Liberty and Solidarity

Even aside from the question of whether that's the "right" or "wrong" thing to do, it would be hard to claim that support of the Venezuelan military is a practical, winnable demand that anarchists can deliver, which is surely their selling point?

this is a whole other discussion so i won't derail further. i'm happy to discuss it on another thread though. needless to say i think a materialist critique of the CNT is necessary, especially for anarcho-syndicalists, but that the differences in the CNT in July '36 were more between anarchists and 'straight union activists' than between leadership and rank-and-file; lots of prominent leaders - Durruti, Garcia Oliver etc were actively involved in street-level fighting and so on. actually a very interesting discussion if someone wants to start it.

"Ultra left" is generally a pejorative term which is employed in an attempt to shut down discussion of questionable or fallacious arguments for compromise.

It's part of L&S' armoury of Blairite manipulated language, alongside words such as "practical", "pragmatic", "organiser" etc etc...

Dundee - apropos of this, http://www.libertyandsolidarity.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=77 - you may be interested in an article on page 19 of the SWP's leaked pre conference bulletin, which is by a couple of people building an SWP branch, and collecting statistics and what have you as they do it.

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/ref_files/Preconf%20Bulletin%201%20Oct09.pdf

If L&S really are to be Machiavellian and focus so much on presentation and communication in order to further their "goals", then they're failing at it. Every single L&S member I've ever met - while all charming and I count a couple amongst my friends - has been a poor communicator and intensely un-self-aware. I've cooperated with L&Sers in various groups and campaigns, and never - to my memory at least - found their arguments persuasive.

That's not to say there aren't some good and effective individuals in L&S, but that tends to be when they take their L&S hats off.

That the piece's author seems to generally be considered delusional within anarchist circles (which are generally more tolerant than the intense, unfriendly and often hostile urban street) would only seem to reinforce this point.o be honest, the more I read, the more I think Dundee is doing a Kurtz. I can't see L&S lasting much longer unless they kick him out.

They'll probably kick him out quietly in the night and pretend it never happened.

I had a brief skim through this. The headline of this article attracted my attention, 'A turn to the working class' , and this was interesting, though a little of topic:

Devrim

and 'evidence-based policy'

There are 22 L&S members on the forums, but I believe they are around the 30 mark.

fucking christ help us all

I think people should chill out about L&S. There are some good people in there. The written output might not be that great (and my impression is that it's not that important to most members), but they are only 18 months in. There is plenty of time and room for development.

What does that say about the org's internal functioning though, that they've allowed their most vocal - and mental - member to clamber into a position where he can write their "strategy document", only for other members to quickly start distancing themselves?

The point about theoretical and tactical unity is valid too.

posi, I hope I'm not one of the people expressing undue "animosity". I'm sure most of the members - like most of the rank-and-file members of pro revolutionary organisations - are quite decent. I think we are probably giving too much prominence to those with the loudest voices. But it does seem like they have a fair bit of influence within the organisation, and there is a fair bit of troubling stuff in the politics. There seems to be nothing distinguishing it from Trotskyism at all, apart from the red and black flag it's wrapped in - which I think is a significant problem.

On Dundee, the 15,000 members for Glasgow IWW by next year was not a throwaway comment, he has money riding on it - he then made another bet for £200 with Jack here when Jack bet it wouldn't even have a 10th of that, i.e. 1500. The comments about requiring nuclear weapons to fight imperialist aliens, taking over the port of Rotterdam or the French CGT, organise space workers, provide military support to Chavez, etc I feel indicative of someone who is a little out of touch with reality.

On the focus on "class power" a very significant problem with their approach is that they confuse the class for the organisations which are supposed to represent the class - which in fact often act against it, principally the unions.

To be honest I find Dundee's approach baffling, I admire his commitment and seriousness. But his plans are always grandiose and seemly disconnected from the actual class struggle. It is if, he thinks that a cadre of dedicated revolutionaries with iron wills, good research and the abandonment of ideology, (well at least for a while, whilst getting in the masses), we can make the revolution. there is little sense that there are factors outside our control or even influence. I am sure when pushed he would admit this, and in fact that he understands and calculates this into his strategy. But when he produces his pronouncements they seem to sit in space, despite his continual criticisms of the Left and anarchist 'movements', for not relating to the wider class, they seem even more devoid of any real connection to people's daily life. He appears to have little else to do but politics and producing programmatic policy.