Stewart Home - what's up with him?

45 posts / 0 new
Last post
Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Apr 18 2006 23:09
Stewart Home - what's up with him?

So what's the deal with this guy?

I see him writing kinda arty shit in places (for Mute mag at least), and he wrote some god-awful fake article in Playboy about anarchists wanting to start death-camps to reduce the population yeah?

What else has he done? Why do some people hate him, and why do other put up with him? Has he ever done anything good?

PaulMarsh's picture
PaulMarsh
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Apr 18 2006 23:21

Well I rather think that if someone goes around saying anarchism is no different from fascism, that person is rather pushing it if they want to be accepted in and around the anarchist movement.

I will dig out the reference where he said that tommorow.

I also think his novels are really, really poor, and fail to see why AK Press used to push his books so hard.

Hermit in Paris
Offline
Joined: 19-03-06
Apr 19 2006 09:55

I've not been too clear about this either.

The article in question, mind, was called 'green and brown anarchism' and was a falsified broadside against the Green Anarchy collective when state interest in them was at its peak.

http://www.stewarthomesociety.org/gba.htm

It's not a comradely way to act (and in fact this superficial and deceptive mode of political engagement seems to be typical of Home) but perhaps many here wouldn't disagree with the rough outline...?

He also makes a great deal of capital out of vulgarising and spectacularly negating the SI, which is quite a cuntish manner to go about one's life. Wrote an anthology called 'Situationism'...

PaulMarsh's picture
PaulMarsh
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Apr 19 2006 10:47

This indicates where Home is coming from ideologiocally

Gay Times, August 1997

Speaking of his novels he says "I was interesteted in the relationship between anarchism and fascism as ideologies. There's a structural similarity in the way the two ideologies function and in particular the fetishisation of the role of the state in politics, and a failure to deal radically with economics - as you go through the three books, your ability to distinguish between the two ideologies becomes more difficult"

The guy has always been a parasite on the anarchist movement. He dislikes anarchists and aims to damage anarchism, but wishes to move in their milieu, and be supported by them financially.

That Projectile got into bed with him last year indicates either

a. Great ignorance

b. Great stupidity

His obsession with Green Anarchist has been listed above.

I could also add his pathetic attacks on Larry O'Hara, at a time when Searchlight were encouraging physical attacks on him, Home weighed in with a series of juvenile texts (see for example the Larry O'Hara short story competition leaflet given out at one Anarchist bookfair, where the humour consists solely of sentences about masturbation and mattresses, or the book Home wrote where he registered Larry O'Hara as the author with the British library)

But most of all Home fails what I call the Brian Clough test. When asked what he wanted to be remembered for, Clough famously said "I hope people will think I made a contribution..... "

Stewart Home does not make a contribution to anyone, or anything, other than Stewart Home.

pepe carvalho's picture
pepe carvalho
Offline
Joined: 9-04-06
Apr 19 2006 11:45

home is mates with those west essex zapatista scumbags as well isnt he?

Jacques Roux's picture
Jacques Roux
Offline
Joined: 17-07-06
Apr 19 2006 11:59
pepe carvalho wrote:
home is mates with those west essex zapatista scumbags as well isnt he?

Thats reason enough to dislike anyone.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Apr 19 2006 12:23

Home has been visibly around since since the mid-80s and is a self-publicist/careerist. He knows about and half understands radical theory and has long been an obsessive anti-situationist - its his main specialism, and he really functions as the situationists' most loyal opposition, especially since slow-witted UK academia finally discovered it in the late 80s/early 90s. His relationship to radical theory and activity is more or less that of a semi-clued in journalist. It's source material for the stuff he pimps around to various publishers in the pursuit of cash and a minor celebrity role in the avant-garde art/anti-art scene. He and one or two of his friends thrive on fermenting pointless feuds with those dumb enough to get sucked in to a slagging match. He has nothing to say about real struggles in the real world. He occasionally knocks out a novel based on the formula of the old Richard Allen books of boring nihilism (Skinhead, Suedehead etc) and helped put the reactionary old git Allen back in the public eye briefly.

His first book, 'The Assault on Culture' is mainly an often inaccurate account of various avante-garde art cliques, who (contrary to his title) never actually really did carry out any radical assault on culture or anything else (the Fluxus art creeps he praises became property speculators), but only milked a radical avante garde image within the cultural spectacle for their own vanity and profit. Much like Home himself. But he's really not very important (hardly deserving of the minimal effort put into this post - except you did ask...).

fort-da game
Offline
Joined: 16-02-06
Apr 19 2006 21:26

It is a pity that critique based on class analysis cannot be adopted here, rather than mere moral condemnation.

Home’s ‘contribution’ is the collective name. This is a meme-like sobriquet that can be adopted by anyone who wants to ‘produce’ a Stuart Home ‘object’ (it works on the ‘No, I’m Spartacus’ principle) I have heard of groups of people producing ‘Stuart Home’ objects thinking that this is a radical artistic act. Perhaps it would be if there weren’t an actual Stuart Home collecting royalty cheques.

As far as I know this technique began with the ‘smile’ magazines, (one name, many different magazines produced by many different individuals). It was expanded to include other collective names which have included ‘Luther Blisset’ and ‘Karen Elliot’ (it struck me that ‘Monsieur Dupont’, which I helped set up, is attributable to this practice). The adopted names signify nothing but the repeated and meaningless appearance of the names... their spreading, like the occult recognition of the number ‘23’ becomes more significant the more it is recognised. The more it is recognised the more it will be reproduced.

It seems to me that Stuart Home, the individual, performed an Indiana Jones style roll under the closing door of ‘alternative’ culture as it existed in the ‘80’s: a culture of one part Psychic Youth, to one part waiting for the the next fanzine through the post... He could therefore be classified as ‘pre-rave’/pre-digital.

As for the fascist/anarchist identity thing, it is not so absurd as all that when you consider Home as part of the post-punk milieu of that time. I knew more than a few people who would drift between both ‘scenes’; the similarity between the two was based in a male cult of extremity and of being ‘uncontrollable’. Mostly, those involved would be working class males who were ever keen to talk about ‘my mate Stanley’.

Since that time the ‘uncontrollable’ element of anarchism has declined and retreated from ethnic white estates whilst fascism has remained. Again, this had something to do with raves... but also more effective social reproduction, many more working class anarchists (as mature students) have been processed through university now than before, alongside recruitment into ‘service industries’, this has tended to abstract them from the anti-intellectual milieu Home is nostalgic about.

As for the Stuart Home artefact, it now occupies a defined space in culture with his name on it, a space that expands every time his meme appears (he gets decent reviews in the mainstream press). He is what people reach for when they want to name something avant garde in the current array of cultural products. He occupies that particular space.

It is a pity the phenomena of Stuart Home is not addressed in class struggle terms, as it is a trick that has not been learnt, but it is also a pity, I think, that the anarchist milieu has ceded this ‘bohemian’ ground to ‘him’, because ‘culture’ used to be the space, rather than ‘politics’, through which many working class people were first attracted to the idea.

If cultural space/activity is to be taken back from overt commodification a new anarchist aesthetic would have to be adopted... and encouraged.

pilpil

PaulMarsh's picture
PaulMarsh
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Apr 19 2006 22:11
Dr Cous Cous wrote:
It is a pity that critique based on class analysis cannot be adopted here, rather than mere moral condemnation.

No one's stopping you.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Apr 19 2006 23:42

Cous Cous - I don't see what is 'moralistic' about the previous comments - it's an accurate answer to a question. You've hardly denied what he's been criticised for here. A 'condemnation' of a cultural specialist careerism and his use of elements of class struggle theory as a marketing exercise is a basic class analysis. (The Situationists called it recuperation). Those who seek a celebrity specialist role are always seeking a hierarchical position in this society - he markets himself relentlessly, as you illustrate. And if he attempts to make a lucrative career out of cynically misrepresenting and taking the piss out of those who try to resist this world, then that is worth pointing out, whether it fits your definition of class analysis or not.

Part of the weakness of the cultural identity with anarchism was that it was often limited to the adoption of an image or attitude - just another cultural commodity, the anarcho-punk/post-punk role etc. Home's work encourages this kind of attitude; it has no value outside of an intellectual/cultural pose.

fort-da game
Offline
Joined: 16-02-06
Apr 20 2006 18:41

Hello Ret Marut,

I don't want to be put into a position where I have to defend any artist, never mind Stuart Home... I have avoided his works since about 1992 when I accidentally shelled out a fiver for 'art strike papers'.

But if his significance is not contextualised, if all you can talk about is what a bad man he is, then we never get past him. The purpose of 'critique' is to refuse the role of priestly condemnation, meaning we should always try and move on. If Home has been successful, we should learn from that, to know exactly the mechanism of this success (as with Luther Blisset and Wu Ming).

Ret Marut wrote:
A 'condemnation' of a cultural specialist careerism and his use of elements of class struggle theory as a marketing exercise is a basic class analysis. (The Situationists called it recuperation).

We all sell ourselves, our labour power, our abstract capacity as human beings. What is taken from us is who we are, to condemn someone for earning a wage makes no sense in a wage-based economy. Home is able to dictate some of the terms of his commodification, that's what artists do...

Anyway, the situationists were also funded by such 'careerists', Asker Jorn for example. Also, Debord tolerated Trocchi, a similar figure to Home, for years.

I would suggest that if you want to criticise Home, and the space he occupies, then you should participate in superseding his role by developing an aesthetic that is at once committed, complex and beautiful.

Ret Marut wrote:
part of the weakness of the cultural identity with anarchism was that it was often limited to the adoption of an image or attitude - just another cultural commodity, the anarcho-punk/post-punk role etc.

As you know, a commodity is not reducible merely to exchange value, there are also layers of 'use' which are taken up by those who buy in to it... this after all is the central position of situationists in relation to value.

'Identity' in the sense you mean used to be important to many people, it was a phenomenon of post-war welfare boom economies. 'Identity' marked the breakdown of the reproduction of the working class 'subject'; but it was through 'identity' that many formulated their critique of their circumstances (Negri has also made a career out of subject 'identities', is his celebration more or less dispicable than Home's disdain?)

The critique of punk and 'lifestyle' within the broad libcom milieu is not yet adequate because it does not take into account either motivation or effectiveness. All it sees is 'recuperation'. In fact, circumstances have now changed, and identity no longer has that apprentice boys/tribal role it once had.

Ret Marut wrote:
Home's work encourages this kind of attitude; it has no value outside of an intellectual/cultural pose.

I don't know if anyone is 'encouraged' or whether he merely perversely records a past micro-climate of a disappearing industrial setting. I would say, that if you accept the premise of detournment then Home's work could have a value outside of a 'pose', that is it could if you are prepared to break your value out of his shell.

pilpil

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Apr 20 2006 21:22

Hi Cous Cous

as I said in my 1st thread, I don't think he's very important - but some were curious about him, so I answered. I don't see there's alot more to say about Home, he's not some great obstacle blocking me or anyone else from moving on - unless you take him at face value. But I don't see any problem with useful criticism of someone like him - even if it's not deeply theoretical - he's made a career out doing it to others, for totally cynical motives.

Quote:
We all sell ourselves, our labour power, our abstract capacity as human beings. What is taken from us is who we are, to condemn someone for earning a wage makes no sense in a wage-based economy. Home is able to dictate some of the terms of his commodification, that's what artists do...

Anyway, the situationists were also funded by such 'careerists', Asker Jorn for example. Also, Debord tolerated Trocchi, a similar figure to Home, for years.

A professional artist's role is economically different from others; they generally don't generally get a wage, they get 'commissions', 'grants' and 'gallery sales'. They market their supposedly 'unique' creativity, they cultivate opportunist relationships with rich gallery owners, they publicly market themselves etc. You can say that a rich artist is technically 'exploited' by a gallery owner, much as a multi-millionaire footballer is by his club, but it's a mutually beneficial form of 'exploitation'. One not really requiring of a collective class struggle against the 'exploiter'. To make everyone who sells their labour equivalent to each other is to deny we live in a class society; Tony Blair collects a wage...

And I don't care much who funded the long-dead Situ's - I care what is or isn't still useful in their legacy. Which includes concepts that still clarify the role of idiots like Home.

Quote:
If Home has been successful, we should learn from that, to know exactly the mechanism of this success

I don't think Home's success has any great secret about it, this society is awash at various levels with cultural self-promotion and fame-chasing, from Home to Pop Idol. He just chose a relatively under-exploited area to operate in, made a little niche for himself. It's not a success that can be used in a radical way - it's totally integrated into this society and its culture industry.

I also said earlier I didn't think he was worth any great effort - it might be more useful if, rather than focussing on one unimportant individual, you started a new thread on identity, aesthetics etc in general if you feel they're relevant questions.

RM

fort-da game
Offline
Joined: 16-02-06
Apr 21 2006 17:42

Hi RM

I didn't realise there was another Home thread; one's enough I agree.

Quote:
To make everyone who sells their labour equivalent to each other is to deny we live in a class society

It is not me that makes everyone foramlly equivalent and then reimposes quantity as a means of hierarchical separation it is the commodity form itself and the division of labour within the social relation.

I agree with your sentiments though... I hate it when the better-off want to discount their lifestyle on the basis that we are all individuals and can't we still be friends? I work with doctors who are potentially earning 250,000 a year, how could we possibly be informal on such terms? On the other hand, what choice do they have?

Quote:
it's totally integrated into this society and its culture industry

Such fatalism! Have you been reading Baudrillard? No thing/person is 'totally integrated', some more so than others, but all commodities contain a critique of commodity society because all things/people embody the tension of the social relation.

Quote:
And I don't care much who funded the long-dead Situ's

You cannot separate ideas from circumstances... I think who funded the situs, who financed Adorno, the distribution of Negri, the suppply of Lenin to the Russian revolution, are all interesting questions.

Quote:
t might be more useful if, rather than focussing on one unimportant individual, you started a new thread on identity, aesthetics etc in general if you feel they're relevant questions

Well, I'm not hot on 'abstract' questions, I can only approach such matters through scandalous specifics... something that gets the juices flowing. I really only entered this discussion because I found what you said interesting and I am always looking to organise formally around these matters.

pilpil

korep
Offline
Joined: 14-01-10
Feb 9 2010 22:32

found this old thread about this old fart while looking for info and thoughts regarding said fart. So, in case anyone bothers,

What was up with Larry O'Hara then?
and Green Anarchist? I ploughed through some of Home's stuff on them (and read a bit of his "anarchist integralism"), and according to him there would have been a clear fascist strand in their ideologies. (He also accuses Bob Black of having written for the neo-Nazi Journal Of Historical Review in Anarchist Integralism.) Is there anything to his claims, or is he just doing smears in order to get attention and a market niche? (his website has a page entitled "FEUDS: A POST-MODERN ART FORM")
And what was up with searchlight?

Also read this text, where he's levying some serious (?) critique towards english 80's Class War:
ANARCHISM IS STUPID: COMEDY, IDENTITY & FICTIVE POLITICS

sorry for being ignorant.
korep

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Feb 9 2010 22:36

it's attention seeking and a total waste of time. don't bother.

Anarcho
Offline
Joined: 22-10-06
Feb 9 2010 22:45
korep wrote:
and read a bit of his "anarchist integralism"

Which is a terrible pamphlet and only convincing if you don't know anything about the likes of Proudhon and Bakunin, or their ideas.

Talking of Bob Black, he seems to think I'm one of Homes' greatest followers -- which seems ironic as I've only meet him once at a public meeting at the bookfair to critique his "anarchist integralism" bollocks.

Oh, hum. Although he did manage to raise a big flaw in primitivism -- which was confirmed when GA published the infamous "irrationalists" article.

However, I would argue (and have) that primitivists have a Marxist analysis rather than an anarchist one. The only difference between their analysis of Engels' "On Authority" is that Engels keeps technology and organisation and dumps autonomy while primitivists do the opposite. An anarchist analysis would simply discuss Engels whole analysis as liberal nonsense.

korep
Offline
Joined: 14-01-10
Feb 11 2010 02:57
Quote:
only convincing if you don't know anything about the likes of Proudhon and Bakunin, or their ideas.

I haven't read up on them a lot either. So call me uneducated. Though, not a lot of ppl have. This is of course why ppl like Home suck: someone who's uninformed and hasn't made up their mind completely in advance, might just take his word for The Truth.
I do stand firmly by that no-one should have to read (about) any specific thinker in order to be an anarchist. But we (Teh Anarchist Movt/Scene/Community/Whatfckinever) definitely need to develop some kind of 'social memory' or sumthin to be more resilient against these kinds of hacks' attacks.

Quote:
Although he did manage to raise a big flaw in primitivism

I don't know what labels Green Anarchist (note: different folks than Green Anarchy of the USA) use/d. But i disagree with your use of the label, whether it's the same as theirs or not. Primitivists are to be distinguished from other eco-focused anarchist (and other) ideologies. If Stewart's on to something, it's not regarding primitivism, but regarding certain tendencies within "green anarchism" generally. These tendencies are most adequately described not as eco-fascist, but as misanthropic.

Quote:
primitivists have a Marxist analysis rather than an anarchist one.

I think there is some divergence between different primitivists' ideologies. Some thinkers have a background as marxists or anarcho-marxists (whtever), others are bloody fckn liberals, and some are anarchists or libertarians of various stripes. Even the core ideological content defining primitivism is different with different folks: With some, it's some utter mishmash of naturalism-romanticism-individualism, while with others it's a matter of modeling their social ideals on the characteristics of non-civilized societies. With some these mix, with others they don't. In all, primitivism, just like the much broader term "green anarchism" (hell, some syndicalists are doing pretty 'green' politics nowadays...), doesn't have any defined common analysis. It's more of a moniker grouping together ppl who focus on the same-ish issues.

Back to Home:
has someone written some serious backd-by-facts-and-rock-solid-kickass-analysis rebuttal of Home's tripe? Would be nice to read. I guess it would even have some minor "publicity value" - anarchists slagging off the slagger-off-of-anarchists...?
Of course, it would also make Stewart Home pee his pants with joy for getting another 'feud' to cringe writing out of.

His text that i linked, where he's dissing Class War etc, was interesting on some points though.

I guess the main problem with Home is that he's an intellectual (artist) with seemingly endless time & energy for producing seemingly endless amounts of StewartHomebrewn Brainshit™. But the same goes for any productive intellectual (artist). That's what they do. The challenge is to make it useful for something: capital tries to make it useful for accumulating capital, a radical might try to make it useful for radical struggle. The intellectual themself tries to balance between, on one hand, giving the impression of producing something of value in order to preserve their specialist status, and, on the other hand, withholding it in order to preserve their productive autonomy. Thus, intellectuals easily end up failing "Brian Clough Tests" to one degree or other, at least on a subjective level if not completely.
Tone and tact tend to help though. but that's bougie manners culture smile

korep
Offline
Joined: 14-01-10
Feb 11 2010 03:15

oh, btw, got my questions regarding Larry O'Hara and Searchlight answered, here:
http://libcom.org/forums/anti-fascism/putting-the-record-straight
summary: both are fuckd up.

also got some perspective on the general context that Home's Green & Brown Anarchist pamphlet was published in
here.
summary: Home&co's critique = useless abstract intellectual bickering masquerading behind issues of ideology.

So, anyone knows about this Bob Black & nazi connection deal?

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Feb 11 2010 04:49
Quote:
In the mid-80s an installation at a Hackney art gallery was broken into at night and the art works, which included ones by the obsessively anti-situationist Stewart Home, were sprayed over with radical slogans such as “Dada did this before but better” and “Another Radical Wank”, and magazines by Home were pissed on. The installation was forced into an early closure.

- from "Closed Window Onto Another Life" (chapter: The urge to destroy is a creative urge)

spitzenprodukte's picture
spitzenprodukte
Offline
Joined: 6-06-07
Feb 11 2010 10:47
Samotnaf wrote:
Quote:
In the mid-80s an installation at a Hackney art gallery was broken into at night and the art works, which included ones by the obsessively anti-situationist Stewart Home, were sprayed over with radical slogans such as “Dada did this before but better” and “Another Radical Wank”, and magazines by Home were pissed on. The installation was forced into an early closure.

- from "Closed Window Onto Another Life" (chapter: The urge to destroy is a creative urge)

I have it on good authority that it was Home and his mate who did this, in order to claim on the insurance. He'd made sure the gallery had valued the (unsaleable) work at over-inflated prices. IIRC the gallery did eventually re-open with the same show (grafitti in tact?) and thanks to the media coverage received much higher visitor numbers. Double-win for Home.

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Feb 11 2010 10:59

huw:

Quote:
Samotnaf wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
In the mid-80s an installation at a Hackney art gallery was broken into at night and the art works, which included ones by the obsessively anti-situationist Stewart Home, were sprayed over with radical slogans such as “Dada did this before but better” and “Another Radical Wank”, and magazines by Home were pissed on. The installation was forced into an early closure.
- from "Closed Window Onto Another Life" (chapter: The urge to destroy is a creative urge)

Quote:
I have it on good authority that it was Home and his mate who did this, in order to claim on the insurance. He'd made sure the gallery had valued the (unsaleable) work at over-inflated prices. IIRC the gallery did eventually re-open with the same show (grafitti in tact?) and thanks to the media coverage received much higher visitor numbers. Double-win for Home.

The only "good authority" is the authority of your own experience and of those you trust: clearly you trust Home's version of history or some other external authority, re-written to show him in a radical light. I have it on "good authority" (my own) that this was done by people Home disliked and who disliked him and his pretensions. Nor did the gallery re-open with the same show, at least not in the 3 weeks after it was closed. The insurance he may have collected, but whether the work (if you can call it that) was saleable or not is pure speculation (and speculation is what the sale of artworks is all about). Half a win for Home, half a loss (of face).

B_Reasonable
Offline
Joined: 6-02-09
Feb 11 2010 12:13

Mobile-Home is a parasitic creep who seems to derive pleasure from spreading confusion about radical critique and using it for self-promotion. If MI5 wanted to disrupt the communication of radical ideas then Mobile-Home would be a good model for an agent because he takes the time to investigate the different people and ideas but is utterly psychopathic as to their worth. Here are some pieces dealing with his crap: http://www.principiadialectica.co.uk/blog/?s=Stewart+Home

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Feb 11 2010 12:32

B_Reasonable:

Quote:
Mobile-Home is a parasitic creep

I prefer the name given him in a brief leaflet about him, in the late 80s iirc: Stupid Gnome. But someone's bound to accuse this of discrimination on the grounds of intelligence and of sizeism, so perhaps he should be called Intellectually Challenged Virtically Challenged.

But Stupid Gnome is funnier.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Feb 11 2010 14:37
Quote:
the name given him in a brief leaflet about him, in the late 80s iirc: Stupid Gnome.

http://libcom.org/library/guy-debord-luther-blisset

Farce's picture
Farce
Offline
Joined: 21-04-09
Feb 11 2010 14:41

Has he ever criticised the non-shit elements of anarchism, or does he just attack the strawmen of CW and primmos and let that stand for the whole? The only mentions of SF and A(C)F I can find in his stuff are brief dismissive one-liners in this piece. (Where he also suggests that the most committed class-struggle anarchos usually wind up in the ICC. neutral )

Wellclose Square
Offline
Joined: 9-05-08
Feb 11 2010 16:50

I think I read somewhere that Home describes himself as a Bordigist. If so, that would suggest that at least some of the attacks on anarchism are motivated by more than mischief-making for its own sake. Years since I read it, but I thought at the time that Green and Brown Anarchist was fair comment.

korep
Offline
Joined: 14-01-10
Feb 11 2010 17:04

"Closed Window Onto Another Life"

Really good text, thanks!

http://libcom.org/library/guy-debord-luther-blisset

This was also pretty good reading, thanks!

This was good & informative too (a lot of the texts over there were a bit over the top with the 'personal' stuff, but there seems to be a lot of that in circulation. British (political) culture?)
http://www.principiadialectica.co.uk/blog/?p=308

Quote:
But worse of all is that Herr Heimat [Stewart Home] set up his “neoist” org at the time when he was meeting and collaborating with neo-nazi “musicians” here in Britain and at the same pretending to be an ultra-leftist bordiguist! In fact he was a red-brown militant causing a lot of nasty mess with rumours, below the belt attacks, half truths, lies, non-principled critiques against radical people who are a 100 times better than him. It took him 15 years to admit he had been wrong to have associated with neo-nazis like Tony Wakeford and others

ahhaa, so he's posing as bordigist, that explains things somewhat. (As the italian surname 'Bordiga' does not contain the letter u, i don't spell it 'bordiguist'. Call me a nitpicker smile ) So, in what sense was he a 'militant'? In the practical sense of being involved in hardcore activism, or in the ideological sense of advocating such? Is he a retired, begrudged activist (the 'street' or the 'committee' type?...or the 'hangaround' type? smile ) or an armchair 'revolutionary'? And in what way was he 'red-brown'? Does he promote "Racket organizing", or what are all these referrals to Strasserism about?

Thanks for the answers so far.

korep
Offline
Joined: 14-01-10
Feb 11 2010 17:24

oh shit, just found this, from dear old wikipedia:

Quote:
History of activities
1970s
As a youth Home was drawn first to music and bohemianism, and then to radicalism. He attended meetings of many different leftist groups including several organised by the Trotskyist Socialist Youth League and even two editorial meetings of Anarchy Magazine. He refused to join any of these organisations and later repudiated them as reactionary, instead professing autonomous communist political positions after going to London Workers Group. In the late seventies Home produced his first punk (music) fanzines...

He's a middle class kid with a bent towards cultural activities, who can't stop beating themself over the head for not being a Militant Street-Credible Proletarian, so he externalizes it on others by posing as More Revolutionary Than Thou...

I might be overgeneralizing of course, but fair measure on him, really.
I have no beef with middle class (=muddy, unanalytical concept) kids, or cultural activities per se though. I do have some with ppl slinging their externalized mud about in order to prop up their identity. Nothing personal, just wish for their own and everybody's sake that these kinds of folks would just get over themselves. Really quick. Maybe they could then do something actually useful, instead of being a huge distraction and obstacle.

Jason Cortez
Offline
Joined: 14-11-04
Feb 11 2010 17:50

Can we please stop discussing this odious person. It only inflates his ego some more.

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Feb 11 2010 21:21

yeah, fuck that weird Lenin-as-pedant Bordiga!

Dannny
Offline
Joined: 17-02-09
Feb 11 2010 21:53

I like him; I think he's written some funny and interesting stuff. The principiadialectica quote above couldn't be taken seriously by anyone who has even a passing interest in his work.