Unity between anarchists

Yes. But we're all a bit un-anarchist now and then, with no real harm done.

Hi

That’s correct, which is a big problem for Post-Leftism. But then how much time should you spend disassociating yourself with PLA?

But whilst disassociation isn’t useful, developing a viable autonomous praxis is. In that process the authentic fractures between genuine working class libertarian currents and reactionary elements attracted to the milieu are bound to emerge.

Nationalists?, Dietists?, Thirdworldists? Whatever, let them run their liberal campaigns, it makes no odds to me. I’ve no need to disassociate myself from them, but I do like probing their positions and getting their insights so as to better synthesise a more effective independent working class political theory.

Love

LR

Ive never in my life used the word 'un-anarchist'.

sure mate have a laugh at vegans if you want but dont burst a fucking blood vessel over them!

if this is a thread about unity between anarchists, i'm not sure about the relevance of slagging off people for their diets. I doubt that anyone would refuse to work with me because i am vegetarian, i certainly wouldn't refuse to cooperate with someone who has a different diet. it seems that an awful lot of effort is being expended on what seems like a non-issue. if you want to insult someone's diet, is that relevant to cooperating with them on an issue of mutual concern?

what matters in cooperation is surely the way in which people interact and the way in which they work. jack's earlier points about threats of violence clearly indicate that there is no necessary compatibility of methods between people who call themselves anarchists.

as for damaging ourselves through association with others who call themselves anarchists, i think there is only a certain amount that can be done to avoid this. call yourself a libertarian communist, an anarchist communist, mock them in you publications, whatever, there will i think always be negative connotations in labels. the central way to encourage the developing of the tendency towards anarchism/lib communism would be (IMO) working that way and addressing issues that affect people in their workplace, communities, whatever. but this is obvious enough, and not anything new. it's just an increasingly unlikely attempt to get this thread back onto topic.

Hi

What about cannibals? I won’t cooperate with cannibals or police.

Liberalism is a non-issue? Is Nationalism a non-issue too? What about working class revolution, how about that for an issue?

No. What matters is results. Objectives met, on time, to budget.

There is no compatibility between people who call themselves anarchists.

I want economic security and political liberty, what do suggest I do? People don’t want their “issues addressed” they want their problems solved, the boss off their back and enough cash coming in to enjoy a bit of luxury. They’re not getting it, and I blame the vegans. It’s not a crime is it?

“Unity” between people who want different things is impossible. The fact remains that all we have in common is the obscurity of our positions.

Love

LR

someone's dietary preferences do not stop them from having good methods of operation. unless, they are a cannibal. i accept your point on this case. i would be very put out if someone ate me.

by non-issue i was referring specifically to the bitching about diet. unless it affects you, a diet is unlikey to be a source of division. there are vegan lib communists. liberalism is a very broad term and i wouldn't disagree that the boycott politics inherent in much of the discussions about veganism do come from a liberal idea of the world. But that is not to say that someone who has a slight liberal tinge on one issue is thus forever tainted as having shit politics. if someone elevates their diet into a point of principle and moralises to other people, then they do indeed have shit politics, and would be a pain to work with but i don't know any vegans/vegetarians who do this.

i had always thought it to be a common principle that the ends we achieve are affected by our methods. we don't get to an anarchist utopia ( ) through authoritarian methods, obviously enough.

i said in the previous post that the best way to develop tendencies towards mutual aid, autonomy, and non-hierarchy, is to work that way.

I didn't say anything to contradict this, my entire point is that we work with people who have a shared problem and a shared idea of how we get to a resolution.

Hi

Well obviously if you insist on being so reasonable, I have no choice but to unite with you. Mince pie anyone?

Love

LR

Hi WTY,

This is not really true. I don't want to go into all the splits in the IWA here, but the issues with CGT/SAC and splits in the CNT-f and USI are not all the same and are about how to respond to concrete circumstances, not simply that some people wanted class collabaration. In addition, the only IWA groups that claim the Platform as an influence (Czech and Slovak sections) are still in the IWA. Not that the WSM would be impressed by their version of platformism.

As JoeBlack2 suggested elsewhere, a thread on what the CGT/SAC etc do and critiques of it would actually be useful in English.

martin

Personally I see little point in unity between anarchists. There's far too much that separates the different varieties. A little respect wouldn't goi far wrong though - but maybe I'm just being unnecessarily festive here.

OK, well the reason behind it is basically to move from being a blob of protest, dissent and 'counter[/sub]-culture', with a few good ideas mixed up and forgetten to what we've always tried to be; a tendency for libertarian class struggle and positive societal change.

Although historically there's a number of different kinds of anarchists let's look at our own situation... Most of the serious revolutionary anarchists are 'communist' or pretty close to that and we have a helluva lot in common with the rest of Libertarian Left (that is the theoretical lot, not just any shmuck that calls himself a libertarian). Libertarian Communists, Lib Marxists as well as councilists would do well to unite, in fact they need to. In some form or other that's what will have to happen. It doesn't mean we just stop debating, that's important, but we communicate our ideas and have unity in praxis, where possible.

In all honesty, at this stage a loose common action between any genuine class struggle militants ('socialists' of various descriptions) is greatly essential, and it will never amount to much if it's just a half-hearted approach.

Hi

I can see where your coming from, and I wouldn’t want to curtail your enthusiasm, but why is a Broad Left “common action” essential? Has there been one before and, if so, what did it achieve?

Love

LR

Au contraire, it was a relaxed sigh...like sinking into a warm bath or something. You hit the nail on the head. The truth is, however right Jack maybe, activisty types are really soft targets and proselytising to anarchos you consider irretrievably counter-revolutionary is hardly revolutionary in itself.

I also agree with Lazy Riser RE: liberalism.

I've been meaning to ask for a while the relevance of Broadway Market - to me it seems like defending petit bourgeios interests?? Maybe I should start a new thread.

Hi

The petit bourgeois stand to gain better lives from working class revolution, occasionally one can’t help but defend their interests or you end up cutting your nose off to spite your face.

I understand the premises were rented from the council and run as a café and a flat. The small time “capitalist” in question was no more petit bourgeois than a housing association plumber, and somewhat less than a self employed one.

Love

LR

The point of this thread was what?

From everyone's not quite favorite sneaky wee sniping cunt.

Nah, I spit in the general direction of anyone that wants Left Unity. I fucking hate the Left generally I just recognise that at a very basic level we can use them for better reasons than they themselves realise. (har) For example if someone calls themselves a 'class struggle militant', fair enough, I don't care what they mean by that, but if they can engage in common actions (whatever they may be) towards working-class organisation, it's worth it. They'd have to leave their parties outside and keep their mouths shut tho. In reality this is actually very common and not difficult to accept, but the kind of organisation is (as yet) usually pointless. As for your second question it's pretty broad, but ofcourse you'll know there's been varying degrees of unity throughout Left history. Sure, a lot of time it's been the type of unity we certainly don't want to see again but could we ever have achieved anything without some kind of mutual co-operation between different ideological groupings and those without any specific ideology?

it was all so much easier when we all used to hug trees

No Kidda, it was all so easier when you used to hug trees....

alan, I posted this to an e-list after someone raised 'petit-bourgeios protectionism' - it was in the context of a discussion on NEFAC, and was mainly with people in the US, so apologies for some weird context, stuff you probably know, the tone and the C&P, I've tried to cut out the really specific stuff. edit: Oh and the guy who posted it said he was 'parodying ultra-leftists' later and said he didn't actually mean anything of it - can pm you the exchange if you can be arsed.

yes, because activism is totally opposed to what libertarian communism is after:

JDMF, proud activist

hi catch,

that was nice, i feel warmed in the cockles of my heart.

i've been in london for the past week and a bit so i went down to the ole party on the 27th, seemed to me to big pile of activists, but i'm happy to be wrong. was the food at the party vegan?

I'd never say there were no activists involved, but they're in a very small minority, and of the politicos involved nearly all have been doing consistent work in that area for a good while. It's quite possible that more activists turned up to the part on the 27th though, and obviously people aren't being turned away if they arrive to help out. Both the core of people maintaining the occupation and the much wider support base has been predominantly locals, and since it happened, it's been dependent on them rather than vice versa.

Dunno about that, I wasn't there, but the first time I went down there someone was about to pop 'round the butchers

Catch - I understood your line already before you posted that (although obviously I didn't know some of the specifics to the cafe and area itself), and to me it seems like communists like yourself who are involved do so fully aware of its limitations - is that right?? I guess it's an intensely defensive move, seeing as how you're actually trying to protect the status quo.

Either way though, I can see the obvious benefits of anywhere that offers a cuppa for 40p as compared to Starbucks or something. I'm curious though, I'm back in London on Wednesday and I may well pay a visit in the next week or so.

Yeah it's very defensive and I think everyone involved knows that. However, last time I was down there there also seemed to be a real feeling that regardless of what happens to the café itself (literally), they'll try to keep the connections and momentum going. I reckon there's the potential for very positive repercussions from this for a long time to come.

There's plenty of reconstruction work happened since the 26th and I'm sure they'd appreciate the support and help. I'm going to try to get down again myself over the next couple of days.

This week will be the first opportunity for bailiffs to evict again (not been many working days since the re-occupation), although there was zero warning last time.

*hugs paul*

xx