Yes I believe even Derrida cursed his own writings when Yanks got their hands on them, he was suppoused to have mumbled something to the effect of "Perhaps our americans friends should just stick to Plato".
Jan 23 2007 16:42
Jan 23 2007 20:31
rise wrote:
Yes, obviously I've read it if I'm referencing the ideas contained in it. It was a great book that really tore a strip off anarchyism.
Except it had nothing to do with anarchyism, was written in the 50s or 60s and was concerned with creating a universal token system that would measure everyone's actions... unless i'm thinking of some other book. I'll check.
Also, (in other threads) you seem to use anarchyism to mean anything you happen to disagree with. Cheerleading extremely dubious authoritarian left movements in other countries that you can have no impact on anyway (I'm not saying that you do necessarily, but jonnyflash certainly does) would seem to me to be one variant of anarchyism... the shallow appeal of far away militancy.
Jan 23 2007 23:33
revol: "Yes I believe even Derrida cursed his own writings when Yanks got their hands on them, he was suppoused to have mumbled something to the effect of "Perhaps our americans friends should just stick to Plato"."
well, then, Derrida is an opportunist flake, as he was quite content to take a fat paycheck from the University of California in his last years. And his terminology is so preciously and self-consciously obscure that he has no one but himself to blame for the misinterpretations he cried about.
t.
Jan 24 2007 02:45
[quoteCheerleading extremely dubious authoritarian left movements in other countries that you can have no impact on anyway (I'm not saying that you do necessarily, but jonnyflash certainly does) would seem to me to be one variant of anarchyism... the shallow appeal of far away militancy.
Just because u can't conceive of the pressures of existing as a large movement inside of a national security state paid for and designed by your government, doesn't mean others can not. As un-dubiously post-left as it might have been to roll over and die rather than centralize and divide tasks by ascending ranks, luckily for Columbians, Marulanda isn't as politically astute as your strain of lib-com. Stan Goff, a fabulous and ex-communist author, played a personal role in the Columbian war that lends creedence to his writings, which are a great place to start.
Shallow appeal of far-away militancy?
How about a twisted and tortured shadow of lib-com, afraid of its own shadow, denying the right of Columbians to defend from and advance upon the huge sacrifices and work over the past 43 years. When will north am. predominantly white young leftists admit that brown people have the right to deal with their own ruling classes in the way they see fit? We need to handle our own business, get our national chunks in line before we castigate people who are way out ahead strategically. propaganda-wise and public-support-wise.
Jan 24 2007 07:19
jonnyflash; have you ever lived in a conflict zone? because several of the posters here are from northern ireland and they have rather different views on the IRA to you. present the false dichotomy of 'support the FARC/IRA/etc or do nothing' all you like, but it's a pretty far from convincing argument.
gatorojinegro; i think revol was joking 
as was i, i only think some north americans should be linguistically restrained
Jan 25 2007 02:37
Quote:
Jonnyflash; have you ever lived in a conflict zone? because several of the posters here are from northern ireland and they have rather different views on the IRA to you. present the false dichotomy of 'support the FARC/IRA/etc or do nothing' all you like, but it's a pretty far from convincing argument. - J K
If you can find a sentence I wrote that supports the IRA, of which I obviously don't know enough to speak of (thousands of members?) except personal experiences with irish lefties who claimed that flag, My Northern-Irish mother's family support the British Crown over any anti-imperial entity that ever existed in the land of the little people.
The only false dichotomy here is your false dichotomy of defeated or not-yet successful movement good/successful movements bad. I use communist in the way most people do: a supporter of principled communist struggles everywhere. Such a definition would exclude the do-nothing Japanese Communist Party of today, while including something like the Spanish CNT back in the day. I don't beleive I could convince a self-described post-leftist such as yourself of much of anything, nor would I deem time spent in such an endevour as well-spent. It's not all about Joseph K, it's about defending the projects of working-class militants no matter what color their skin might be.
Jan 25 2007 02:44
Now, back to Bey.
Dear readers,
My ostensibly leftist Social Control (3rd year uni soc class) prof doesn't know who Christian Parenti nor Durruti is, claims the anarchist flag, and loved Hakim Bey to the extent that he would rather duke it out with me and my people than drop the TAZ book from the curriculum. That cock-a-roacha. My name is Jonny Montana, and I'm gonna introduce him to my little friend.
Handbills, posters, press releases, info pack and visit w Dean, Faculty Ass, and possibly the local conservative tabloid.
Father forgive him, for he knows not what he does.
I'll keep you crazy kids at libcom up to date
Jan 25 2007 06:56
jonnyflash wrote:
The only false dichotomy here is your false dichotomy of defeated or not-yet successful movement good/successful movements bad.
what? :?
jonnyflash wrote:
I don't beleive I could convince a self-described post-leftist such as yourself
what? :?
jonnyflash wrote:
it's about defending the projects of working-class militants no matter what color their skin might be.
so by criticising the IRA and the FARC ... i'm a racist! 
Jan 25 2007 07:06
Quote:
so by criticising the IRA and the FARC ... i'm a racist! - Joseph K
Partially. By denying the positive and transformative character of the Columbian, Venezuelan, no doubt Nepalese revolutionary processes, no doubt disparaging Maoist advances in China, and doubtless hating on the land redistribution in Zimbabwe, you slot yourself into a category that could easily be called racist.
And for a guy in England, you sure love talking smack about Irish movements as well. Either Joseph is right and all those brown folk are wrong, or ..no, that's unthinkable.
Jan 25 2007 07:13
OK, I've been saving this one for a good time. Now is appropriate.
"The Metropolitan anticommunist left are now claiming that the FARC has evolved into some kind of authoritarian monstrousity that oppresses the people just like the government, or that it has become some criminal enterprise, or that it fails to bargain in good faith. They are now "terrible" and have "gone too far". This is a classic case of the left falling for the slanders of the mainstream press, assisted in their fall by the "bourgeois right" (as opposed to wrong, not left), or moral imperialism - the convenient morality of the fed and the fat in the imperial cores who've never known war and who never tire of telling all those brown people what the right thing is to do " - Stan Goff
The burden is on us to recognize and support the right of others to struggle against oppression as they see fit. And that's the only burden we need to share.
Jan 25 2007 08:57
jonnyflash wrote:
Partially. By denying the positive and transformative character of the Columbian, Venezuelan, no doubt Nepalese revolutionary processes, no doubt disparaging Maoist advances in China, and doubtless hating on the land redistribution in Zimbabwe, you slot yourself into a category that could easily be called racist.
If you took off your binary goggles long enough you'd have noticed i'm all for revolutionary processes, and haven't denied positives in Venezuela. the difference is i identify revolutionary processes with working class self-organisation and you demand support for which ever state/proto-state force waves a red flag. Opposing Mugabe is racist? you're either an idiot or a troll, your very assumption that "brown folk" are beyond criticism belies the (inverse) racist assumptions at the heart of your third worldist nationalism.
jonnyflash wrote:
And for a guy in England, you sure love talking smack about Irish movements as well. Either Joseph is right and all those brown folk are wrong, or ..no, that's unthinkable.
the IRA are "brown folk"? :? what on earth are you on about? i'm criticising anti-working class nationalists wherever they are, whatever their (completely irrelevant) skin colour, you're the one making the racist claim that a white guy (which you assume i am - why?) can't criticise "brown folk". And living in England i grew up with IRA bomb scares in my home town (garrison town), and the reality of the IRA blowing up random civilians in order to oppose the government - presumably you support Al Qaeda and the 7/7 bombings? It would be racist not to, surely those "brown folk" have the right to struggle as they see fit?
Jan 25 2007 09:13
well as someone from Northern Ireland i'd like to support Joseph K's principled racist stance against bog trotting terrorists.
Jan 25 2007 09:27
don't address me by name you fucking colonial swine. i was born in the imperial motherland! 
you may call me 'sir', or 'massa'
Jan 25 2007 09:35
yes massa, me soo sorry massa.
Jan 25 2007 09:38
Quote:
presumably you support Al Qaeda and the 7/7 bombings? It would be racist not to, surely those "brown folk" have the right to struggle as they see fit? - Joseph
Well, we both ought to know where Al Quaeda originated, which precludes them from any consideration as a valid movement.
As for the Irish, a wee bit of knowledge will suffice:
There once were signs saying "nodogs or Irish" "A prominent theme of ethnology in the 1800s was that the Irish were related to African people and black people and both were inferior. Polygenism was a dominant theory and so was phrenology, and both theories were employed to "prove" that the Irish were related to Africans, and both were less developed and more primitive than other "races" of humans." (Wikipedia).
Certainly, racist Brits and comprador Irish considered the Irish to be a lesser race, and that their liberation movements were criminal gangs. Sometimes its better not to know from who's hands the flag you hold has originated, hmm?
Now, if you Brits had only been more diplomatic about that whole potato famine thing...
Jan 25 2007 09:46
jonnyflash wrote:
Quote:
presumably you support Al Qaeda and the 7/7 bombings? It would be racist not to, surely those "brown folk" have the right to struggle as they see fit? - JosephWell, we both ought to know where Al Quaeda originated, which precludes them from any consideration as a valid movement.
As for the Irish, a wee bit of knowledge will suffice:
There once were signs saying "nodogs or Irish" "A prominent theme of ethnology in the 1800s was that the Irish were related to African people and black people and both were inferior. Polygenism was a dominant theory and so was phrenology, and both theories were employed to "prove" that the Irish were related to Africans, and both were less developed and more primitive than other "races" of humans." (Wikipedia).
Certainly, racist Brits and comprador Irish considered the Irish to be a lesser race, and that their liberation movements were criminal gangs. Sometimes its better not to know from who's hands the flag you hold has originated, hmm?
Now, if you Brits had only been more diplomatic about that whole potato famine thing...
Cheers for the history lesson, every young irish boy dreams of being patronising by some retarded yank drunk on anti colonial nostalgia.
Also the signs are better known as saying "No Blacks, No Paki's, No Irish and No dogs".
Of course any suggestion that things have moved on considerably from then is pro imperialist white wash.
Jan 25 2007 09:55
phrenology was out long before the provos were in. you might as well say nazi race theory means criticism of the Israeli state is anti-semitic.
jonnyflash wrote:
Sometimes its better not to know from who's hands the flag you hold has originated, hmm?
which flag am i holding? last time i checked it wasn't a national one and looked like this:
jonnyflash wrote:
Well, we both ought to know where Al Quaeda originated, which precludes them from any consideration as a valid movement.
are you saying the 4 british-born lads who blew themselves up were funded by the CIA to fight the USSR? if not, surely they were struggling for the national liberation of their brothers in territories occupied by the British State (like the IRA before them)? struggling against oppression by means of their own choosing, who are we to criticise? For clarity, do you support Hamas bus-bombings? Hezbollah rocketing Israeli towns?
Jan 25 2007 09:58
As for all of the allegations of 'racism', which by the way is a typical third worldist argument, it is perhaps worth noting the fact that some of the main protagonists in this whole series of discussions have been members of Organise in Northern Ireland (Revol, Boul), and members of the Internationalist Communist Left in Turkey (myself, Leo, and eks) whereas the people they have been arguing with are mainly from North America.
As for all the talk of 'little Brown people' in Venezuela, the ICC's (who have also been involved in these discussions) section there has been in existence for over forty years.
Maybe it is the fact that people on the ground are more concerned about attacks on working class living standards, and attempts to drag the working class into war than they are confused by leftist arguments, and sub-Maoist theories of imperialism.
Devrim
Jan 25 2007 14:10
jonnyflash wrote:
Now, if you Brits had only been more diplomatic about that whole potato famine thing...
Jan 25 2007 14:15
revol68 wrote:
Cheers for the history lesson, every young irish boy dreams of being patronising by some retarded yank drunk on anti colonial nostalgia.
That dude is Canadian.
Jan 25 2007 14:19
MJ wrote:
revol68 wrote:
Cheers for the history lesson, every young irish boy dreams of being patronising by some retarded yank drunk on anti colonial nostalgia.
That dude is Canadian.
so...
I'm northern irish it doesn't stop the IRA trying to bomb me into believing i'm Irish.
Jan 26 2007 01:27
OK, so Joseph K and Revol68 have a tough time visualizing that wee line between Canada and America, but It may be gone soon anyway, if the Mex-Can-USA secret meetings at the resort in Banff, Alberta come to an agreement.
One Big Union? how about One Big Fortress. We'll handle the education and generic drug prescriptions, thankyou.
Jan 26 2007 04:24
jonnyflash wrote:
The burden is on us to recognize and support the right of others to struggle against oppression as they see fit. And that's the only burden we need to share.
What that actually means in practice is: supporting the right of elite activists, politicians and guerrillas to use workers to realise their goals as they see fit.
Ever read any history at all? This is what always happens. Why would the FARC be any different?
Anyone who doesn't treat party leaders with extreme suspicion is an idiot, given the experience of Russia, China and countless other disasters.
You are being condescending and racist to "brown people" (as you love to call them) by applying different standards to their struggles than you would to your own.
Jan 26 2007 06:54
jonnyflash wrote:
OK, so Joseph K and Revol68 have a tough time visualizing that wee line between Canada and America
well i asked you if you were from the US first, but hey fair enough. all it means is i'm deprived of greenday references as put-downs. nicely evading the argument though.
Jan 26 2007 07:03
Actually jonnyflash's thing about One Big Union of USA, Canda and Mexico isn't so farfetched. NAFTA has made the economics of the three countries more interdependent. More than a fourth of the entire population of Mexico now lives in the USA. It's not clear how long the American capitalist elite can get away with having the rest of the capitalist world pay their debts. The debt of the USA is currently about equal to total world GDP I think, and rising. If the elite in the USA were forced to actually shoulder this debt, this would lead to efforts to even further attack the living standards of the working class, which would find them in a nasty fight. Certain elite committees in the USA are already talking about strategies to deal with this. One is to withdraw the USA from WTO, and built a tarif fortress around the NAFTA countries, thru a North American customs union, similar to the European union...single currency, open borders, etc. Basically split up the capitalist world into three major regional blocs around East Asia, North America and Europe. Details are in "The Global Class War" by Jeff Faux.
t.
Jan 26 2007 08:03
So jonny, now that i acknowledge you're from Canada, any chance of any answers?
Joseph K. wrote:
are you saying the 4 british-born lads who blew themselves up were funded by the CIA to fight the USSR? if not, surely they were struggling for the national liberation of their brothers in territories occupied by the British State (like the IRA before them)? ["brown folk", no less] struggling against oppression by means of their own choosing, who are we to criticise? For clarity, do you support Hamas bus-bombings? Hizballah rocketing Israeli towns?
Jan 26 2007 13:22
Devrim wrote:
the people they have been arguing with are mainly from North America.
yup, this is the kind of stuff i have to listen to all the time. crikey i am a freakin martyr.
Feb 22 2007 20:53
MJ wrote:
Felix Frost wrote:
Tim wrote:
It would not suprise me either if the guy was a primo.He is.
I'm not sure but I thiiiiink he's saying he isn't in this thing.
Now, would I lie about something like that?
Here is a couple quotes from a more recent interview:
Quote:
Basically, I’m a Luddite. Certain technologies hurt the commonality, as they used to say in the early 19th century. Any machinery that was hurtful to the commonality, they took their sledgehammers out and tried to smash. Direct action. That’s the Luddite critique—you do it with a sledgehammer. What it means now to live as a Luddite seems to me to involve a strict attention to what technologies one allows into one’s life.
Quote:
There are those of us who are usually called spiritualist anarchists. I’m willing to accept that label if I can have other labels as well. It’s a well-known fact that there’s no secular Luddite community anywhere. The only Luddite communities are Anabaptists—Amish, Mennonite, seventh day Baptists, all those kind of Germano-Anabaptist groups that originate in Pennsylvania. I guess it’s religious fanaticism. Well, we need some equivalent of that. I can only see that coming from what people would identify as a spiritual movement. Nowadays it would probably have to have a neo-pagan shamanic quality to it, but I think it would also have to keep the door open to people in the established religions who are rethinking their positions, including some Catholics. It would have to be very inclusive, non-dogmatic, and not involve any central cult of authority. It would have to be a spontaneous crystallization of all the pagan-LSD stuff we’ve been going through since the sixties. It will have to crystallize and provide this psychic power for self-sacrifice.
from http://www.thebrooklynrail.org/spotlight/july04/wilson.html
Feb 22 2007 20:55
yeah but he says 'some technologies' and he implicitly supports rape of the soil through agriculture, so he's not a total primmo.
Can comment on articles and discussions
rise, you don't think there is such a phenomenon as "managing other peoples' struggles"? what do you think leninists try to do, for example?
in general, i think everyone west of the atlantic should have strict curbs placed on them connecting signifiers and signified without proper supervision
i mean the US 'libertarian' party, jesus.