiential development with a managerial focus that puts the capitalists to shame.
There are some good points in amongst it all, e.g. -
Quote:
Leftists expect working people to hold internally consistent ideas, and for the logic of one argument not to contradict the logic of another argument. Time and again however, when this perception is tested, people prove that they can hold onto competing theories which directly contradict each other at the same time.
- but overall, I think there's a bit of work to be done before the Platform is included in MBA reading lists next to The Art of War.
Oct 28 2009 09:56
#71
Libertaria wrote:
Quote:
Any thoughts, analysis, interpretations of this recent text?Yeah. The author is a crazy person.
But of pseudoscience bull.
Isn't it Dundee United who wrote it?
http://www.anarchistblackcat.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5318
Also, the emphasis on mass psychology? Does anyone else not feel a bit off with this? Maybe I'm just not hard headed enough. 
Oct 28 2009 10:47
#72
Quote:
It's all very well having a theory, but the movement needs to be much more managerial than it has been. (from the ABC discusion forum)
Perhaps there's a very special meaning of 'managerial' at work here, but this sounds to me flatly non communist. Who is going to do the managing? The author? L&S? Are the rest of us going to be managed?
Oct 28 2009 11:25
#73
Yeah, that's what I found, a lot of it read as though the author had genuinely never encountered the anarchist critiques of hierarchy within revolutionary organisations. And, f'r instance, when he says "Leaders in social groups may be vital to get onside in an organising campaign" - that, to me, sounds a lot like the reasoning that led the SWP to make such great efforts to suck up to members of the bourgeoisie who happen to be Asian, because they're "leaders of the oppressed Muslim community". Union bureaucrats are also definitely leaders in social groups... I could go on.
Also, lol at the "More like this: British Trotskyism".
Oct 28 2009 12:56
#74
knightrose wrote:
when I saw SMART targets I gave up - I get enough of them at work.
yup.
i was going to link here to the ABC thread, but your man shorty has done it just above.
Oct 28 2009 14:05
#75
This does not fully represent the view of L&S as an organisation, but just one member. I certainly don't agree with the managerial approach, and I doubt most of our members have even read that article to be honest, which given that it directly contradicts our positions is just as well.
Mind you, I don't think it's as bad as it comes across, he just can't write.
Oct 28 2009 14:06
#76
petey wrote:
knightrose wrote:
when I saw SMART targets I gave up - I get enough of them at work.yup.
i was going to link here to the ABC thread, but your man shorty has done it just above.
to be honest management jargon makes me cringe, but i don't see a problem with anarchists setting goals, and if they do that they should be specific, measurable, realistic and time-bound, no? i mean we don't need to be talking arbitrary new labour/management targets here, just setting a goal for a particular project or campaign to be considered a success. if you don't do that you just end up with the backslapping delusions of most of the activist left, where you're doing well, and the only course of action is to do it more. you need to know when you're failing so you can reappraise.
Oct 28 2009 14:30
#77
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:In the organiser model, the organiser is encouraged to view individuals not as personalities and pals, but as a dynamic within the struggle. Organisers are taught that they should analyse the social interactions of groups, and look at people's personalities.
which?
Poor wording.
Contrasts (Merriam-Webster definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/personality): 1 a : the quality or state of being a person b : personal existence, and, 2 a : the condition or fact of relating to a particular person; specifically : the condition of referring directly to or being aimed disparagingly or hostilely at an individual b : an offensively personal remark <angrily resorted to personalities> with 3 a : the complex of characteristics that distinguishes an individual or a nation or group; especially : the totality of an individual's behavioral and emotional characteristics b : a set of distinctive traits and characteristics <the energetic personality of the city>.
Could have phrased it better. But I'm sure most people knew what I was on at.
Quote:
Yeah. The author is a crazy person.
Hiya! Thanks for the feedback. 
Cogent political analysis starts with off-hand ad hominem of course. That's why the anarchist movement has such developed politics and culture of critical engagement.
Quote:
nd, f'r instance, when he says "Leaders in social groups may be vital to get onside in an organising campaign" - that, to me, sounds a lot like the reasoning that led the SWP to make such great efforts to suck up to members of the bourgeoisie who happen to be Asian, because they're "leaders of the oppressed Muslim community".
Do you think you could actually get further in your goals WITHOUT getting those who are opinion-leaders/makers within their social groups, communities, or workplaces?
Quote:
a lot of it read as though the author had genuinely never encountered the anarchist critiques of hierarchy within revolutionary organisations.
Far be it for me to suggest that there might be a difference between institutional hierarchy and leadership or anything, but hey...
Quote:
I could go on.
Perhaps you could explain why you think being against institutional hierarchies means denying that some people hold more sway over others in social situations. And also why anarchists should consciously set out to fuck off all of those who could help to convince others of our views, and that.
Oct 28 2009 14:34
#78
Dundee_United wrote:
Do you think you could actually get further in your goals WITHOUT getting those who are opinion-leaders/makers within their social groups, communities, or workplaces?
Oct 28 2009 15:09
#79
Joseph Kay wrote:
petey wrote:
knightrose wrote:
when I saw SMART targets I gave up - I get enough of them at work.yup.
to be honest management jargon makes me cringe, but i don't see a problem with anarchists setting goals, and if they do that they should be specific, measurable, realistic and time-bound, no?
yes, but right here on the corkboard in front of me is my yearly SMART goals sheet and i had an allergic reaction. (i think knightrose is saying the same, it's the SMART not so much the idea behind it.)
Oct 28 2009 15:43
#80
Yeah i don't think anyone's opposed to having targets/goals and ways to get there - it's the co-option of business-speak that makes people's skin fucking crawl.
Oct 28 2009 16:02
#81
vanilla.ice.baby wrote:
This does not fully represent the view of L&S as an organisation, but just one member. I certainly don't agree with the managerial approach, and I doubt most of our members have even read that article to be honest, which given that it directly contradicts our positions is just as well.
Then why is it on your website?
Oct 28 2009 16:09
#82
vanilla.ice.baby wrote:
This does not fully represent the view of L&S as an organisation, but just one member. I certainly don't agree with the managerial approach, and I doubt most of our members have even read that article to be honest, which given that it directly contradicts our positions is just as well.
Don't you just love 'theoretical and tactical unity'.
Devrim
Oct 28 2009 16:29
#83
Quote:
That is why we must focus on the organiser model, remembering that people are creatures of habit, conformity is a social force, and that people are driven not by the many, but by the law of the few, and that we need to inculcate those leadership characteristics into the whole of our class thru experiential development with a managerial focus that puts the capitalists to shame. It is time we stamped a generalised theory of organisational operations onto the mind of every socialist, experientially, and ridiculed the ideas that have gotten us nowhere, for the ossified 19th century communications strategies that they are
Yeah who needs all this rank and file stuff, lets just skip thhat and lets just have a cadre organisation full of professional revolutionaries, i bet no-ones ever tried that one before 
Oct 28 2009 16:39
#84
Perhaps L&S should start to a Militant Consultancy to help radical groups 'maximise the value from their teams'? http://www.outstandingteams.com/Meet-the-Packtypes.aspx
Oct 28 2009 18:57
#85
knightrose wrote:
Quote:
that a successful campaign must be winnable. That is an interesting concept and one that the more impressionistic left will argue contradicts 'anarchism's' or 'socialism's' need to demand the impossible.AF members would always expect there to be an outside chance of winning. So it's SBO and strawmen time, I think.
Should be an at least 50% chance of winning to be worth getting involved in my opinion.
Is Dundee just using the word "managerial" to be controversial? Because the 'organizer model' has nothing to do with managerial ways of thinking. How can you control your gag reflex at all the management speak? Hip marketing gurus have nothing to contribute even to managers, they are so fucking obviously bullshit merchants.
Oct 28 2009 18:56
#86
Dundee_United wrote:
Quote:
nd, f'r instance, when he says "Leaders in social groups may be vital to get onside in an organising campaign" - that, to me, sounds a lot like the reasoning that led the SWP to make such great efforts to suck up to members of the bourgeoisie who happen to be Asian, because they're "leaders of the oppressed Muslim community".Do you think you could actually get further in your goals WITHOUT getting those who are opinion-leaders/makers within their social groups, communities, or workplaces?
I think that often those who are "opinion-leaders/makers within their communities", f'r instance, will be those who're in positions of power, whose interests will be directly opposed to the goals of any group seeking to challenge existing structures of power and privilege. No?
Quote:
Quote:
a lot of it read as though the author had genuinely never encountered the anarchist critiques of hierarchy within revolutionary organisations.Far be it for me to suggest that there might be a difference between institutional hierarchy and leadership or anything, but hey...
I certainly couldn't find anything in your article suggesting it. Sorry if I missed it.
Quote:
Quote:
I could go on.Perhaps you could explain why you think being against institutional hierarchies means denying that some people hold more sway over others in social situations. And also why anarchists should consciously set out to fuck off all of those who could help to convince others of our views, and that. :)
I don't deny that some people hold more sway than others, I'm not convinced that we should engage with it as being an unproblematic fact of life without recognising that these people are often in positions of relative power or privilege, which often puts their interests in conflict with ours, as I've said. It's hard to think of anyone who could do more to convince people of our views than Rupert Murdoch, does this mean that we should consciously set out to appeal to him rather than fucking him off?
BTW, if I was looking to fuck everyone off, I can think of few better ways to do it than to declare that I'm planning to treat them as dyamics in the struggle, not personalities or pals. Of course, all writings on revolutionary strategy, at least in a wholly unrevolutionary period like ours, will have to deal with the problem of how the tiny revolutionary minorities can relate to the class as a whole, so we'll always be open to charges of elitism in some form; but I'm convinced there are far better ways of getting around this problem than by just uncritically adopting the strategies used by the bourgeoisie to manage our class, as if the problem was just that the wrong people were doing the managing and not the relations of domination themselves.
Sorry if I sound like an anarcho-purist, or an "impressionist", whatever one of those is (what is etienne-de-la-boete, btw?); but if I am one, that's because for a long time I was a "pragmatic" leftist, and over time I came to realise through my expriences that the leftist tactics I was using were ultimately not effective in winning my goals. I don't want to see other comrades repeating my mistakes.
I can't help noticing you didn't answer posi's question about who's doing the managing and who's getting managed, either...
Oct 28 2009 19:09
#87
Dundee_United wrote:
Do you think you could actually get further in your goals WITHOUT getting those who are opinion-leaders/makers within their social groups, communities, or workplaces?
I would have thought that your goal, as a revolutionary of some sort, would be to ultimately undermine the the informal power that these "opinion-leaders/makers" have, rather than to reinforce it by pander.
Oct 28 2009 20:13
#88
dundee is one of the creepiest forum "anarchists" i've ever encountered on the interwebs. for instance here are some posts of theirs from ABC:
the ends justify the means -
Dundee_United wrote:
Quote:
Nor should individuals be disallowed from expressing public disagreement with particular points as long as they indicate this is only their own viewpoint.Why?
If it is tactically appropriate to ask for absolute adherence to a line, why is it an issue?
I have always been confused by this one. The political organisation does not exist to make people feel comfortable, or that they are expressing their voice. It exists to push forward victory. It has no other purpose. Sometimes that includes tough decisions with real world consequences. In certain situations there can clearly be no alternative but to insist on cast iron discipline.
and pro-vanguardist views
Dundee_United wrote:
Quote:
I'm arguing that from what I've read of the Platform [...] it is just a vanguardist diatribe in order to basically turn anarchism into some weird from of Leninism.One: I am happy to term myself vanguardist. I believe the leading elements of the class should be those who set the direction of our mass organisations.
now i'm not against the platform per se. but with the above quotes and the aforementioned article i am pretty sure the whole absolute theoretical and tactical unity without any room for a direct or dissenting say in the matter "ultra-platformism" that dundee seems to be pushing sounds awfully authoritarian. i think really though the managerial overtones are what pushed it over the edge for me.
so anarchist organizations should be super exclusive militantly disciplined cadres/sects? why don't we all just form tiny marxist-lenninist insurrectionist guerrilla groups and mow down cops on scooters a la greece?
Oct 28 2009 20:32
#89
cantdocartwheels wrote:
Yeah who needs all this rank and file stuff, lets just skip thhat and lets just have a cadre organisation full of professional revolutionaries, i bet no-ones ever tried that one before roll eyes
Well, speaking of Marxist-Leninist tactics, there's some interesting analysis of the Bolsheviks' attitude towards dissent on ABC:
Dundee_United wrote:
But I think we also have to understand that in the same circumstances their choices were limited. During the course of an existential civil war, where imperialism is uniting to crush the socialist project, how would you have dealt with strikes and dissent against the regime?Would you have tolerated open rebellion (from whichever ideological root), to give succour to more rebellion elsewhere? Or would you have made examples?
Oct 28 2009 20:35
#90
eww ugh continued scariness...
totally platformism gone wrong if you ask me.
Well, it seems we're in the presence of Sherlock Holmes, and for your next trick what are you going to do? Tell me my shoe size from the brand of tobacco I smoke? If you don't care how I live then don't comment on things you really do know nothing about.
Your presumption is that I advocate that everyone should think as I do and endeavour to live as I do. I never offered my lifestyle as an ideology. You don't know how realistic my life choices are for very many people because you have no fucking clue how much money I have, whether I own a land or a house, whether I am black, white, gay, straight, a native of the Ariege; whether I live and work in as part of an association or if I live in an isolated valley and wear camo's all the time because I'm afraid the balck helicopters are coming.
I'm glad you're happy to stand corrected mate, because so you stand.