DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

what strand are you?

125 posts / 0 new
Last post
syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Jan 18 2007 20:46

hmm. i suppose it depends on what you mean by "post-structuralism." I mainly had in mind the anti-realist linguistic idealism of Saussure, which quite a bit of "post-structuralism" seems to be based on, but I'm not always sure what people mean by these various "post-" labels. And I've not read a whole lot of this stuff...i find the obscurity rather mindnumbing...the effort to understand isn't rewarded with a commensurate level of new insight, imo.

t.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Jan 18 2007 20:51

I read Mouffe and Laclau's "Hegemony" book. Not impressed. Convoluted verbiage to justify a social-dem strategy, imo. Haven't read Zizek.

t.

john
Offline
Joined: 9-07-06
Jan 18 2007 20:55
syndicalistcat wrote:
hmm. i suppose it depends on what you mean by "post-structuralism." I mainly had in mind the anti-realist linguistic idealism of Saussure...

I thought Saussure was the ultimate structuralist, that all the post-structuralists revolted against?

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Jan 18 2007 21:02

I think "post-structuralism" has a number of different meanings. Sometimes it seems to refer to those who refuse to see a structure like the class system as basic to explaining social dynamics. So on that definition a Marxist is a "structuralist" andd a post-modernist is i guess automatically post-structuralist. But that is different than the issue about linguistic idealism.

t.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Jan 18 2007 21:09
Skraeling wrote:
I'm unique. I like anarchist communism, but not platformism. But help me, anarchist communism has been taken over by the platformists, when many classical anarchist communists would have major issues with it. Platformists have been trying to recruit me for yeas, but have failed. From what platformist plublications i have read (the WSM's come to mind) and all the platformist stuff on these boards, I think plafformism is theoretically weak, is organisationally fetishist (ie they fetishise the activity of their own organisation as the key to things), is often substitutionist, is activist (thou MUST get involved in stuff, and if you don't your denounced as a 'hobbyist' or other activist insults), is moralistic and preachy, is similar to Leninism (however much they claim to be different), and doesn't keep up to date with current class composition. For the latter I turn to pilfering autonomist Marxism and certain tendenices within left communism.

Hmm, I'll go with platformist... but only because I like to differentiate myself from certain other anarchist communists who seem to celebrate organizational ambiguity as being some kind of strength, have yet to overcome the residual individualism in their politics, lend undue importance to the ideas of obscure misfit Marxist thinkers, and are academically substitutionist in their rejection of the need to actually apply anarchist ideas and methods of organization to working class social movements in order to develop effective revolutionary praxis. Or I'd just go with class war anarchist-communist. Either label is fine with me.

EdmontonWobbly's picture
EdmontonWobbly
Offline
Joined: 25-03-06
Jan 18 2007 21:44

Wobbly anarcho communist works for me I suppose.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Jan 18 2007 22:09

John is right. Saussure's view is called "structuralism". Here is a good source for discussion on this topic:

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/~postjf/mcich2int.htm

This is an excerpt from John Post's book "Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction"

t.

Luther Blissett
Offline
Joined: 24-06-06
Jan 18 2007 22:41
tojiah wrote:
I'm feeling kind of strandless, myself. At least locally, there's no group I can find myself at home with. A lot of theorists have written interesting things, and a lot of groups have done interesting things, but to associate myself with any of them prominently?

If I must stick a label on myself, then 'contemporary anarchist' is close.

Deeply concerned by corporate fascism and it's rape of the environment and exploitation of people.

Interested in self-sufficiency and ecological sustainability - permaculture and cultural permanence.

Have a deep soft-spot for utopians like bookchin and romanticists like godwin, but like buber, realise that actions here and now' have ultimate priority

I tend to believe in the power of self-fulfilling prophecies, have a love of spiritual and mystical culture that some might call religious

From looking back in time, came to believe that anarchists do worst when they take up arms and so am dedicated to pursue a path of non-violent resistance.

Understand that contemporary methods of opposing corporate fascism means that use of legal means which my utopian self would ultimately like to see abolished renders me a permanent hypocrite.

View anarchism as being defined by political struggle - a struggle which is constantly changing .'. eroneous definitions quickly become obsolete

On the whole, am inspired by the current writers and activists, with a nod to the greats of the past.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Jan 18 2007 22:58
Luther Blissett wrote:
Derived from looking backwards, came to believe that anarchists do worst when they take up arms and so pursue a path of non-violent resistance.

I disagree. This position is, in fact, the single greatest failing of contemporary "lifestylist" anarchist groups, because history proves the exact opposite: the only instances where anarchist-communist organization really took place was during violent revolutions, and these communities were protected by armed anarchists. There are only two instances of this that I am sure of: Ukrain around the October Revolution and Spain around its Civil War.

In addition to these, there were instances of council-communist organization, like the Paris Commune and the St. Petersburg Soviet, and these too had to be protected by the force of arms, to have even survived as long as they did, which wasn't much.

This doesn't mean that one should resort to acts of insurrectionism like Alexander Berkman's, which are of no help, and usually of hinderance, to communist revolution. Nevertheless, the self-organization of the proletariat has to be armed, in order to defend itself against the bourgeois counter-revolution. If done wisely, this willingness by the workers to protect themselves will not have to be put to the test, but the potential must exist, or they will be crushed by the police, the gendarmes, the military, fascist militias, state-capitalist insurrectionaries, et cetera.

ginger's picture
ginger
Offline
Joined: 19-07-04
Jan 18 2007 23:26

Increasingly getting called "ultra leftist" by folks who might well be right...

Anarchist, feminist choosing to focus my activity for practical, tactical reasons on healthcare and community struggle.

I only engage in reformist struggles (which I do mostly around housing issues) if I believe that is developing revolutionary consciousness/potential by giving us as the working class organisational experience, militant attitudes and self confidence in ourselves and our neighbours. I don't use tactics or get involved in struggles that seem worthy but that I don't believe will do this even though they might achieve gains in the short term. This seems hardhearted to some activists I interact with.

On a personal level I'm a bit of a lifestylist in that I enjoy hanging out in squats, eating vegan (recycled) food, dancing around fires under the stars to drums and have a lot of fun at activist camps such as G8 silliness and ef! summer gatherings. However I don't see that as something I do solely in order to further an Anarchist cause except where it gives those of us that enjoy it a bit of a lift to keep ourselves going.

I'm also into autonomy of individuals and communities which can sound like I'm nationalistic at times because I'm pro independence and breaking down nations into as local a level as people feel natural with.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jan 19 2007 06:01
Ginger wrote:
Increasingly getting called "ultra leftist" by folks who might well be right...

Ginger, when people call you an ultra-leftist it is usually an insult. It doesn't actually represnt a specific set of ideas, it just means that you are more left than they are.
Thus, being called an 'ultra-leftist by aomeone in the Labour Party is very different than being called one on here.

Devrim

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Jan 19 2007 10:25
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:

Hmm, I'll go with platformist... but only because I like to differentiate myself from certain other anarchist communists who seem to celebrate organizational ambiguity as being some kind of strength, have yet to overcome the residual individualism in their politics, lend undue importance to the ideas of obscure misfit Marxist thinkers, and are academically substitutionist in their rejection of the need to actually apply anarchist ideas and methods of organization to working class social movements in order to develop effective revolutionary praxis. Or I'd just go with class war anarchist-communist. Either label is fine with me.

Did Stas teach you those big words?

Anarcho
Offline
Joined: 22-10-06
Jan 19 2007 10:34

I would say that I am an anarcho-communist. I'm not a Platformist, although I understand where it is coming from and agree with much of it (I agree with Malatesta's critique). I'm not an anarcho-syndicalist, although I think it is a useful tactic and should be supported.

Social ecology is essential, but its strategy is reformist and doomed to failure. Bookchin's post-2000 rants against anarchism are best ignored in favour of his earlier work. Chomsky is a great critic, of course, but lacks any real strategy.

I am sympathetic to Proudhon and (European) Mutualism (my work on www.anarchistfaq.org has made me read a lot of Proudhon and he an interesting thinker and is worth reading). I have some time for American individualist anarchism, although I think it is out of date and flawed (for the 19th century America, it made much sense and would have to be seriously modified in a co-operative direction to be applied there now).

Obviously, I reject "anarcho"-capitalism as not being a form of anarchism and i have little time for "primitivism" (self-contradictory nonsense with no revolutionary perspective).

Non-anarchists? Well, the classical council communists are worth reading, as is Harry Cleaver (one of the few Marxists who have written an accurate account of an anarchist's ideas). Fromm is also worth reading. Castoridias (sp?) is essential, as is Brinton. I also like Rousseau and Marx's economics are worth reading, once you understand what the labour theory of value actually means.

I would say I was most influenced by Malatesta, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Bookchin and Proudhon (in that order), although it is rare to find an anarchist who is *not* worth reading. My first anarchist book was Berkman's "ABC of Anarchism" (a classic).

And I would suggest that anarchists should spend more time focusing on what we have in common rather than the often silly dispites about minor differences. I would also suggest that any successful revolution would be mutualist and collectivist more than communist in its first stages, at least. As such, it would be wise to take the "anarchism without adjectives" approach and base ourselves on what is actually possible rather than ideal situations which rarely, if ever, appear.

MalFunction
Offline
Joined: 31-10-03
Jan 19 2007 13:18

no fixed strand

more of a plait of many influences

Skraeling
Offline
Joined: 7-04-06
Jan 19 2007 23:06
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
Hmm, I'll go with platformist... but only because I like to differentiate myself from certain other anarchist communists who seem to celebrate organizational ambiguity as being some kind of strength, have yet to overcome the residual individualism in their politics, lend undue importance to the ideas of obscure misfit Marxist thinkers, and are academically substitutionist in their rejection of the need to actually apply anarchist ideas and methods of organization to working class social movements in order to develop effective revolutionary praxis. Or I'd just go with class war anarchist-communist. Either label is fine with me.

So do you think the vast majority of anarchist communists like Berkman and Malatesta who rejected the platform when it first came out were secret individualists, into organisational ambiguity etc etc? Can they be called class war anarchist communists too or do you solely reserve that label for platformist hard-liners? Maybe you platformists need to grudgingly accept that some anarchist commies reject the platform and individualism, yet are into class war, and also are non-dogmatic enuf to see worth in other versions of communism besides anarchist communism rather than dismissing them as "misfits".

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Jan 19 2007 23:37
Skraeling wrote:
So do you think the vast majority of anarchist communists like Berkman... who rejected the platform when it first came out were secret individualists, into organisational ambiguity etc etc? Can they be called class war anarchist communists[?]

I just managed to go through the first part of Berkman's prison memoirs (up to and including the trial) a few days ago, and the way he writes until then would make me say that he was definitely not a class war anarchist communist, but rather an individualist, and, moreover, a muppet. He thought that somehow his holy act of insurrection will inspire the people, with whom he refused to communicate, going so far as to present his case in court via a statement written in German.

That's all I wanted to say, really, I'm not a platformist, I think, but I found Berkman to be a silly wide-eyed dweeb, who did nothing for the working class.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Jan 20 2007 00:27
Skraeling wrote:
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
Hmm, I'll go with platformist... but only because I like to differentiate myself from certain other anarchist communists who seem to celebrate organizational ambiguity as being some kind of strength, have yet to overcome the residual individualism in their politics, lend undue importance to the ideas of obscure misfit Marxist thinkers, and are academically substitutionist in their rejection of the need to actually apply anarchist ideas and methods of organization to working class social movements in order to develop effective revolutionary praxis. Or I'd just go with class war anarchist-communist. Either label is fine with me.

So do you think the vast majority of anarchist communists like Berkman and Malatesta who rejected the platform when it first came out were secret individualists, into organisational ambiguity etc etc? Can they be called class war anarchist communists too or do you solely reserve that label for platformist hard-liners? Maybe you platformists need to grudgingly accept that some anarchist commies reject the platform and individualism, yet are into class war, and also are non-dogmatic enuf to see worth in other versions of communism besides anarchist communism rather than dismissing them as "misfits".

In case it wasn't obvious it was a sarcastic response to your unnecessary swipe at "platformist" anarchists. Learn to express your politics without making a swiping caricature of your fellow anarchist-communists and perhaps they will treat you with the same respect.

boozemonarchy's picture
boozemonarchy
Offline
Joined: 28-12-06
Jan 20 2007 00:44
tojiah wrote:
That's all I wanted to say, really, I'm not a platformist, I think, but I found Berkman to be a silly wide-eyed dweeb, who did nothing for the working class.

he was the author of the first explanation of anarchism i ever read. thats at least "something" i rekon.

Skraeling
Offline
Joined: 7-04-06
Jan 20 2007 01:35
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
Skraeling wrote:
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
Hmm, I'll go with platformist... but only because I like to differentiate myself from certain other anarchist communists who seem to celebrate organizational ambiguity as being some kind of strength, have yet to overcome the residual individualism in their politics, lend undue importance to the ideas of obscure misfit Marxist thinkers, and are academically substitutionist in their rejection of the need to actually apply anarchist ideas and methods of organization to working class social movements in order to develop effective revolutionary praxis. Or I'd just go with class war anarchist-communist. Either label is fine with me.

So do you think the vast majority of anarchist communists like Berkman and Malatesta who rejected the platform when it first came out were secret individualists, into organisational ambiguity etc etc? Can they be called class war anarchist communists too or do you solely reserve that label for platformist hard-liners? Maybe you platformists need to grudgingly accept that some anarchist commies reject the platform and individualism, yet are into class war, and also are non-dogmatic enuf to see worth in other versions of communism besides anarchist communism rather than dismissing them as "misfits".

In case it wasn't obvious it was a sarcastic response to your unnecessary swipe at "platformist" anarchists. Learn to express your politics without making a swiping caricature of your fellow anarchist-communists and perhaps they will treat you with the same respect.

I don't think my swipe was unnecessary at all. Like Revol and Pete, I was only responding to some rather bloated claims made by Rise and Dundee in this thread about how wonderful platformism is. I agree with Pete and Revol's earlier comments. And i've been annoyed by lots of posts by platformists and their treatment of people with different views that theirs on these boards recently. I don't think my view of platformism is a caricature, it was simply a rather blunt summary of my view of platformism. OK i put it too harshly, but I really do think platformism is not very good at producing high quality theory, tends to fetishise the activity of their own organisation, has a somewhat crude understanding of current class composition, resembles some aspects of Leninism etc. You're welcome to dispute this, but please don't take it personally, it's not meant that way!

As for Berkman, it's fairly obvious he became a class war anarchist communist in later years. IIRC he called platformism anarcho-Bolshevism (but not completely sure about that), so to be sure i've searched for a quote and come up with this:

Berkman wrote:
Concerning Arshinov -- his change does not surprise me in the least. In fact, it is no sudden change, but a gradual "evolution" that could have been forseen long ago. Years ago I told him that his psychology is purely Bolshevik, and he became my enemy for it and never forgave me for it. As to his platform, I never considered it worth while even to discuss it: it was too dictatorial on its face, and I could not understand why other comrades should pay attention to the foolish talk and propositions Arshinoff of any one else makes. Some of our people even got very much excited about his "platform". They took the man and his "theories" entirely too seriously.

from a letter to Nettlau 1932 from http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/iishberkman/berkMNcorr/ABtoMN6-12-32.html

so there you go SRB, another bloody anarchist commie taking an unnecessary swipe at their fellow anarchist commies wink

I didn't like Berkman's What is Communist Anarchism? (abridged to ABC of anarchism) much either. whoops, should used libcom jargon, it was "utter shite" and "complete bollocks." grin

Feighnt
Offline
Joined: 20-07-06
Jan 20 2007 07:44
tojiah wrote:

I just managed to go through the first part of Berkman's prison memoirs (up to and including the trial) a few days ago, and the way he writes until then would make me say that he was definitely not a class war anarchist communist, but rather an individualist, and, moreover, a muppet. He thought that somehow his holy act of insurrection will inspire the people, with whom he refused to communicate, going so far as to present his case in court via a statement written in German.

That's all I wanted to say, really, I'm not a platformist, I think, but I found Berkman to be a silly wide-eyed dweeb, who did nothing for the working class.

i had somewhat unpleasant thoughts about him at that point, too...

however, people should not read only *part* of his Prison Memoirs. the Anarchy Archive has only about half of the book online, and even that is not enough to get the proper picture...

the reason is that, Berkman writes the book from the perspective of how he thought *at the time* he was living through what he was writing about. i said that awkwardly, but... to make an example: when he writes about going off to do the assassination, he writes how he thought back then, not how he thought after it was all done. all throughout the book, he wrote it... well, kind of as if it was a diary. subsequently, he foreshadows a ton of personal changes of thought and attitude which came over him during his stay in prison. i was originally quite shocked by his attitude towards homosexuality (which he first discovered in prison - didnt know it existed before). he writes about how disgusted he is with it, how he considered it immoral, and still pushed it to the back of his mind, thinking, perhaps, the fellow who made advances towards him was just making a bad joke. he writes this all as if he were still in that mindframe.

later in the book, he ends up falling in love with two men (not at once), and though he claims he never went so far as to do anything sexual with them, he realized how wrong his attitudes were towards homosexuality were in the past. furthermore, by the end of the book, he describes his change of mind, in that, while still believing in Anarchism, he came to realize how wide-eyed and ridiculously fanatical he once was, and specifically disavowed the usefulness of his attempted assassination. in all honesty... it's the way he writes in the active tense (i think that's the term?), as if he was writing this stuff the day it was actually happening, which makes a lot of the book so fascinating - you get to see just how this wide-eyed fanatic grew up and became more contemplative and focused in thought, more mature in his attitudes. really, dont discount the book just because of the starting - i was pretty well disgusted by that too. it gets a *lot* better.

personally, i also loved his ABC's too, though, being very fond of Platformism myself, i was rather disturbed by his crack about the Platformists being bolshevik wannabes.

i dont think Malatesta or Berkman were "secret individualists," really, but... personally, i think they protested too much over the Platform. i think they squabbled over insignificant points, or, honestly, things they dramatically misconstrued into semi (or full) bolshevism. i was surprised by the drama that arose over the Platform when i first heard about it, since it seemed to me that it was mostly just calling for stuff that lots of Anarchists (like Bakunin) had called for in the past. but, i have a tendency to be non-specific in my viewing of things.

Bubbles's picture
Bubbles
Offline
Joined: 4-12-06
Jan 20 2007 09:21

*I hate most people in the english speaking part of north america who call themselves anarchists.*

I usualy find myself describing my politics as wobbly, libertarian communist, labour anarchist or (mumbling under my breath) anarchist.

The only thing my politics revolve around are Direct Democracy and economic/social equality. I'll join any org anywhere witch I think can achieve this.

I've read many differant working class revolutionary libertarian left books, pamphlets etc. and think they are all worth folks time.

My acceptance of groups depends on the current situation in the "groups turf". I may support a Platformist group in one area of the world or the creation of one or I may think its pre-mature or rediculous in another.

Anything that isnt a membership organization with dues, referendum, ballots, elections etc. I usualy find my self calling it a poorly-organized cadre organization. Ive found many people who consider themselves anarchists in the US calling me controlling, too structuralist, workerist, too concerned with acountability etc.

I like anyone who is called a trot by anarchists and a anarchist by trots.

I'm against anarchists with-out adjectives but for the collaberation of all directly democratic revolutionary working class organizations. I think the with-out adjectives orgs can only agree on breaking things under spray painted banners and dancing in the street with face paint while the cops beat the shit out of all the people of collor.

I think orgs like food not bombs and other charity orgs like it end up trying to make capitalism worker friendly not abolish it and replace it with a worker run society.

I'm not opposed to taking a insurectionalist stance on certain issues or in certain situations but I think that it is most likly doomed from the start in the US due to the lack of the ability of american radicals to behave properly in a millitant street protest(we cant even defend our own demos). I think only past union gun fights and black panther related stuff where periods where insurectionalism was possibly sucessful because this insurrection grew out of the mass membership organizations of the working class.

I think unions are just one of many tools at the working classes disposal but not always the most important.

I think that each catagory of the working class will be interested in differant types of groups and for a revolutionary situation to happen in the US all of these orgs will have to work together.

I think what APPO did was brilliant and all revolutionaries in north/south american should take serious note. I thought they lacked in willingness to take up arms and/or more serious forms of defence of Oaxaca.

I suppose I'm a "big tent libertarian communist".

Wayne Price
Offline
Joined: 22-10-06
Jan 20 2007 19:08

Sticking to the topic: What "strand" of anarchism do I identify with. Let's see. I am on the side of the oppressed against the oppressors. I see the working class as central to a successful revolution, and therefore identify with anarchist-communist and anarchist-syndicalist traditions. But this is due to the strategic location of the working class in capitalist society--not to any moral superiority of the working class. Workers are not more oppressed than women or Gays or the Deaf. Since all forms of oppression prop each other up, it is essential to attack all subsystems of oppression at the same time.

I am for pro-organizational anarchism, which includes the tradition of Platformism, especifisimo, the FAI, Malatesta, and Bakunin. I do not regard myself as an orthodox Platformist and my organization, NEFAC, is not organized according to the structure of the Draft Platform--partially because we can use the Internet. I like to think that our structure has overcome the objections which Malatesta raised against the Platform. (However, he was critical of the Platform partially because he advocated an eclectic, synthesist organization--individualists and communists, etc.--which I believe was a mistake.)

I also identify with the humanistic and libertarian side of Marxism, and have been deeply influenced by CLR James, Paul Mattick, Sr., Cornelius Castoriadis. Having been a Trotskyist, I find that there are useful aspects of Leninism and Trotskyism in relation to theory, tactics, and strategy (not goals) which anarchists can learn from, if critically reviewed (I have been criticized for saying this). However, I do not regard myself as a Marxist because I think that Marxism as a total system is deeply flawed in several ways (as I have written elsewhere).

Other traditions which have influenced me include Malcom X, decentralism, radical ecology,and left Freudianism.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Jan 20 2007 19:19
Quote:
I don't think my swipe was unnecessary at all. Like Revol and Pete, I was only responding to some rather bloated claims made by Rise and Dundee in this thread about how wonderful platformism is. I agree with Pete and Revol's earlier comments. And i've been annoyed by lots of posts by platformists and their treatment of people with different views that theirs on these boards recently.

Irony is a funny thing. You make a sectarian swipe against an entire tendency, and then you whine about different veiws being treated badly on these boards. Whatever.

Quote:
I really do think platformism is not very good at producing high quality theory, tends to fetishise the activity of their own organisation, has a somewhat crude understanding of current class composition, resembles some aspects of Leninism etc. You're welcome to dispute this, but please don't take it personally, it's not meant that way!

Okay, but I think you are making a complete caricature and I do indeed take it as uncomradely and sectarian.

Quote:
As for Berkman, it's fairly obvious he became a class war anarchist communist in later years. IIRC he called platformism anarcho-Bolshevism (but not completely sure about that), so to be sure i've searched for a quote and come up with this.

I never said anything about Berkman, but I do think he has alot of inconsistencies in his politics. On most points I agree with him, and some I don't. Do you really think an off-handed comment with absolutely no argument of substance behind it in a personal letter has some important insight to bring to the debate around platformism?

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Jan 20 2007 20:59
Wayne Price wrote:

Other traditions which have influenced me include Malcom X, decentralism, radical ecology,and left Freudianism.

Left Freudianism? Other than Lacan who does that include?

Skraeling
Offline
Joined: 7-04-06
Jan 20 2007 21:48
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
Quote:
I really do think platformism is not very good at producing high quality theory, tends to fetishise the activity of their own organisation, has a somewhat crude understanding of current class composition, resembles some aspects of Leninism etc. You're welcome to dispute this, but please don't take it personally, it's not meant that way!

Okay, but I think you are making a complete caricature and I do indeed take it as uncomradely and sectarian.

It's not meant as being uncomradely and sectarian nor as a caricature, i'm just briefly stating some of my criticisms of platformism (i have many others) in response to Rise praising it to the skies that it is so amazingly wonderful and the "cutting edge of communist theory today" or something. Honestly, platformism, while i agree with some of it and see it has some strengths, just doesn't appeal to me for the reasons i list. This is not some offhand kneejerk response to it, but an honest assesmment of it after working with platformists, debating many platformists, reading Fontenis and the platform and Skirda and debates on the platform.

I'm not a sectarian in practice, i know a few platformists, they are good friends and i work with them quite well. in fact, i've formed quite a few groups with platformists.

Quote:
I never said anything about Berkman, but I do think he has alot of inconsistencies in his politics. On most points I agree with him, and some I don't. Do you really think an off-handed comment with absolutely no argument of substance behind it in a personal letter has some important insight to bring to the debate around platformism?

No of course not. I was just looking around for a quote to back up my claim that Berkman once said platformism was anarcho-Bolshevism.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jan 20 2007 21:57

For all that the Platformists talk about 'winning the leadership of ideas', they seem to get imensly wound up when people question their ideas. What with Joe Black retreating into calling everyone who disagrees with him 'hobbyists', and SRB just abusing everyone, one has to wonder how they react when they come up against Stalinists ,union bureaucrats, and others who disagree with them.

Devrim

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Jan 20 2007 22:05
Devrim wrote:
For all that the Platformists talk about 'winning the leadership of ideas', they seem to get imensly wound up when people question their ideas. What with Joe Black retreating into calling everyone who disagrees with him 'hobbyists', and SRB just abusing everyone, one has to wonder how they react when they come up against Stalinists ,union bureaucrats, and others who disagree with them.

Devrim

I have never had a problem talking politics civilly when there is mutual respect. That said, when people condescend to me or engage in sectarian mudslinging I don't have any particular interest in being nice. Anarchism isn't a social club for me.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Jan 20 2007 22:42
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
Anarchism isn't a social club for me.

The amount of money you spend on penicillin would seem to prove this statement wrong.

Seriously though. I've never really understood the animosity towards the "leadership of ideas." You think you're right. You talk about it. You work with people who agree and put those ideas into practice. They work or they don't. Its common sense.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jan 21 2007 00:02
thugarchist wrote:

Seriously though. I've never really understood the animosity towards the "leadership of ideas." You think you're right. You talk about it. You work with people who agree and put those ideas into practice. They work or they don't. Its common sense.

I don't have any problem with that at all. My point was about how loudly those who claim to be 'the leadership of ideas' whinge when their ideas are questioned.

Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
I have never had a problem talking politics civilly when there is mutual respect. That said, when people condescend to me or engage in sectarian mudslinging I don't have any particular interest in being nice. Anarchism isn't a social club for me.

What do you mean by personal respect? I don't think that any of the communist left have personally insulted you (Revol doesn't count in this if he has. He is an anarchist.). Yes, we have said that your line on national liberation is anti-working class because we believe that it is. I don't think that that is in any way condescending, nor do I think that it is sectarian mudslinging. It is an honest confrontation of ideas. To me it seems to be the Platformists who have indulged in substituting personal insults for argument. If they were to say that the left communist line leads to isolation, and purism, which they have, then to me that is a valid political argument albeit one I obviously disagree with. However, to suggest that people you disagree with are merely 'hobbyists' (and I know that this is Joe Black's term, not yours, but a lot of your arguments have been similar) seems to be mudslinging to me.

Devrim

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Jan 21 2007 00:21
Quote:
Anarchism isn't a social club for me.

grin I am worried that I only engage with people when I feel threatened - which is not very honest, but I can't help feeling your grasping at straws there.

For everyone here socializing with you (me, anyone..) is less important that politics. I do not imagine that you never socialize with people with similar political views to you. So why say something so daft?

Do you think that the "inactivity" of some people is distorting their beliefs and arguments? That if I were to join some group then I would see that you are correct?

A pointless ad hominem that calls for a ghetto - in which political people have forfeited the ability to socialize.

I don't quite know what you mean by 'social club', but when I was young I did note that most people would visit the local social club.

You sound like a retarded goth.