Not making anarchism even less popular... - Freedom

Editorial from Freedom newspaper from 2004, during the editorship of Steven and Jim from libcom.org, posted to libcom.org for comment from users, with suggestions on trying to make the anarchist scene less cliquey.

Submitted by Steven. on September 5, 2004

We're not kidding ourselves, we know that as socio-economic theories go anarchism is not the most popular. Okay most people would agree with the fundamental tenets of anarchism - but not when it is so named - but that's another matter. The fact is, in modern Britain few people would consider themselves anarchists. This is obviously a situation which you would think most anarchists would want to change - we think our ideas are the best ones which history have shown to be the most effective at improving people's lives, and so we would like more people to take them on board.

Sounds simple enough, yet some anarchists seem intent on making our unpopular ideas less attractive still to the majority of the population. At its base, anarchism is the idea that humans have better, happier lives when free of coercive authority. As such we encourage initiatives which involve people co-operating independently of coercive institutions in order to improve their/our lives. That's it.

Some anarchists however, seem to conflate all of their personal lifestyle preferences with this social theory, and claim that to be "anarchist" one must also have the same lifestyle preferences as them. Popular lifestyle choices masquerading as "anarchism" include such areas as musical taste (punk), dress sense (again, punk), eating habits (vegan/vegetarianism), religious beliefs (atheism) and housing (squatting).

Of course everyone should be free to live however they want - providing they respect others - but this doesn't mean that certain people should claim "anarchism" to be the exclusive domain of their soon-to-be-recuperated subculture.

I personally am an atheist, a rationalist and have absolutely no time for religious/spiritual mysticism. I think it's all bollocks. However while I could make some argument about how my beliefs relate to anarchism I realise that religious/spiritual beliefs are not mutually exclusive from anarchism, and so don't claim that anyone who is, say, Pagan cannot be an anarchist.

For many people who believe in animal rights, for example, this just does not apply. Some seem so keen to keep anarchism an isolated ghetto that they will mock, insult or just be plain rude to fellow anarchists who happen to like tuna. This is especially off-putting for new people to movement, who understandably will not want to have anything to do with people who will be rude to them for something as petty as their dietary choices. Similarly I have heard many anarchists say that someone who believes in God cannot be an anarchist. Ohen asked to explain the reasoning behind this you usually get some mumble about divine authority, but the fact is - as with animal rights - anarchism is about *human* equality.

Some people seem more keen for the anarchist movement to be a bizarre homogenous cult of weirdoes just like them, rather than a diverse, living idea in practice, eventually capable of assisting the revolutionary overthrow of capital and the state. The first lot should not be given the opportunity to spoil it for everyone else. And while it may be comforting to surround ourselves with people who think like us, let's try to focus on what is important - namely that we are all fighting for a free, co-operative and joyful world.

Take care of yourselves, and each other.

Readers should be aware that this was posted in 2004, when posting guidelines were much more lax than 2009-onwards, so many of the type of comments below would not be acceptable anymore, however we leave them visible for reference.

Comments

Blacklisted

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Blacklisted on September 5, 2004

Hey,

Actually I think that its great, something im constantly thinking about recently. Ive been coming to the conclusion recently that many non-activist people are more radical and indeed more anarchist than many activists, self proclaimed radicals and anarchists. This is not strictly true and I dont want to offend any activists, cos I respect all of ya. But this article does kind of sum some of this up. However, there are bits that I could logically argue with till blue in the face, but I suspect you see that yourself, and I would imagine that it would be very logical but pureist arguements that dont really have any relevance to real life.

Only thing Im not sure about is this idea of getting people over to our ideas. To me it doesnt, matter whether them people recognise themselves as anarcho or not. Anarchism is a set of principles and possibly some methods based on those principles, not a nametag or a doctrine. I think most folks would agree with anarchist principles such as non-hierarchy etc, but they say it aint practical. Isnt that exactly our point?!

How come we allways reply with, 'no, it is practical' when maybe what we should be saying is 'your right, at the moment, under this system these principles are not practical, thats what we are doing, changing the system to make these principles practical!'

Anyway Im ranting, and I think the 'anarchist' tag issue you probably get too!?

Good article people.

Stu.

Wayne

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Wayne on September 5, 2004

John, you know I agree with the general sentiment, but pagans :shock: !

Come on to fuck! We need to shed weirdos, not attract more! They fucking celebrate Christmas on the wrong day for Christ's sake!

Steven.

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Steven. on September 5, 2004

Wayne

John, you know I agree with the general sentiment, but pagans :shock: !

Come on to fuck! We need to shed weirdos, not attract more! They fucking celebrate Christmas on the wrong day for Christ's sake!

Sorry but I'm sure a few people know my views on paganism. And I've had long conversations with some of them trying to explain how the fairies they reckon they've seen couldn't have actually existed, especially since the tiny violins they were allegedly playing would not have been at the normal pitch. In fact they would've been so high-pitched as to probably be inaudible to humans.

It's obviously cack.

However, we could easily say, going down the same road of trying to be "populist" - right we don't want any pagans being anarchists, nor punks, nor dorks, nor ugly people, nor boring people, trekkies, or tottenham fans yada yada. But everyone's a fucking weirdo to someone...

Wayne

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Wayne on September 6, 2004

Well I wouldn't ban ugly people but I don't think they should be in photographs and I'd make them sit at the back during public meetings.

Steve

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Steve on September 6, 2004

The article is good. It something we've been trying in my Local for a while. Meeting people half way on a social/cultural level without diluting the politcs.

When I meet people who are interested a lot of the time they ask questions like 'do you have to be a vegan/ vegetarian' etc. All I say is that as long as you believe in the principles of direct action, non-hierarchical organisation, and don't have a job where you can hire & fire or discipline people then you can join.

As for the pagan thing. We've got two members who are pagans. It's not an issue. Sure there are some 'new age' types but the pagans I know are down to earth and their politics are spot on.

Steven.

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Steven. on September 6, 2004

revol68

yes pagans and other fucking sub cultural parasites can go pray to their goddess or whatever trendy new age deity they are worshipping. I actually think that atheism is a major part of anarchism and class struggle, the punk sub culture and other lifestylist stuff can all go shove it self but i wouldn't drop the atheism.

While I do think believing in god is stupid - what does it matter from the point of view of, say, winning a strike if some of the people believe the universe was made by a sentient being?

I mean there are obviously problems with certain forms of religious beliefs - particularly wrt organised religion - but there's nothing inherently anti-anarchist about believing in a creator shurely?

Wayne: i think that as anarchists we should rely on the uggers themselves to understand their predicament and choose to remove themselves from propaganda materials, and prominent positions in public events.

(:wink: :D)

Steve

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Steve on September 6, 2004

Steven.

I mean there are obviously problems with certain forms of religious beliefs - particularly wrt organised religion - but there's nothing inherently anti-anarchist about believing in a creator shurely?

This is true. Belief in a god of some description is one thing. To belong to an organised religion with priests, imams or whatever would be hard to reconcile with anarchism.

The pagans I know don't have priests or priestesses. They don’t believe in gods/goddesses in the sense that some people think of it. It’s more a nature thing with “the goddess” being within the person. (This is my understanding of it anyway). One problem with paganism is, like anarchism, anyone can call themselves one and put others right off.

Steven.

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Steven. on September 6, 2004

Steve

The pagans I know don't have priests or priestesses. They don’t believe in gods/goddesses in the sense that some people think of it. It’s more a nature thing with “the goddess” being within the person. (This is my understanding of it anyway). One problem with paganism is, like anarchism, anyone can call themselves one and put others right off.

Exactly. And a lot of anarchists are so fanatical about their weird other set of beliefs that in anarchist meetings or events they start going off about their other bollox.

And I think if people have come together (esp. new people) because shared anarchist views then new people shouldn't be put off by others making it look like those who are anarchists must believe in their other shit.

JoeMaguire

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by JoeMaguire on September 6, 2004

Some seem so keen to keep anarchism an isolated ghetto that they will mock, insult or just be plain rude to fellow anarchists who happen to like tuna.

While I dont mock people who eat tuna, I feel that generally being an anarchist and tolerating animal abuse is about as compatible as accepting racism or any form of chauvinism or prejudice. Frankly its odd and uncalled for.

But just like I dont beat people up for expressing 'grey areas' around people from different ethnic backgrounds I dont attack people who eat meat etc. Always you should strive to be the change you want to see, which should be based on fraternity, understanding and compassion, but why on earth some people think that should exclude animals heaven only knows...Animal abuse is one fragment of how capitalism markets and destoys sentient lives purely for profit, they are and remain the most oppressed group on earth, if overthrowing capitalism doesnt change that equation, then quite frankly what the fuck is the point!?

So without being accussed of lifestyler etc, its important we build change in the here and now, by doing at least something around veg outreach or challenging animal abuse. And I cant see no ghetto, or anymore than the rest of the movement ( :roll: ) because Im not so sectarian as to put animal issues above those of the general movement, Im still in good contact with people I was working with previously and the fact they eat meat is a none issue when discussing current political stuff. In fact some of my best friends eat meat :x

I would be grateful for examples of whom Steven's is refering to but as far as Im concerned there arent that many anarchists who do animal rights stuff, otherwise frankly the animal rights movement wouldnt be so full of liberal campaigners who constantly want to petition over the most miniscule points, in complete isolation of the ravages of 'the system'.

In fact I was hoping to write something for the proposed AYN zine on why anarchists should 'do' animal rights activity, but thats probably a different issue, as always I think AR activity is troubled by the prism of the or so false, 'red vs. green' divide which is kept artificially alive by so many knobheads and that capitialism can and is co-opting alot of animal rights through careers and consumer goods.....a sad but true legacy of rebellion being sold to the punters.

woofnbark

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by woofnbark on September 6, 2004

I use to think anarchism was about freedom of choice, and self govern and yet the more time I analysis the finer details anarchism. Anarchism seem to be going around in circles for example it o.k.to look "cool" and defend Anti-Racism and yet it seem "O.k." to take a potshot at Religion. Where is the reasoning behind this? Surely it's within right for people to do as they so desire as so long it's not hurting anybody.

Steven.

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Steven. on September 6, 2004

october - I think you're cool and your politics are generally totally sound. But I don't think you can deny that capitalism and the State are human entities. Animal rights is a different issue. Like with my religious example you can argue about how they're linked but they are not the same thing.

october_lost

While I dont mock people who eat tuna, I feel that generally being an anarchist and tolerating animal abuse is about as compatible as accepting racism or any form of chauvinism or prejudice. Frankly its odd and uncalled for.

Whilst you may consider them "odd" they are not mutually exclusive. Racism is a set of ideas which divides the working class against itself - eating habits are entirely different.

will respond to the rest in a sec - busy with work atm

Steven.

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Steven. on September 6, 2004

october_lost

Animal abuse is one fragment of how capitalism markets and destoys sentient lives purely for profit

Exactly. It is one tiny aspect within capitalism. Theoretically, capital + the state could survive in a vegan utopia where non-human animals aren't abused. Therefore animal rights is not an intrinsic part of opposition to capital and the state.

they are and remain the most oppressed group on earth, if overthrowing capitalism doesnt change that equation, then quite frankly what the fuck is the point!?

well i don't know about you mate but i don't want to waste my whole life in a shit job, nor have all the people around me do the same, sufferering from stress, mental illness etc.

So without being accussed of lifestyler etc, its important we build change in the here and now, by doing at least something around veg outreach or challenging animal abuse

Fair enough if you wanna do that - but don't call it anarchism. just like I argue with people about atheism/rationality or whatever, but don't call it anarchism.

I would be grateful for examples of whom Steven's is refering to but as far as Im concerned there arent that many anarchists who do animal rights stuff

Fuckin hell where could I even start? Amongst some "anarchists" who are into animal rights, there are the people who've called me a Nazi for saying that humans and animals are different... others who said they thought it'd be okay for some people to hunt + eat blacks or jews or whatever, the ones who thought that everyone in mcdonalds workers resistance should be killed (aswell as the rest of mcD's staff), the anti-semites who compare the meat industry with the holocaust, the one who put Skrewdriver on at an anarchist gathering, the people who bitched about guy new to the @ movement and wouldn't talk to him cos they saw him eat meat... I could go on and on and on... sadly

Lazlo_Woodbine

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazlo_Woodbine on September 6, 2004

The basic reason that overt anarchism is not more popular is that there are too few overt anarchists, and not enough action/propaganda gets done. To say 'things would be better if it wasn't for xxxx anarchists' is not helpful. This argument may be of interest to some anarchists, bit how does it look to everyone else? I want Freedom to be something I'm happy to give to people I hardly know -- and i think oe reason its got better is that its far less full of the old intra-scene debates that used to clutter it up. Those people are all dead now, let's not fill up Freedom with a new generation of intra-scene debate, because we spend enough time on this already.

Actually, I might send this as a letter to Freedom, except that I would then be contributing to an intra-scene debate in Freedom :roll:

I think we need to lost the old 'xxx are holding us back' victim mentality; the main thing that holds us back is our lack of ability to win voctories. Sure there are concrete problems with lots of anarchist groups and publications -- but let's concretely criticise them, rather than letting off blunderbuss communiques.

Steven.

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Steven. on September 6, 2004

we can never think of anything to put in editorials - and no one reads 'em anyway :wink:

if you'd rather something else was there please please fill it!

Jacques Roux

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Jacques Roux on September 6, 2004

Nice post Laz..... summed up very nicely what i think a lot of the time ;)

Think it would be a worth while thing to write about... maybe i'll do it someday! ha! :D

Steve

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Steve on September 6, 2004

Yes there are too few anarchists. Yes there is not enough propaganda/action. The two are linked. A few people trying to get something across that don’t give easy solutions. Yet if ‘ordinary’ people perceive anarchist as a bunch of weirdoes and that they have to buy into a whole package of ideas then we will remain a very small isolated group. Where anarchism has reached beyond a ghetto it has been seen as a viable alternative for ordinary people. It has become part of the cultural landscape, a social, economic and political alternative that reaches into the day to day lives of people.

By setting pre-conditions, being atheist/vegan/wearing black or whatever, we will remain small and insignificant. People are surprised when I tell them I’m an anarchist although I don’t hide the fact. They have a pre-conceived notion of what an anarchist should look like and where do they get this from? The media maybe, but often from anarchists themselves.

JoeMaguire

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by JoeMaguire on September 7, 2004

I havent been involved with anarchism all that long, and Id be the first to admit that I want my output to increase but my activism goes back a number of years to being involved with trot sect politics, so on that level I think the most important thing is to find 'allies', much like Lazlo seemed to be saying, 'dont say xxx are runing the movement, go build an alternative'. I sometimes think that short of asking us to join a particularly federation (another thread in itself!), you are acting like guardians for the movement, albiet not in a truly regressive way.

Steven wrote

But I don't think you can deny that capitalism and the State are human entities. Animal rights is a different issue. Like with my religious example you can argue about how they're linked but they are not the same thing.

I dont think AR is central, but it as repercussions which cant simply be dismissed, how we organise food production and distribution is central to our society. Also animals were the first foundation in developing class society. Likewise you say that racism is different, but the idea of a libertarian anarchist society which en mass exploits animals (and the environment) is quite frankly absurd. Thats not to say people wont eat meat at all (that in itself is probably an unachieveable utopia), but the feature of factory farming and slaughterhouses, arent part of the fabric of a free society. And part and parcel of anarchism is that we build our world in the here and now, through viable AR work.

And the examples you give Steven are sad, but any good intentioned set of ideas can be turned into dogma if in wrong use. In fact I recently met with the sabbytabby from MWR and didnt spurn him for the Mcdonalds shit, infact part of anarchism would dictate that its his choice to work in an industry involved in meat production, however I couldnt, but would support MWR, since it would further both human and non-human liberation, via the creation of a sustainable free society.

And there arent and shouldnt be conditions for entering anarchism, but In my relatively short experience of the movement, it needs to be more organised with its current forces, rather than hoping new blood will come in and help 'do more of the same.'

3rdseason

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by 3rdseason on September 7, 2004

I like it.

To me anarchism does intrinsically include respect of animals and the planet but I can see how other people might have a different definition. :|

Lazlo_Woodbine

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazlo_Woodbine on September 7, 2004

Steve, anarchists will always be represented as weirdos in the media. Do you think we can become so respectable that this can't be done? We can't clean up our media image by trying to clean up the scene.

Then there's the effect we have on people who perceive anarchism directly from anarchists, rather than from the media. Too often people are put off by anarchists attituted and cliquiness, but this kind of problem is not limited to green/animal lib anarchists. Many class struggle anarchists are off putting in the way the act, and many groups feel exclusive. If we're going to have a look at the problem, we've got to remember that it's not an ideological one, it is something that all sections of anarchism do to a greater or lesser extent.

So how do we overcome these problems? Fucked if I know; in many ways I think they're endemic to small fringe groups. Often the mad people who put people off are also the workhorses who get crucial stuff done; we're a prisoner of our state of activism.

Hell yes I'll write a Freedom editorial, something about sex, maybe, that'll get the punters listening.

Maybe sex with animals -- Or would that not go down well in the media?

:mrt:

Vaneigemapprec…

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Vaneigemapprec… on September 7, 2004

totally agree with the anarchist image thing which is totally superficial and easy to buy into or sell.

I think the argument against worshipping or following a god is that if he is a divine authority, higher being or whatever, then he/she repudiates yourself, it takes away the idea of self determination and your ability to shape your future if there IS a higher being.

The Blast

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by The Blast on September 7, 2004

Steven.

While I do think believing in god is stupid - what does it matter from the point of view of, say, winning a strike if some of the people believe the universe was made by a sentient being?

I think thats a bit naive Steven. There are workers in catholic trade unions in some parts of the world.

Not sure I followed a lot of the remarks on religion in the article though. If anarchism is about human equality, and religion is a human construct (which as an atheist you must believe Steven), and religious beliefs effect how people relate to others, then religion is a concern for anarchists. It can't be separated off and treated as some kind of philosophical abstration. Class struggle analysis still applies to it.

The reigion stiff aside, I agree with the general sentiment of the article. I think that revolutionary politics should be for everyone and so should not become tied to a particular subcultue. Though we shouldn't make the mistake of rejecting any behaviour that doesn't fit into what we think people see as ordinary. For a start, I don't think that there are that many "ordinary" people out there. In my experience people are in to all sorts of weird and wonderful stuff that the moral "majority" would no doubt find odd.

So we just need to be ourselves :)

Steven.

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Steven. on September 7, 2004

The Blast

Steven.

While I do think believing in god is stupid - what does it matter from the point of view of, say, winning a strike if some of the people believe the universe was made by a sentient being?

I think thats a bit naive Steven. There are workers in catholic trade unions in some parts of the world.

Not sure I followed a lot of the remarks on religion in the article though. If anarchism is about human equality, and religion is a human construct (which as an atheist you must believe GB), and religious beliefs effect how people relate to others, then religion is a concern for anarchists. It can't be separated off and treated as some kind of philosophical abstration. Class struggle analysis still applies to it.

Yeah sure some beliefs yeah - but simple belief in a creator being doesn't harm anyone, particularly if that being doesn't shape human behaviour...

Lazlo by using the religion example that was my way of including class struggle :@:s in my slagging off session.

Guess you can't please some people.

What the fuck it'll just be primmos from now on :D

Lazlo_Woodbine

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazlo_Woodbine on September 8, 2004

Don't patronise me with your tokenism. :mrt:

I still think we're talking about a pot/kettle situation here.

Steve

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Steve on September 8, 2004

Lazlo_Woodbine

Steve, anarchists will always be represented as weirdos in the media. Do you think we can become so respectable that this can't be done? We can't clean up our media image by trying to clean up the scene.

True but we don't help ourselves sometimes. I'm not arguing about how people look, I think there's a lot more acceptance of differences in the way people dress than there used to be, it's more those who want to impose sets of conditions on others before they're 'accepted'. As I said to me it's very simple. Are you in a position where you exploit others? If not then we can make a start.

Lazlo_Woodbine

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazlo_Woodbine on September 8, 2004

Well so you seem to be saying that we need to change how we relate to each other, because we're unneccessarily off-putting. I agree with that, but don't think that this is a question just for the vegan atheist squatters that the Editorial namechecks. Meat eating, Christian mortgageholding groups also have a problem realting to people -- and like I said, I think that's about how cliques build up and how people police those cliques.

Steve -- if you think your group has none of those problems then I'd like to hear more about how you avoid them. Do you think no-one ever feels put off by your group?

Steve

As I said to me it's very simple. Are you in a position where you exploit others? If not then we can make a start.

Was that when you recruited yourself to the local? :mrt:

Steve

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Steve on September 8, 2004

Personally I think it's about trying to meet people who are maybe pissed off with stuff half way and not expect them to buy into a whole lifestyle change like some sort of TV makeover programme. That doesn’t mean dropping any of the politics it’s just presenting them in a different way not just shoving a leaflet in someone’s hand asking them to come to some meeting or other. I think one thing we have to accept is that it’s a slow process. I’ve been involved in anarchist politics for over 20 years and it can get fucking disheartening at times.

Speaking for my Local in Preston I don't think we are off putting. We don’t all look/dress the same. Our age range is from 22 up to 49. Some of us work some don’t one’s a student. It’s half & half male & female and all but one of us has kids of varying ages. But in common with a lot of local groups it’s down to lack of numbers that actually prevents us from doing as much as we would like, that and life in general, making a living etc.

Sometimes it may be the first person who you meet when you get interested in anarchist ideas that does it for you. When I first got interested the person I met was down to earth and talked just like me. He’s still a mate after all this time but I have met others since who would have put me right off (not because their looks but because they talk bollocks).

I’ve been asked all sorts of things by people who have become interested, usually around life style choices. Sometimes they seem to think they need some knowledge of anarchist history and theory. That’s when I say about not being in a position to exploit others.

Lazlo_Woodbine

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazlo_Woodbine on September 8, 2004

Steve -- why don't you write the next Freedom editorial in that calm, reasonable tone? Good down to earth stuff with no flailing or flouncing. Even better, why not a regular series of "Fireside Chats2 in which you explain to the anarchist listeners that, yes it is a long and hard struglge, but we're all in it togehter, and we carry a new world in our hearts.

Come on! I've cracked it!

It would have to be internet radio, of course, or maybe Under the Pavement on ALL FM.

I'm serious about you writing the next Freedom ed, BTW 8)

The Blast

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by The Blast on September 8, 2004

simple belief in a creator being doesn't harm anyone, particularly if that being doesn't shape human behaviour...

Religion can't be reduced to just belief in a creator. You are presenting it as something completely abstract when in fact its something very real in the lives of billions of people that in fact does shape their behaviour.

Going back to your original article, I'd agree that atheists who reduce religion to an abstract single issue are an irrelevance and of little use to anarchism. But it is this redefinition of religion away from people's real experiences of actual religion (as it exists on this earth in a very material form) that makes them irrelevant. Not the fact that they are atheists. You seem to be falling into the same trap Steven.

JDMF

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by JDMF on September 9, 2004

well, you can't have it both ways. The other hand vast majority of anarchists today are mainly involved in movements outside the organised anarchist groups. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of anarchists are in enviro/animal/GM etc work which might not have been historically part of the core anarchist ideals.

But times change, and it would be funny if anarchism would not change accordingly, and the influence from these movements will shape the image and agenda of anarchism as well, right?

So as much as i do wish my comrades in anarchist/leftist circles would go vegan, i similarly keep my head up high about my class politics and anarchism/syndicalism among the animal and earth activists. Perhaps not totally at home in either of the movements, but thats cool.

gurrier

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by gurrier on September 10, 2004

To me there are some things that are absolutely core to anarchism - essentially a commitment to treat other people equally and not to take hierarchical positions over other people. If people break these basic principles, even if it is only in their non-political lives, like say telling racist jokes, or living in a shamelessly patriarchal relationship, then they are just not being anarchists and this should be made clear by the anarchist movement.

There are lots of other things that some anarchists think are logical consequences of these basic anarchist principles. For example, I think that atheism flows obviously from anarchism. However, I don't have any problem if an anarchist chooses to believe in some funny spiritual force, as long as they don't promote that as an integral part of anarchism. I will argue against them and try to change their minds, but I certainly wouldn't say that they aren't an anarchist for believing in spirits.

Similarly, some people believe that human morals should cross the boundaries of species and that veganism is thus a logical consequence of anarchism. I think that this is a huge mistake and will go out of my way to try to convince vegans and vegetarians to eat meat, but I have no problem if people choose to be vegans or vegetarians in their private lives, as long as they don't claim it is a necessary part of anarchism.

On the bigger picture, I think that anarchists need to be very aware of group dynamics on every front. We need to make sure that in our groups there is no sub-conscious pressure to conform to the dominant cultural model. In some groups that I have been part of, there has been loads of unwritten rules, for example that watching corporate tv was somehow morally bad and anybody who admited to having seen big brother, for example, would be slagged off as a corporate whore. We should be very conscious not to allow this type of impression to be created within anarchist groups. We are trying to build a society which respects diversity and thus we need to allow people to make whatever choices they like beyond our core politics, without making them feel like they are betraying us. It is fine to discuss these things and argue out various points, but this should be distinct from any anarchist propaganda and activity.

Steve

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Steve on September 10, 2004

I agree except for the third paragraph. Why would you go out of your way to persuade veggies/vegans to eat meat? You contradict this by saying you have no problem with this choice.

I'm a vegetarian but it's not a big deal to me. I choose not to eat meat in the same way I choose not to smoke. I don't then campaign for others to do as I do. I just ask that if people visit my house then they don't smoke or eat meat.

I think your'e spot on with the rest though. As an anarchist I believe that I have to "walk the talk" as best I can. I can't advocate one thing publicly and then do something else in my private life.

Steven.

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Steven. on September 10, 2004

Steve

I agree except for the third paragraph. Why would you go out of your way to persuade veggies/vegans to eat meat? You contradict this by saying you have no problem with this choice.

Lol I'm pretty sure there were supposed to be a "don't" missing there - blatantly just a typo.

gurrier

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by gurrier on September 10, 2004

Nope, not a typo! Actually I do try to persuade vegans and veggies to eat meat! But not as a political thing, mostly just as a bit of a joke and to try to make the point that there are loads of different stances that anarchists can take on things like diet. I think that very often veggies/vegans think that anybody who eats meat is just a bit of a weakling whereas some people actually don't agree with the ideas of vegitarianism. I must admit that I'm a bit of a contrarian too :twisted:

By the way, I think that veganism/vegetarianism is generally bad for the health and I don't think there is any positive reason for doing it, so although I don't have anything against it, I would advise people to eat some meat. On the other hand, I oppose as much as anybody factory farming and any type of wanton cruelty to animals. I also oppose the environmental destruction that large scale horticulture brings about.

If we were to move to an exclusively vegan world within capitalism, by the way, we would almost certainly see the elimination of many, many more species of animal.

gurrier

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by gurrier on September 10, 2004

I don't really want to get into my meat eating argument here (practice what I preach!) but I think that the medical evidence shows that a balanced diet with some meat is the healthiest option. Of course, this won't hold for somebody who eats fried breakfasts and burgers all the time againsts somebody who eats a carefully controlled vegetarian diet along with various supplements. Just that for a given amount of effort to eat in a healthy way, a omnivore will have a healthier diet than a vegetarian. Veggies have to try harder to acheive the same level of healthy diet as meat eaters do.

sabotabby

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by sabotabby on September 10, 2004

This is going back a bit but I've been away...

In fact I recently met with the sabbytabby from MWR and didnt spurn him for the Mcdonalds shit

No, we got on grand and that was nice. But that wasn't always our experience of dealing with British 'anarchism'. Handing out leaflets at the :@: bookfair was no fun-

'What's this? ... Anti-McDonald's stuff, cool... Workers? Fuck off, I'm not interested in that socialist shit'

Then there were the e-mail death threats we used to get from 'Anarchists'. Someone actually had a collage of our hate mail in his room for a bit and it was roughly half and half between the American right and messages from British people calling themselves anarchists or ALF or 'vegan death squad' or, no shit, 'black hooded justice brigade'.

A guy from Newcastle told us that during the 90s an anarchist group split there because during the McLlibel stuff half wanted to do solidarity actions with McD's workers while the other half left to do joint actions with the fucking Hare Krishna's. A lot of anarchism in this country's a joke. So I think the original article that started this thread is very important.

infact part of anarchism would dictate that its his choice to work in an industry involved in meat production

I think anarchism, in its revolutionary rather than lifestylist form, recognises the opposite. When I started at McD's I had been unemployed for some time, was under eighteen, had no qualifications and little choice at all (and I didn't give a fuck about animals or trees). Some people who were involved had no choice what so ever, like when I spoke to workers from a store in London, one of them was an illegal immigrant supporting family in the UK and back in Afghanistan.

October, I think it's an important point that it's not people's choice where they work. This is the difference between a revolutionary communist politics and an individualistic liberal politics. People always said to us, 'well if you'd done better at school you wouldn't have to work at McDonalds' and that overlooks the fact that capitalism creates jobs where profit can be made at or above the average level. Workers then have to sell their labour to those jobs. One person may choose to work in a pub rather than a McDonald's but then someone else will have to do the burger job. The only real choice we have is to organise collectively and transform capitalist relations of production into a revolutionary communist economy. This is unlikely to start with revolutionary slogans but as a practical response to the exploitative futility of life under capital. MWR was an experiment in that direction.

Carl

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Carl on September 10, 2004

This forum is disgusting and more like a conservative party navel analysing exercise. For fuck sake `Not Making Anarchism even less popular` sounds like a job for `Sachi & Sachi` and what’s with the idea that we will make peoples lives `Happier`. Get real if you are talking about the UK the majority who keep on voting are bloody ecstatic, if you want to get on about the worlds poor nobody gives a toss.

We live in a competitive society and just as an example the editorials title is a full blown exposure of neo-con crap. As harsh as this comment is `We Cannot be Popular`, `Will Never be Popular` as we are the `Anti-Hero`, which many seem to have forgotten as we set out the agenda society has to confront.

Since 9/11 and the sweeping new powers the authorities have gained, well even a bit before then, there has been an exercise going on of where do we go from now. This is pointless crap as you each know and the decisive question is are you willing to put the comfortable lives many of you have on the line. If you are not, how do you expect people to listen or acknowledge what our cause is? Today it is so easy for them to ridicule you!

Anarchism’s one cause is that we are here to `Take Back What is Ours` and every other cause is a peripheral subject. You will loose friends over this as you realise that bargaining with authority is not what we are about. Those with petitions are liberal tossers hanging on; withdrawal from these sorts of actions is the only route to clawing back respect.

What will make us successful is clarity and even bloody rudeness without the fussiness of a happy world afterwards. The harsh reality is many of us are going to be mauled and so are those that join us and when we achieve the world we set out to create there is going to be great uncertainty. Get used to it now! Our message of `Solidarity` against that of a free-for-all is the safety net all of us will need.

:@:

Wayne

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Wayne on September 10, 2004

Get real if you are talking about the UK the majority who keep on voting are bloody ecstatic

You ignorant fuck, look at the number of anti-depressants prescribed in the UK annually.

`We Cannot be Popular`, `Will Never be Popular` as we are the `Anti-Hero`

Either Carl is-

A- Raving

B- Editor of Green Anarchist

C- A Millwall fan.

You're idea of an unpopular minority rudely creating a world of great uncertainty reminds me of the Bush administration and has no place on an anarchist forum.

What will make us successful is clarity

:D

the decisive question is are you willing to put the comfortable lives many of you have on the line

Am I fuck, I want life to be more comfortable, I want Italian liqueur every day and champagne once a week. As Sabotabby would say, 'nothing is too good for the working class'.

Anarchist Resistance

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Anarchist Resistance on September 10, 2004

Wayne you hippy cunt! Revol go and shag some tree you bourgeoise scum.

Anarchist Resistance

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Anarchist Resistance on September 10, 2004

Ye's a both just yappin because none of yes cant get your hole except off each other. gO AND SHAG SOME SHEEP

Anarchist Resistance

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Anarchist Resistance on September 10, 2004

WHAT CAN OF NAME IS THAT ANYWAY YOU MIDDLE CLASS LIFESTYLIST PARASITIC, WASTE OF SPUNK WOH CAN'T GET HIS HOLE.

Wayne

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Wayne on September 10, 2004

It's close, but it's not quite right.

For a start I think you need to drop the capitals 'cos IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE TRYING TOO HARD.

Your first post was good (bonus marks for 'cunt') but I think you've exhausted your material. I would suggest- shmuck, bozo, fuck face, penis features (topical today), etc.

Try to get your regional insults accurate. People from Wales shag sheep, people from Belfast get fucked by catholic priests.

You've not managed to use the word 'fucking' yet. When you do, try dropping the g to give an off the cuff, slightly prole effect. Like, 'you fuckin prick featured under educated lumpen arsehole'.

Remember that a poster's mother may be a better target for attack than the poster.

Finally, always mention Pannekoek :wink:

Anarchist Resistance

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Anarchist Resistance on September 10, 2004

What about i nScotland. I suppose they all suffer from the same things!

Anarchist Resistance

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Anarchist Resistance on September 10, 2004

back to the original debate. I have no time for hippy, slabouring cunts like Revol who thinks he is proleterian but in reality is a prick.

Steven.

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Steven. on September 11, 2004

revol68

who is this, seriously tho who is making a mockery of us.

wayne im scared :cry:

How the mighty have fallen *shakes head*

heh heh heh :twisted:

JDMF

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by JDMF on September 11, 2004

Why all this "cunt" and "prick" stuff, is that how you always talk to people?

gurrier

By the way, I think that veganism/vegetarianism is generally bad for the health and I don't think there is any positive reason for doing it, so although I don't have anything against it, I would advise people to eat some meat.

Numerous clinical studies have been made about the subject and the results range from veganims/vegetarianism having no effect on life expectancy levels to increased life expectancy. The former may be explained with the relative newness of vegetarian, and especially vegan dietary culture.

You can't compare diets with labels only. Veganism is based on a negative - what not to eat. It's not a diet plan of what one should eat and because the dietary culture is fairly new many vegans eat badly - in the same way than the majority of meateaters currently eat quite badly. There are hundreds of ways to be vegan.

On the other hand, I oppose as much as anybody factory farming and any type of wanton cruelty to animals. I also oppose the environmental destruction that large scale horticulture brings about.

Good, thats even more reason to go vegetarian, unless you believe that our political beliefs shouldn't be reflected in our everyday actions (for instance, one could be an anti-racist politically but behave like a racist claiming "personal is not political").

Similarly, you eat several times a day and if you feel that factory farming is not acceptable and large scale horticulture (remember 90-95% of the arable land is in feed production for animals and the large scale horticulture from soy to corn production is a product of animal farming) is damaging, perhaps your dietary choices should reflect that?

If we were to move to an exclusively vegan world within capitalism, by the way, we would almost certainly see the elimination of many, many more species of animal.

i presume you mean man made species like broiler chickens? Or reduction in number of species in grazed lands and so on? But don't forget the vast amounts of land used in feed production - sure, at first instance the freed up land should be used for people, but the remaining could be used for reforestation increasing biodiversity in the process.

When i originally became vegetarian and vegan i did it for political and environmental reasons not related to animals. I was disgusted to learn how much of the arable land was used for feed production and saw how richer or this planet were able to feed the animals better than humans. Now 12 years later the statictics are even worse and more and more land in poorer countries is used for cash crop feed production or directly beef and other animal product production leaving local people to feed themselves with leftovers.

Monbiot wrote a good piece about this, "poor get stuffed". I think he is, or at least was, a meateater himself, but saw the issues nevertheless:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2002/12/24/the-poor-get-stuffed/

Disclaimer: before the "cunt", "prick", "asshole" words start flying about like they do when a name, which doesn't conform to the exact ideals and politics of certain individuals, comes up, i can already admit that Monbiot is not a class struggle anarchist who has read all the essential books :mrt:

gurrier

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by gurrier on September 11, 2004

Firstly, as I said above, I believe that a balanced omniverous diet is generally the healthiest option. It is probably possible to have as healthy a vegetarian diet, but it takes a lot more effort. I don't see any ethical problems with eating animals so I don't see why I would spend the extra effort, especially when I could be using the time and energy in anarchist organising and propagandising.

Secondly, I don't think my consumer choices or yours will have any effect on farming models - consumerism is designed to give us the illusion of choice rather than any real power to change the world.

Finally, a capitalist vegan world would mean the extinction of all domesticated animals and would also probably lead to even more environmental destruction. Arable crops use more chemicals than pasturage. The idea that capitalists would suddenly decide to reforest their old pastures strikes me as very unrealistic.

Mike Harman

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Mike Harman on September 11, 2004

Dunno about that last bit. If you could reduce meat production to animals reared in pasture that'd be great, but what you have now is massive areas of arable land devoted to producing feed, not to pasture apart from organic-free-range farms (who may well use organic feed to back up their pasture anyway). And up until a few years ago, although I'd be very suprised if it doesn't still go on, dead animals not suitable for human consumption turned into feed for biologically vegetarian animals.

All of this activity is determined by the social/economic relations between humans, and could be resolved in those terms without ascribing animals equal rights to humans. It's quite possible to produce vegan food without any harm to animals but with lots and lots of harm to humans (health and safety, surplus-value etc. etc.) For that matter, plenty of vegan and vegetarian food is highly processed to look and taste like meat - I'd rather eat meat (although I pretty much avoid eating mammals and birds due to a mixture of the above reasons and personal taste, same as I avoid most London fish and chips.) Tofurkey for instance looks horrible and is made exclusively to satisfy the "vegan market" - http://www.tofurky.com/products.htm

Is there much work in the animal rights movement to point out how poor the actual quality of some meat is? Whole chickens in Tescos often have ingredients labels saying 70% chicken, 30% water and soluble protein. Panorama showed "soluble protein" is one step below Soylent Green. German technology that strips DNA from Chicken/Beef/Pork - so your chicken may have pig or beef, and if they wanted, horse/cat/rat/your deceased uncle in it and one of the world's top labs wouldn't be able to tell. The only bacon available in my local corner shop is 87% bacon, 13% water and soluble protein. I don't buy bacon, but if I did I'd probably have to travel to get some that was actually 100% from a pig. Again, social relations, not solved by single-issue consumerism.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/3035139.stm

[/url]

JDMF

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by JDMF on September 11, 2004

gurrier

Firstly, as I said above, I believe that a balanced omniverous diet is generally the healthiest option. It is probably possible to have as healthy a vegetarian diet, but it takes a lot more effort.

very western view, but hey, we live in the west so it is understandable. Here in west people tend to think that meat is essential part of human diet, though humans are omnivores, can eat a vast variety of foodstuffs and that explains why humans have spread like they are and are surviving in such different environments.

Anyways, majority of the world lives with very little animal products, though the westerd diet is spreading fast and all the environmental and social consequences with it.

I don't see any ethical problems with eating animals so I don't see why I would spend the extra effort, especially when I could be using the time and energy in anarchist organising and propagandising.

I can understand that if you were in that kind of clear cut situation where you had to choose one or the other. I spend no time thinking about my diet, and hey, i'm a 220lbs powerlifter!

Secondly, I don't think my consumer choices or yours will have any effect on farming models - consumerism is designed to give us the illusion of choice rather than any real power to change the world.

I agree with that as well. Thats why i am involved in different movements which aim to bring factory farming down. Lifestylist and isolationist attitude doesn't take the issue anywhere (for instance vegans who are more concerned about minute traces of animal products that someone else may be consuming, so called vegan police :D )

Finally, a capitalist vegan world would mean the extinction of all domesticated animals and would also probably lead to even more environmental destruction. Arable crops use more chemicals than pasturage. The idea that capitalists would suddenly decide to reforest their old pastures strikes me as very unrealistic.

so is the revolution brought up by a general strike and armed insurrection, but fuck that.

I already told in previous comment about how majority of the arable land in the world is used for feed production, and because one kg of beef protein requires about 10kg of plant based protein (the cow, for instance, has to use energy for moving, keeping warm, body functions etc and we do not use 100% of the animal either), the meat production is a "reverse protein/energy factory". Thats why if you are concerned about arable crops using chemicals, veganism would be a logical choice.

Pasturage has only limited role to play in modern farming and food production.

This is getting a bit off topic though :)

Carl

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Carl on September 11, 2004

Revolting who the fuck is durruti, obviously showing my ignorance as arm not well read and wot I say comes from the gut. Just as well since I would be on the anti-depressants Wayne wants to dish out free along with Italian liqueur after reading all those dirty books about fantasy wanking. No wonder coherent argument from either of you is wet since I did elucidate to life-stylist nonsense as peripheral crap.

Yet, I am a vegetarian and have campaigned right beside animal rights. Their arguments are great and their success vitriolic, with anarchistic methods. This does not translate into any argument that they are the same, as let’s face it the vast majority involved are middle class and the extremist element just want rid of all humanity.

My passion as a working class bloke is with an anarchist future and is neither wet nor unrealistic. We have `Unpopular ideas` and the likes of Revolting & Wankye (68 times) starring starie-eyed at a bottle opening while quoting theory is not going to impress anyone, least of all Italian fervour which is lacking in this country. The revolution is going to come down to strikes and plain hardship as nether the Working Class or elite are not going to let go easily.

:@:

redyred

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by redyred on September 11, 2004

Carl

my ignorance as arm not well read and wot I say comes from the gut.... My passion as a working class bloke...

Wow, I bet you have a forlock and everything. Look, maybe you are authentically working class but when you overdo the stereotyped proliness you coma across just a bit like a middle class wannabe trying too hard to hide their roots.

the likes of Revolting & Wankye (68 times) starring starie-eyed at a bottle opening while quoting theory is not going to impress anyone

Oh yes, cos Revol and Wayne make the most wanky, pretentious theory-filled posts on these boards, don't they? Man, you can't make an innocent comment about animal rights without them hitting back with a six paragraph rant on how the theories outlined in chapter 2 of Kropotkin's mutual aid proves you utterly wrong[/sarcasm].

The revolution is going to come down to strikes and plain hardship as nether the Working Class or elite are not going to let go easily.

Yes absolutely. So why let animal rights get in the way?

Wayne

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Wayne on September 11, 2004

Just as well since I would be on the anti-depressants Wayne wants to dish out free along with Italian liqueur after reading all those dirty books about fantasy wanking

What is fantasy wanking? It sounds fun but I can only imagine double amputees would want to read books about it. What's your point caller? You don't think anti-depressants should be free? Or you don't think they ever help people? Or you don't think they're really as widespread as I suggest? Or you don't think Italian liqueur should be free? Or... you've nae idea where you're going with this?

the likes of Revolting & Wankye (68 times) starring starie-eyed at a bottle opening while quoting theory is not going to impress anyon

Au contraire my proletarian chum. Offering someone amaretto is so much sexier than a bottle of Newcie Brown. Life tip there :wink:

LiveFastDiarrea

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by LiveFastDiarrea on September 12, 2004

on a side not, that stuff (amaretto I mean) is surprisingly nice with apple juice. just a tip for you all there.

gurrier

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by gurrier on September 12, 2004

A response to JDMF

First of all, sorry for derailing the thread like this. Hopefully this will be my last comment on anti-vegetarianism :D

Your dismissal of my argument as 'very western' is interesting. Personally, I think that refering to an argument as 'western' is meaningless. It's either correct or not. I don't buy post-modernist attitudes, especially when it comes to science. Either the particular diet that I proposed is the healthiest or it isn't. In evaluating the claim we use as much information as we have, ie we apply science to it. If you think there is something wrong with this 'western' scientific method, perhaps you could come up with an alternative way of evaluating the merits of competing theories?

As it so happens, the most animal product intetensive diets that I know of are among the rural dwellers of Argentina and the nomads of the sahel where close to 100% of diet is made up of animal products. Whatsmore, if you were to conduct a survey of all Africa and ask people whether they would like more or less meat, you wouldn't get too many ticks in the 'less' box.

Finally, I don't know what your environment is, but I know that if I was to become a vegan, it would require a huge effort on my behalf to ensure that I had a nutritional and balanced diet. There just aren't too many vegan outlets in the poor inner city area that I live in and I would have to travel a long way and spend a lot of extra money to make sure that I got enough nutrition.

JDMF

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by JDMF on September 12, 2004

vegan food is very cheap, especially if you have indian and other ethnic stores around. It is NOT cheap if you would need to rely on the Holland & Barrets style of places which are aimed at totally different market.

Regarding the western comment, granted, not very accurately described in my original reply, but what i meant is that for us the role of meat in our diet is very different to people in the majority world (a generalisation, like you said, there are loads of exeptions). Anyways, if you go to pubmed and search clinical studies of vegetarian populations in western countries the health benefits are clear, or in some cases on same level than omnivorous diets (but without the animal abuse, killing and resource waste).

I'm not trying to play down the effort it takes to turn your dietary culture totally upside down. All i'm saying that after the initial few weeks it becomes your second nature and like me, you would not think twice about it anymore.

gurrier

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by gurrier on September 12, 2004

Anyways, if you go to pubmed and search clinical studies of vegetarian populations in western countries the health benefits are clear

Not if you factor out the socio-economic factors. Veggies tend to be better off and better educated. Also, if you compare the southern european diet to that of the UK, you will find that it is healthier across the board and vegeterianism is practically unknown there.

Carl

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Carl on September 12, 2004

Wot redeye :P

You seem to have clicked on, since taking into context of the whole forums postings as it degraded into the rights & wrongs of Animal Rights, the real contention of argument should have been based all along on `Mutual Aid`.

Now my contention would be offering mutual aid to life-stylists is in effect helping the `enemy` since they all barter with government within the social norm of politics. Here the rhetoric of the rebel has become the norm, corrupted as governments except in principle some principles on environmentalism or over the welfare of animals but hierarchal change is non existent.

Revolt68 drugs not the problem only life-stylists.

Now who is screaming about apathy? What I would say is there seems very little clarity of direction on behalf of the anarchist movement and any realism as to the financial strength we will need to achieve our goals. Arguing for structure rather than foundation does not make me elitist, Marxist etc. we need funds for newsletters, leaflets etc. to inform, to educate to inspire and motivate. Operating as small cliques pushing out what we can only just afford is no longer an option.

Wayne; to many questions, see ya doctor, stop mixing the booze & pills and relax. :wink:

:@:

The Blast

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by The Blast on September 13, 2004

sabotabby

I think it's an important point that it's not people's choice where they work. This is the difference between a revolutionary communist politics and an individualistic liberal politics. People always said to us, 'well if you'd done better at school you wouldn't have to work at McDonalds' and that overlooks the fact that capitalism creates jobs where profit can be made at or above the average level. Workers then have to sell their labour to those jobs. One person may choose to work in a pub rather than a McDonald's but then someone else will have to do the burger job.

Yes - good point sabbotabby. I agree with it regarding the vast majority of jobs, though capitalism also creates jobs like copper, screw and bailiff that someone "has" to do. So its not quite so cut and dried. Maybe we need to add an clause for exceptions - those people who are directly employed in the exploitation and oppression of the working class. Deciding which jobs fall in to this category would be a tactical decision based on the best way for us to move forward as a group of people wanting revolutionary change.

There's certainly no reason not to work with and attempt to bring about revolt amongst people doing jobs for companies that harm the environment rather than get all moralistic about the job they happen to have at a particular point in their lives. It suprises me that many activisits more inclined towards animal and environmental welfare don't see the workers in the industries they despise as their natural allies.

JDMF

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by JDMF on September 13, 2004

gurrier

Anyways, if you go to pubmed and search clinical studies of vegetarian populations in western countries the health benefits are clear

Not if you factor out the socio-economic factors. Veggies tend to be better off and better educated. Also, if you compare the southern european diet to that of the UK, you will find that it is healthier across the board and vegeterianism is practically unknown there.

man, do you think an study which didn't factor that in would ever get published in pubmed?

FYI, the studies are often based on a set group, like seventh day adventist (largely vegetarian) and comparing the vegeratian 7th dayers to non-veggie ones, because you can aliminate a lot of the "background" noise which would skew the results.

JDMF

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by JDMF on September 13, 2004

The Blast

It suprises me that many activisits more inclined towards animal and environmental welfare don't see the workers in the industries they despise as their natural allies.

Assuming that they are natural allies is based on fantasy. But certainly exeptions are plenty and often campaigners get information etc from the workers inside the industry, for instance in the case of HLS contract animal tester workers have leaked documents and information to the campaign on numerous occasions. Can't see the workers being collectively very happy about a campaign aiming to close down their employer though...

McD is a different story as the workers are clearly seen as "victims" as well which is clearly pointed out in the material which is being published by anti-McD campaigns.

The Blast

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by The Blast on September 13, 2004

Assuming that they are natural allies is based on fantasy.

No its not. Capitalism is exploitative of workers, and also destroys the environment and causes animal suffering. A perfect coincidence of iterests between workers on the one hand, and those people more concerned about the environment and animal welfare on the other.

JDMF

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by JDMF on September 13, 2004

blast, as you may see from my previous posts i totally agree with you on theory level and perhaps in a different situation, but in practise, do you see any links forming? The anti-road movement never were able to form any meaningful links with the workers in the building sites, SHAC with HLS workers, and so on.

Links are being formed with workers in other industries though, like RTS with Liverpool dockers or striking tube workers and so on.

Lazlo_Woodbine

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazlo_Woodbine on September 13, 2004

Reclaim the Streets waws never an organisation. The RTS parties up and down the country 1994-1999 were mainly organised by the same people who were protesting against the roads at the same time.

captainmission

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by captainmission on September 13, 2004

revol68

yes im sure alot of the people in the anti roads movement were funny enough involved in reclaim the streets but it is true that rts had less of those fucking pagan/ewoks fuckers...

did it? how do you know this? from what i know its pretty much the same mix.

...and its statements tended to be more coherent...

which statement? Care to give some examples. I don't think any of these movements were particluarlly well known for issuing statements beyond the actions they took. And if you accept they're not organisations why expect coherence?

...and more aimed at people and their urban environment, instead of mystical lets save the magically trees nonsense.

think the magic tree nonsense is more your perception of them than any reality. Most of the road protest sites were in or close to urban areas and did address this issue.

Lazlo_Woodbine

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazlo_Woodbine on September 13, 2004

You could, in fact, say that RTS was the urban expression of the anti-roads movement.

Oh look, I just did. Someone give me a Chair in Modern Social Movements at Lancaster Uni.

Lazlo_Woodbine

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazlo_Woodbine on September 13, 2004

Who ever won by having an original idea? The chair and the TV series on Channel 4 are both mine!

People will say I've sold out and I'll end up as one of the trendy lectureres at Marxism 2007 who are all shagging 20 year old sociology students.

Wayne

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Wayne on September 13, 2004

what the fuck did that last tripod statement mean?

Your ignorance about eco-direct action movement is staggering. Oh fuck, for the first time ever you've impressed me.

(hippies like to block roads with the aid of tripods)

captainmission

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by captainmission on September 13, 2004

revol68

as for coherency i think its applicable whether an organisation or not, surely movments should aim for a degree of coherency.

yeah it'd be nice, but then i value effectiveness more than coherence. And if a bunch of 'ewok fucking hippies' can be the most visable and effective expression of anarachism for the past 15 years, i think its the rest of the anarchist that should be asking questions .

RTS did however attract a much more class struggle base than most of the anti road actions.

well maybe they expressed it in more familair terms, used the right rethoric and such but from my expeirence of the anti-roads movement it didn't/doesn't seam noticeable for its lack of class analysis.

You could, in fact, say that RTS was the urban expression of the anti-roads movement.

what you mean like that guy did in down with empire up with the spring in DoD 10? :P Think its more metropolitan expression rather than just urban (i mean where the fuck does the rural exist outside the archers?)

Lazlo_Woodbine

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazlo_Woodbine on September 13, 2004

Back off Captain-bitch! The lectureship is mine!

(ok, I offer you a workshop on 'marxism -- the real road to ecology' at Marxism 2008 plus a semi-autonomous book spin-off from my C4 series)

you won't get a better deal. Take it now, or I set Frank 'fury' Furedi on you...

Wayne

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Wayne on September 13, 2004

but then i value effectiveness more than coherence. And if a bunch of 'ewok fucking hippies' can be the most visable and effective expression of anarachism

Mission, pull yourself together for fuck's sake. Fair play to them, they were brave, determined and effective- as a single issue campaign. But if you think what they did was an expression of anarchism then you're having a fucking laugh.

Lazlo_Woodbine

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazlo_Woodbine on September 13, 2004

It was. And so was the peace movement, caps and all.

Suck it down, lefty, and don't come back till you've digested this fact.

captainmission

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by captainmission on September 13, 2004

Lazlo_Woodbine

(ok, I offer you a workshop on 'marxism -- the real road to ecology' at Marxism 2008 plus a semi-autonomous book spin-off from my C4 series)

was hoping more for a weekly guardian coloum and to cop a feel of naomi kline, but what the hell.

Lazlo_Woodbine

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazlo_Woodbine on September 13, 2004

Well known upper class whore G. Monbiot will be offering handjobs for £15 quid at the ESF in london (£5 to asylum seekers)

Lazlo_Woodbine

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazlo_Woodbine on September 13, 2004

Monbiot's great-great great grand-dad probably owned ships that carried grain over to Liverpool during the famine; he's so guilty about it you'll probably get a freebie.

captainmission

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by captainmission on September 13, 2004

well who doesn't want to fuck marcos? There' just something about men with pipes :blackbloc:

and fuck monbiot, galloways says he'll fuck a dolphin for fish supper and his bus fare home.

Wayne

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Wayne on September 13, 2004

It was. And so was the peace movement, caps and all.

Suck it down, lefty, and don't come back till you've digested this fact.

So SHAC? Sorry but this is the sort of shite that makes me despair about 'anarchism' in this country. I've a lot of respect for the anti-roads weirdos, they did a lot of things I wouldn't do (mainly involving their hair) and they had some success. But it was a protest movement and in itself was not an expression of anarchism. Same for peace movement, SHAC, Destroy DSEI, etc. Doesn't mean they are useless or wrong, nor that people committed to anarchism shouldn't be involved with them, but don't confuse such campaigns for expressions of anarchism in themself. Working towards a revolutionary resistance capable of transforming society and running a post-capitalist economy is difficult and wont be helped by pretending the anti-raods movement was anything other, or had potential to be anything other than, a nagging irritation to capitalist development. That they were never revolutionary is also demonstrated by the subsequent activities of the more politically conscious sections of that movement. With notable exceptions, they have prioritised protesting capitalism. That's also not an expression of anarchism whether you do it in London, Prague or Anglesey. Sometime fucking ecos get so up their own holes about the success and 'visibility' of their movement and think everyone would like to do high profile blockades of particular businesses but just can't figure out how and keep trying to involve themselves in work place stuff 'cos it's so much easier.

lucy82

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by lucy82 on September 13, 2004

t was a protest movement and in itself was not an expression of anarchism, Same for peace movement, SHAC, Destroy DSEI, etc.......

Doesn't mean they are useless or wrong, nor that people committed to anarchism shouldn't be involved with them, but don't confuse such campaigns for expressions of anarchism in themself.

why are none of these campaigns expressions of anarchism?

Working towards a revolutionary resistance capable of transforming society and running a post-capitalist economy is difficult

yeah, it is.

so hows the revolutionary resistance going so far?

please answer the question in not more than 150 words.

you can turn your paper over now.

Wayne

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Wayne on September 13, 2004

Firstly, nothing personal to you or Mission, I like yous and all... :)

But...

There's a guy I know, nice guy, hard working activist, and he's in the SWP because his idea of anarchism comes from the years he spent in Earth First! in the late nineties. He found it 'cliquey, infantile and not revolutionary'. I can understand why he resorted to the SWP. I don't think it's revolutionary either but it at least has some (half baked) conception of how to transform the economic structure of society.

Mission's post pissed me off because I've heard so many times the self-dick sucking of the direct action eco-movement (Class War used to have the same arrogance when they were capable of organising high visibility protests that got on TV and stuff) and the repeated assumption that other revolutionary libertarians should 'ask themselves questions' or learn something from the freakshow that was paraded on TV in the nineties. I don't want to be an activist in a famous protest movement and I wish anarchism wasn't associated with badly thought out politics and smelly drop outs. And I did help organise some very succesful street parties, before I grew up.

why are none of these campaigns expressions of anarchism?

Anarchism, in so far as the word is worth defending at all, to me, refers to the theory and practice of responding collectively to life under capitalism while challenging other forms of oppression and building structures capable of running a post-state, post-capitalist society. Protest movements, by their transient nature, limited focus and typical lack of influence over the production and distribution of goods and services do not qualify.

Of course, words have meanings that are fluid and always a question of interpretation. More people might recognise your concept of anarchism than mine, like more people might recognise Stalin's communism than Dauve's. But if we are to keep using these words, then we have to define what we mean by them.

And if a bunch of 'ewok fucking hippies' can be the most visable and effective expression of anarachism for the past 15 years

The anti-poll tax movement was more visible more effective and less ridiculous than the anti-roads movement and in creating local groups that sometimes developed their focus towards more general community issues and sometimes attempted to continue after the defeat of the tax, was much closer to an expression of anarchism. I am curious what was the most visible and effective expression of anarchism before the 15 years topped by the anti-roads movement? Class War? Conflict? Crass? Anyway, everyone knows real revolutionaries work in invisible cells :P

so hows the revolutionary resistance going so far?

Well so far we've got twelve jugglers, eleven people cooking vegan slop, ten groups organising to protest the G8, nine punk bands, eight people boycottting Esso, seven squats, six protests scheduled for September, five samba bands, four alternative zines, three people doing henna tattoos, two people teaching NVDA skills and one bloke up a pear tree. Judge for yourself.

Oh and there's a few people into class struggle and all that old piss, who are cyncical, pissed off, close to retirement and spend all their time bitching at hippies on enrager. Fuck it all.

Steve

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Steve on September 13, 2004

I was at a SolFed summer school this weekend and a comrade who had just returned from living in Spain told us of a situation in Granada where he had been a member of the CNT. I think it might be relevant to this debate,

I won’t go into all the details but basically there was a dispute in a coffee shop in the tourist district of Granada after five women were sacked for trying to get something done about their working conditions and Health & Safety issues.

Although not members they contacted the Granada CNT who agreed to help them. As usual all decisions about the dispute were made by the general assembly of the Granada CNT along with the women. Pickets/boycotts/occupations were organised and there was support from locals and some tourists who were leafleted.

The local police started to harass the pickets and things got nasty when the pickets were attacked by local bouncers and other thugs hired by the café owners. One picket was hospitalised and the only people arrested were CNT members.

In reaction to this some local anarchists who were not members of the CNT decided to take ‘direct action’ against the café owners. This had not been agreed by the women or the Granada CNT. The result was withdrawal of support from local community groups, even worse publicity in the press, who painted the CNT as a mafia style union, increased police pressure and finally the lawyer who was supporting the women’s case withdrew his brief.

In the end two women got a little compensation but three got nothing. The longer term affect was that non-CNT workers were reluctant to ask for support and there was mistrust of the CNT.

The point is that here is a practical example of anarchists who have actually done harm to the anarchist movement. Because the struggle had gone on for quite a while they thought they could take a short cut. They probably enjoyed masking up and doing the action but it fucked it up for the women who were left high and dry. They simply did not understand the concept of collective decision making and acted as a self-appointed vanguard.

The Blast

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by The Blast on September 13, 2004

JDMF

blast, as you may see from my previous posts i totally agree with you on theory level and perhaps in a different situation, but in practise, do you see any links forming?

No, due to the narrow focus and single issue nature of the campaigns. Thats where the problem lies though. When you said earlier

Can't see the workers being collectively very happy about a campaign aiming to close down their employer though...

you seemed to be implying that the problem was more at the workers end. Or at least thats how I read your post.

Anyway, I'm not that interested in all that SHAC type stuff to be honest. If people were more concerned about whats going on in their own lives rather than engaging in charity work for others they might see that they are getting pretty severely fucked over themselves and look for ways to do something about it. From this more meaningful political activity might develop that a wider section of the population will be more naturally inclined to sympathise with.

captainmission

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by captainmission on September 14, 2004

Wayne

Firstly, nothing personal to you or Mission, I like yous and all... :)

yeah, an i think your lovely to (but not in a gay way or alt so don't go getting no ideas)

...Earth First! in the late nineties. He found it 'cliquey, infantile and not revolutionary'.

Yeah EF! is cliquey and many other fucked up things beside. Don't know what he/you mean by infantile? And not revolutionary? What is? By the claims you seem to last post there seems no concrete expression of revolutionary/anarchist politics outside of a spontanous revolution that brings and end to the state and capitalism. Anything short of that is just single issue (dunno does a strike persuing a wage claim count as single issue or do we make expceptions for work place organisation)

Mission's post pissed me off because I've heard so many times the self-dick sucking of the direct action eco-movement (Class War used to have the same arrogance when they were capable of organising high visibility protests that got on TV and stuff) and the repeated assumption that other revolutionary libertarians should 'ask themselves questions'

Yeah i know it is wanky and annoying but i only say it cos i constantly get fed up by various people acting as the self appointed guardians of anarchism blaming hippies and greens for destroying 'their' movement or not gratefully excepting their 'superior' theory.

[quote]or learn something from the freakshow that was paraded on TV in the nineties.[quote]

i'm not arguing its effective cos it got on tv (and when have anarchist of what ever varity when shown on tv not been praaded as a freak show?). I say its effective cos it stopped 500 out of the goverments 600 proposed road building scheme (expenditure in the reigon of £25 billion). Can you name any of movement that was prodominately and conciously anarchist taking on capital and state on such a scale and winning? I say visable not cos it was a fad for the media for the bit, but because it brought 1000's maybe even 10,000's of people in to direct contact with anarchist forms of organsiation and practice and theory. It speard what had been a largely city based movement in to other regions.

running out of time now so will respond to the rest later..

JDMF

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by JDMF on September 14, 2004

blast, at the moment in teh radical movement we have higher amount of radicals mobilised for "charity work for others" rather than improving their own lives - or not making the distinction (I share this point of view).

Anarchism, in so far as the word is worth defending at all, to me, refers to the theory and practice of responding collectively to life under capitalism while challenging other forms of oppression and building structures capable of running a post-state, post-capitalist society. Protest movements, by their transient nature, limited focus and typical lack of influence over the production and distribution of goods and services do not qualify.

Thats just because you have a serious lack of understanding what the "anti-road" movement was all about. It wasn't an anti-road movement, but a movement to defence the earth against the attacks from the capitalist machine, to put it bluntly. It was/is far from a single issue protest movement. The movement, as far as anarchist in the EF! etc goes comply very well with the first part of your paragraph.

You would benefit from readin the first third of the Do or Die #10 mate.

revol68 said couple pages back:

as such we have an excuse to sit on our arses wanking over 1936

do you think 36 happened in 36? It started many decades earlier by creating the counter culture and space for anarchist praxis to be learned and created. This is what is happening in these movements which some call "protest movements" when they can't see beneath the surface.

gav

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by gav on September 14, 2004

Wayne

Well so far we've got twelve jugglers, eleven people cooking vegan slop, ten groups organising to protest the G8, nine punk bands, eight people boycottting Esso, seven squats, six protests scheduled for September, five samba bands, four alternative zines, three people doing henna tattoos, two people teaching NVDA skills and one bloke up a pear tree.

shouldnt that be FI-VVE SAMB-A BA-NDS?

The Blast

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by The Blast on September 14, 2004

blast, at the moment in teh radical movement we have higher amount of radicals mobilised for "charity work for others" rather than improving their own lives - or not making the distinction (I share this point of view).

What is this radical movement that you are talking about? Working class people resist capitalism in an infinite amount of ways constantly in their everyday lives. Your choosing to define the political activities of you and others like you as "the radical movement" is totally self serving, definitely self indulgent and an entirely skewered way of looking at the world.

There is a constant movement against capitalism. Life neccessitates it. Sometimes it becomes well organised, focused, prominent and so more effective but often it isn't any of these things and so is largely off the radar of self appointed "radicals".

Of course there were very positive things about the anti-roads campaigns . No one has said otherwise. However, compare them to this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3848437.stm

There was no lifestylist element to this campaign at all. Likewise with the resident organised anti-mobile phone mast protests and blockades that are occurring quite regularly in the UK. The British anti-roads/RTS scene, however, was stuffed full of presumprions about what people ought to eat, what they ought to wear, how they ought to spend their spare time etc and this attitude is often mistaken as part and parcel of anarchism. Its this that the original article of this thread is quite rightly arguing against.

JDMF

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by JDMF on September 14, 2004

don't get on your high horse, we agree on the first part of your message, but we weren't talking about that, we were talking about the state of organised anarchist movement and where these self appointed anarchists resist capital these days.

So a campaign which is EVEN more single issue, without counter culture elements, or active seeking of alternatives gets your approval, but anti-roads movement doesn't because... of lifestylist elements? Don't get on a high horse, because i agree that the action/campaign what you linked in is great, i just don't see the point why one gets your approval and one doesn't.

back to the article: I think the original article missed one big obstacle of making anarchism more popular, namely the Anarcho-puritans, who impose strict ideological control on the definition of anarchism and what is considered anarchism and what not.

captainmission

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by captainmission on September 14, 2004

Anarchism, in so far as the word is worth defending at all, to me, refers to the theory and practice of responding collectively to life under capitalism while challenging other forms of oppression and building structures capable of running a post-state, post-capitalist society. Protest movements, by their transient nature, limited focus and typical lack of influence over the production and distribution of goods and services do not qualify.

Well i think your underestimating the anti-roads movement. It may have taken on the appearance of a single-issue protest group in order to win localised tatically goals, doesn't mean deeper critique than that or sturctures or networks of mutal aid and comminication that went beyond that. Also think by focusing souly on material production rather than a wider area of cultural prodcution you also not going to understand it. Society's not just produced in the factroy or workplaces you know. And on that note what anarchist influenced movment in this country has had influence over production and distribution?

The anti-poll tax movement was more visible more effective and less ridiculous than the anti-roads movement...

yes but as far as i'm aware anarchism did not play a central in that movement. It might arguably have embodied principals of self-organistion and direct action, but was that due to the involvment of the anarchist movment?

...and in creating local groups that sometimes developed their focus towards more general community issues and sometimes attempted to continue after the defeat of the tax

as did many people involved in the anti-roads movment.

I am curious what was the most visible and effective expression of anarchism before the 15 years topped by the anti-roads movement?

The bash street kids? Just said 15years cos its about that time anti-roads movment began.

Well so far we've got twelve jugglers, eleven people cooking vegan slop, ten groups organising to protest the G8, nine punk bands...,

yeah the anarchist movment might not be in the state we'd want it to be. and i'd fully agree with you on the importance of community and workplace organisation. but to ignore or ridicule one of the most viberant and infential movement that come from with in anarchism just get on my tits.

Oh and there's a few people into class struggle and all that old piss...

yeah and lets face it 'class struggle' anarchism is a sub-culture just like any other- also involved in their own 'single issue' campaigns.

lucy82

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by lucy82 on September 14, 2004

Wayne

Firstly, nothing personal to you or Mission, I like yous and all...

awwww, group hug. :) (just got back from my self-help wimins poetry reading class and it shows) :oops:

he's in the SWP because his idea of anarchism comes from the years he spent in Earth First

Funny that, cause I went the other way SWP ---> EF and beyond

partly because I got so fucked off with people disappearing up the arse of their own rhetoric about the working class whilst never actually doing anything except booking the legendary SWP coaches to demos and hijacking other peoples campaigns to sell papers, partly because I couldn't get on with the idea that at some particular moment in time when conditions were right the revolution would start, and partly because red and yellow is a shite colour scheme.

The idea that revolution is something you are createing all the time through the choices you make and the action you take meant a lot more to me at the time, speaking as a lifetime lover of instant gratification. but its your choices. if people want to eat big steaks, listen to Kylie, play football, buy a 4x4, fine. fuck the planet anyway. who needs it? (and kylie is a SIN for which people should die. but i'd let them choose first, kylie or death, kylie or death?) :D

and if people want to be vegan, listen to punk, juggle, attempt to make some impact on the G8, play samba, make zines, do henna tattoos, squat, annoy esso slightly, teach NVDA skills, also fine. your choice.

but...

transforming the economic structure of society has to start somewhere. choices like being vegan, trying to piss off esso and the G8, squatting are part of doing that. but i'm not taking this choice thing too far, jugglers like kylie lovers should be killed.

ranting on, I agree with some of your criticisms although cliques happen everywhere. I think also there should be more community based stuff going on and am infamous in some quarters for going on about it rather than the "lovely" ESF (why isn't there a smiley for being violently sick?). I do fucking hate the i'm more hard core than you, i'm so up myself elitism that rears its head amongst anarchists (and others) but I do think your interpretation of protest movements as limited in focus, intransient and lacking influence is wrong.

The high profile actions and successes of campaigns such as GM and the anti-road movement strike directly at the corporate heart of the beast. They are a direct response to life under capitalism and, by fighting back, do challenge oppression, not least because people see what can be achieved. Also, theres a ripple effect which is really important and communicates anarchist ideas and structures to other people in a immediate, practical way and a hell of a lot more interestingly than a copy of Socialist Worker or the majority of anarchist publications for that matter.

I talk to people at work about what I get up to and why I do it. Most people there are interested and they do connect with the issues and when we talk about stuff at work it also challenges and changes the preconceptions people have of anarchy. I've never heard anyone at work drawing false divisions between struggles in the workplace, blockading a military base or trashing GM crops. They know where their money goes, they know the system is fucked and who ate all the pies.

Action does speak louder than words. When you force a major corporate player like Bayer to retreat, you are resisting capital.

I'll stop me rant in a minute but finally JDMF said

self appointed anarchists

i didn't know i couldn't self-appoint myself.. is there a committee??

:confused:

lucy82

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by lucy82 on September 14, 2004

(just got back from my self-help wimins poetry reading class and it shows)

um, actually it was from watching the teletubbies

i :oops: :oops:

(how up myself am i, i quote myself)

yey!

captainmission

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by captainmission on September 14, 2004

lucy82

Wayne

Firstly, nothing personal to you or Mission, I like yous and all...

awwww, group hug. :)

fuck off ya hippie :P

self appointed anarchists

i didn't know i couldn't self-appoint myself.. is there a committee??

don't you remember that time knightrose declared you a sort of anarchist in your absence and you got all upset? or that badge you got off NANCock?

gav

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by gav on September 14, 2004

lucy82

if people want to eat big steaks, listen to Kylie, play football, buy a 4x4, fine. fuck the planet anyway. who needs it?

side stepping the whole animal rights thing coz i cant be bothered with the arguement, why is football and kylie bad for the planet?

The Blast

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by The Blast on September 14, 2004

So a campaign which is EVEN more single issue, without counter culture elements, or active seeking of alternatives gets your approval, but anti-roads movement doesn't because... of lifestylist elements? Don't get on a high horse, because i agree that the action/campaign what you linked in is great, i just don't see the point why one gets your approval and one doesn't.

What the Napolitan rubbish dump protests and the anti-mobile phone mast actions in places like Sheffield, Camden and somewhere in Scotland that escapes me have in common is that they are examples of progressive working class self organisation. As such they have value. This is qualitatively different from a group of lifestylist-activists getting together and protesting about some issue or another that they have selected. One, as it is based in working class community life, has limitless potential. It will help build working class solidarity and confidence in a given area, thus laying the foundations for a possible broader assualt on the system.

The other may succeed in winning a particular victory, or series of victories on that issue, and help build solidarity in the activist-community, but can do little else. Thats not to say that these victories aren't of value and don't increase the quality of peoples lives. But to those of us who want to see capitalism annihalated, and believe that only the working class can do this, they aren't that big a deal.

JDMF

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by JDMF on September 14, 2004

lucy82

I'll stop me rant in a minute but finally JDMF said

self appointed anarchists

i didn't know i couldn't self-appoint myself.. is there a committee??

:confused:

sorry, english is not my first language :oops:

what i meant was perhaps proclaimed? folks who say, yeah, i'm an anarchist :)

on top of my language handicap, it seems like i have spent far too little time with books to take part to these discussions...

JDMF

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by JDMF on September 14, 2004

The Blast

What the Napolitan rubbish dump protests and the anti-mobile phone mast actions in places like Sheffield, Camden and somewhere in Scotland that escapes me have in common is that they are examples of progressive working class self organisation. As such they have value. This is qualitatively different from a group of lifestylist-activists getting together and protesting about some issue or another that they have selected. One, as it is based in working class community life, has limitless potential. It will help build working class solidarity and confidence in a given area, thus laying the foundations for a possible broader assualt on the system.

The other may succeed in winning a particular victory, or series of victories on that issue, and help build solidarity in the activist-community, but can do little else. Thats not to say that these victories aren't of value and don't increase the quality of peoples lives.

dude, i agree with you around 100% on the above, though i do have more faith in the value of the counter cultures and experienced "activists" who have been confronting state on regular basis.

An example, perhaps a poor one: during the oldham "race" riots couple anarchists were involved advicing people on masking up and tacticts to take on the cops.

But to those of us who want to see capitalism annihalated, and believe that only the working class can do this, they aren't that big a deal.

this is where i disagree with you for one simple reason: we do not know how this shit will go (thats about how academic i can get about it). What i mean is that there is no blueprint for the annihilation of capitalism, old recipes have their role, but perhaps will not work on their own. Who knows how it will happen - i know there are plenty of people who claim to have the answers and are happy to put anyone down for sidetracking their master plan (like it is seen on this thread).

Steven.

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Steven. on September 14, 2004

lucy82

(and kylie is a SIN for which people should die. but i'd let them choose first, kylie or death, kylie or death?)

My ex really liked kylie. I bought her two albums, but I told the guy from HMV they were for my niece :oops:

Wayne

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Wayne on September 14, 2004

Sorry, I spent ten minutes trying to elaborate on that till I realised that I don't care, can't be arsed and would rather watch the end of the Arsenal game. Fuck it.

lucy82

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by lucy82 on September 15, 2004

I take it back. football is a lovely game and kylie is utterly lovely too. i didn't mean they were bad for the planet . i was getting carried away with painting my word picture, as i do. sorry.

capt mission, u are a cheeky bastard. i won't let u borrow my NANcock tiepin and cufflinks again if you don't behave and that lovely t-shirt with the big cock on it u are so fond of.

revol, wage disputes, strikes and getting fucked over yet again by the trade unions doesn't change the basic relations of capital either and persistently fails as a way of challenging or changing anything, as far as i can see. don't see why it has to be either/or (i mean like protest/campaigns bad - workplace organising good. I agree with JDMF, there is no blueprint for the annilation of capitalism). I'd like to see more stuff happening around shit housing, debt and other issues that people live with every day.

anyway, i'm challenging the relationships of capital by having a lovely sickie from work at the moment so piss off u lot, i'm off to sleep to enjoy it. if the working classes riseup and revolution starts today, have some consideration, man those barricades quietly

thanks.

:)

(shit, the edit police are gonna get me now.... i've already been told off for editing too much. arrrrggghhh)

redyred

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by redyred on September 15, 2004

Thank you Lucy for pointing out that strikes and trade unionism consistently fail to change anything.

Those headlines again:

Sit-down protest secures 8-hour day!

Tolpuddle martyrs revealed to be middle-class teenagers with dreadlocks!

Equal pay for women won by angry letter writing!

And no blueprint for overthrowing capitalism? Worker's struggles have made at least 5 or 6 revolutions against capitalism that I can think of. Even without the historical evidence, you've only got to look at how capitalism works to see that the labour force it creates has the means of dismantling it.

The Blast

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by The Blast on September 15, 2004

What i mean is that there is no blueprint for the annihilation of capitalism, old recipes have their role, but perhaps will not work on their own. Who knows how it will happen - i know there are plenty of people who claim to have the answers and are happy to put anyone down for sidetracking their master plan (like it is seen on this thread).

I'm not aware of anyone laying down a masterplan for revolution on this thread, unless saying that only a self-organised mass movement of the working class can destroy capitalism and build a free society makes for a masterplan. If it does, then thats mine.

What form this movement will take, like you say, can't be predicted (though some lessons can be learn't from history). But it will be the working class that creates it, and not a load of protesters cut off from it.

JDMF

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by JDMF on September 15, 2004

at what point does a working class kid get cut of from working class? When they go vegan? When they join earth first?

I only know of animal movement, but overwhelming majority of the grassroots activists are from working class backgrounds. Maybe middle class has too much to lose to take part into radical activism? Don't know what the reasons are, i'm sure some smartarse has formed a theory about it.

The Blast

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by The Blast on September 15, 2004

Regardless of their class origins, their activities are cut off from it and largely irrelevant to it.

lucy82

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by lucy82 on September 15, 2004

yeah redyred, i'm impressed by the headlines too. ...

i just don't see the ones i want to see.

Worker's struggles have made at least 5 or 6 revolutions against capitalism that I can think of.

excellent. go you workers and stuff. and the difference is???

do i have to buy tomorrows paper to find out.

the labour force might well have the means of dismantling capitalism so my suggestion is that it'd best get on with it. like now.

cause people are getting bored and angry. and bored and angry people get into wicked mischief. and bored and angry mischief is bad cause it doesn't prove anything apparently cause there might be a middle class kid hanging around with dreadlocks who likes lentils and doesn't understand the contradictions.

who thinks putting themselves into physical danger in front of a lorry means something because it makes the bastards think. who wants to open a squat for people to use because property prices are so high that ordinary people can't use the building. its not about lifesylist juggling or henna. thats a shit (on the surface- lets take the piss) argument which has nothing to do with why people do stuff, what they want to achieve, and sometimes what they do achieve.

capital can adapt to a more rational infastructure eg rail etc but it can't adapt so flexibly to working class pushes on wages.

capital does adapt to wage pushes. all the fucking time. and nickin the cans of cider from the shop at least makes you feel better. one way or another.

ok so maybe the anti-roads movement doesn't confront the central contradiction within capitalism because capitalists can invest in railways instead. its a more rational infrastructure, i've been waiting years and i'm still fuckin waiting.

if you look at the new bypass frenzy you can see that that compromise isn't happening.

like the new mottram bypass, the old rail tunnels can't be opened apparently cause the blueprint on which costings are based is the same as the channel tunnel. thats how they threw the rail argument out. false costings and lies.

so now, they are building this lovely bypass that cuts through a nature reserve, that destroys woods, that goes on for miles, that isn't necessary cause they could open the railway instead. in mottram in derbyshire ffs.

so what happens when capital doesn't adapt and people carry on resisting?

i am fuckin ignorant about dublin so i don't know about the new motorway or whether anyone was truely pissed off about it.

protesters aren't cut of from whats happening. its kinda arrogant to say that anyway.

Regardless of their class origins, their activities are cut off from it and largely irrelevant to it.

fuckin hell The Blast. who died and made you god?

The Blast

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by The Blast on September 15, 2004

Just stating the obvious. Lifestylism, by definition, is detached from working class life.

The Blast

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by The Blast on September 15, 2004

Sorry revol - edited my post to find you'd replied to the original!

Don't have a problem with single issue campaigns myself. the practice of self organisation and the solidarity it builds are worthwhile in themselves.

Deleted reference to RTS and anti-roads from my last reply cos I really don't want to be discussing that stuff. I just don't see it as that important and shouldn't have mentioned it at all.

lucy82

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by lucy82 on September 16, 2004

Lifestylism, by definition, is detached from working class life.

oh stop it.

do u think then that there is no lifestylism amongst anarcho-syndicalists?

do u think that anarcho-syndicalism is somehow immune from the activist ghetto?

cause it connects with the working class? does it? what is relevent to the wider working class? whose the authority on this then?

mostly i've found stuff we've done has gone down pretty well with people, like taking back public spaces for example.

even squats :D

i'm no purist about this but for fucks sake. actually i respect ewok stinking hippies if they're doing stuff rather than dissapearing up the arses of their own rhetoric whilst doing nothing to even try and change anything (cause it just won't work, so why bother).

i tell you, i've seen more of the "we can't do anything about this" sneery shite from anarcho-syndicalists than i have from any crustie.

arrgh for my rant.

and revol, u are dirty :mrt:

:gb: :@: :rb:

lucy82

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by lucy82 on September 16, 2004

nah... basically, they are having snuggly illusions about staying in, watching corrie and wearing nice slippers. its nothing to do with niaive belief, its the pull of woolly socks and duvets rather than getting yr arse out there.

y'never know. it might be that one activist whose way of doing stuff u don't agree with, that lights the spark that starts the flame, that burns the whole fuckin structure down

sometimes we should just demand the impossible and see what happens next

:D

JDMF

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by JDMF on September 16, 2004

can i ask who are these lifestylists, because i'm not too sure...

Is it an anarcho syndicalist who doesn't use sexist or racist language, doesn't want to support blatantly racist or sexist companies, might boycot shell because of the old anti-apartheid and nigeria issues and so on?

Or is a lifestylist an anarcho syndicalist who is vegan, does all kind of funny things for energy conservation and recycles, and is quite picky about her consumption?

Or perhaps an anarcho syndicalist who thinks that everyone who can call themselves working class should watch football, curse and cuss all the time, act like a twat and has an idealised vision of what working class is and what falls out without giving working class the freedom to choose the battles they feel are most relevant to themselves?

Lazlo_Woodbine

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazlo_Woodbine on September 16, 2004

Revol likes RTS because he was once involved, so the 'political message it gave out was less moralistic and more palatable to the wider working class.'

He was never involved with the rural protest camps, so these can't have had any connection to the 'wider class'....

Well sometimes you have to ask: what wider class? The protest camps were almost all rurally based, and so a lot of the 'wider' links were not immediately visible to urban activists, even though it involved an explosion of anarchist activity in many small towns and villages. The camps that were urban-based, such as the houses and streets in East London occupied against the M11 likewise involved making links and acting in common with local people.

Separate from that is the *dominant political culture* that grew out of this arena of activity. And it's true that this is 'actionist' and dominated by a lack of analysis and jumping from one campaign to another. This is because those people who went on to create this political culture were, by definitioon, the most mobile and articulate of the anti-road protestors -- the libertarian political leadership.

It doesn't disqualify the struggles that went on, however.

The Blast

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by The Blast on September 17, 2004

JDMF

can i ask who are these lifestylists, because i'm not too sure...

Is it an anarcho syndicalist who doesn't use sexist or racist language, doesn't want to support blatantly racist or sexist companies, might boycot shell because of the old anti-apartheid and nigeria issues and so on?

Or is a lifestylist an anarcho syndicalist who is vegan, does all kind of funny things for energy conservation and recycles, and is quite picky about her consumption?

I don't see how racism and sexism can be put in the same category as meat-eating. I reject the former because they divide the working class. The only way a non-vegan lifestyle can be compared with them is if the animal kingdon is considered part of the class. As it isn't I can draw a distinction between counter-revolutionary behaviour such as racism, sexism and homophobia on the one hand, and lifestyle choices that are apart from revolutionary anarchism, like veganism and reycling, on the other.

In fact, I find the idea that racist abuse or wife beating are in any way comparable with drinking a glass of milk or frying an egg quite disturbing.

JDMF

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by JDMF on September 18, 2004

so dividing the working class is the only ethical/political guideline where different lifestyle and behaviour choices can be drawn from and everything else is lifestylism? In which case you probably agree that my third example is an example of a lifestylist, and most anarchists would then be classified as lifestylists?

So the definition of lifestylist is something like "a person who portray political/ethical/moral beliefs which are not reduced to the guideline of 'avoiding division of working class' in their everyday behaviour"?

If you find it disturbing that some people see battery egg farming and factory dairy industry as abuse of the weak and defenseless, thats your problem. No-one par you was comparing anything, i'm not into beauty contests when it comes to abuse and oppression, i'm able to take a stand against racism, sexism and animal abuse without conflicts.

redyred

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by redyred on September 18, 2004

JDMF

so dividing the working class is the only ethical/political guideline where different lifestyle and behaviour choices can be drawn from and everything else is lifestylism? In which case you probably agree that my third example is an example of a lifestylist, and most anarchists would then be classified as lifestylists?

Pretty much, yes. Anarchists generally suck.

So the definition of lifestylist is something like "a person who portray political/ethical/moral beliefs which are not reduced to the guideline of 'avoiding division of working class' in their everyday behaviour"?

A lifestylist is someone who has a critique of capitalism/the state/whatever and tries to keep themself morally pure by avoiding participation in the worst evils of it, for example squatting, buying fair trade stuff, being a vegetarian, having an "ethical" career etc, etc. Sure, there are good intentions behind it but basically it is elitist (because it takes a moral high ground), alienating from the working class (by dropping out of the system, you drop out of the classes that is part of that system), unrealistic (most people don't have the means or want to be so puritan - the majority will participate to survive) and more or less changes nothing. Basicaly, lifestylism is consumer politics in a black hoodie.

If you find it disturbing that some people see battery egg farming and factory dairy industry as abuse of the weak and defenseless, thats your problem. No-one par you was comparing anything, i'm not into beauty contests when it comes to abuse and oppression, i'm able to take a stand against racism, sexism and animal abuse without conflicts.

The difference is that racism, sexism and homophobia are direct attacks on the working class. Not being racist etc is very different from not eating a burger or buying cereals from Nestle. The person running the sweatshop is the exploiter, not the person buying the GAP t-shirt. If you want to fight against capitalism, the best thing you can do is work towards strengthening your own class, not limit yourself in a guilt trip over the shitty things the ruling class do.

The Blast

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by The Blast on September 18, 2004

I wasn't laying down general principles. I was responding to your lumping together of anti-racism, anti-sexism, veganism and recycling. It struck me that the most obvious error in lumping them all together is that the former two are neccessary for a successful revolution, and therefore ought to be a concern for anarchists, and the last two aren't.

Your third example? If you are referring to boycotts then thats fine with me. The Cardiff Anarchists are promoting a boycott of Coke in response to the killing of workers out in Colombia. An excellent initiative, and I haven't had a can since they called it. If people in Colombia get some hope and confidence from the fact that people all over the world are aware of what they are going through and support their struggle then thats great, so long as such boycotts don't act as a substitute for other forms of action capable of bringing about more profound change.

If you want to know what I consider decent definition of meaningful revolutionary activity then I'm going to have to be very cliched and reproduce that old Solidarity quote:

"Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self-activity of the masses and whatever assists in their demystification. Sterile and harmful action is whatever reinforces the passivity of the masses, their apathy, their cynicism, their differentiation through hierarchy, their alienation, their reliance on others to do things for them and the degree to which they can therefore be manipulated by others - even by those allegedly acting on their behalf."

JDMF

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by JDMF on September 19, 2004

ok, with these definitions the discussion becomes much clearer, though is till reject them. I do think, in response to blast, that environment, earth and animals are essential part of any revolution. Revolution without these factored in can still be something i'd fight for, much like is a revolution only covering these issues but leaving the class side out - but it would just mean that there are more future revolutions to be fought for ;)

I just get quite allergic when some theorist comes and tells us what we can and can't do, like working class kids (or adults like me!) would not have the freedom (or strategic vision, or theoretic understanding, or haven't knocked enough anarchist books) to choose issues which they want to do stuff for. If we choose to do animal or environmental stuff and if we are happy to show that cultural change in our everyday behaviour, that should not be grounds for some theorists to come and imply that we are class traitors.

Quite in a contrary way, no one from the "defendant" side (people who are not happy to get insulted if they choose to do stuff in animal/environmental issues and who see this as good or even essential revolutionary activity, or who may want to show their ethics and politics in their everyday behaviour) ever started to land easy low blows against puritanic class war theorists, for instance why are puritanic class war anarchist groups 99% male dominated? Why is the anarchist "leadership" in this country so male that you could be forgiven to think that it is a lads club?

Radical grassroots animal and environmental movements are around 50/50, or often with a woman majority. Perhaps women are not able to judge whats best for our class and end up doing these counterrevolutionary lifestylist politics more than men? (thats sarcasm of course before someone gets a pea up their nose)

JDMF

19 years 9 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by JDMF on September 19, 2004

redyred

A lifestylist is someone who has a critique of capitalism/the state/whatever and tries to keep themself morally pure by avoiding participation in the worst evils of it, for example squatting, buying fair trade stuff, being a vegetarian, having an "ethical" career etc, etc.

still don't understand how this differs from showing any political beliefs in your behaviour, like not being sexist or racist. Or perhaps it is down to consumption? You probably still have the old world vision of consumption that it is neutral and should not be reflected by our politics.

But then again, i'm sure you would not call someone boycotting israeli goods a lifestylist. Even someone who would (GULP!) ask others not to buy israeli goods!

So i'm still confused :D

Or could it be that anyone who has politics/ethics which are not in line with the accepted dogma of puritanist class war anarchist theories is a lifestylist? I think this definition is closest to the truth...

For the record, for me, veganism is not a consumer boycott, far from it. Animals are not food, so i don't eat them. It doesn't matter if i was paying for it or getting it for free. Veganism for me doesn't have much to do with consumerism at all.

happyanarchy

19 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by happyanarchy on September 26, 2004

I think that lifestyle is an important part of being an anarchist. This is how a person lives out their politics. As the feminists say, the personal is political, and I think this is very important because our personal behaviours create our cultures. For these cultures to be revolutionary they need to be dynamic, but consistant with each individuals ethics as practiced in their life.

But this is very different to a 'fashion' or 'scene' anarchist, who in my mind is just someone caught up in the image, or even the intellectualism, of anarchism without actually caring about the politics. This is where the bullshit, postering and ego occurs that brings anarchism and activists down.

redyred

19 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by redyred on September 26, 2004

JDMF

still don't understand how this differs from showing any political beliefs in your behaviour, like not being sexist or racist. Or perhaps it is down to consumption? You probably still have the old world vision of consumption that it is neutral and should not be reflected by our politics.

No, its ineffective guilt-trip politics. It's never going to change anything. So long as you are standing with your class, you are practising what you preach.

But then again, i'm sure you would not call someone boycotting israeli goods a lifestylist. Even someone who would (GULP!) ask others not to buy israeli goods!

Actually, yes, that's exactly what a lifestylist is. Not buying Jerusalem artichokes isn't going to stop Palestinian settlements getting bulldozed.

Or could it be that anyone who has politics/ethics which are not in line with the accepted dogma of puritanist class war anarchist theories is a lifestylist? I think this definition is closest to the truth...

No, lifestylists are quite a select group within the millieu of people who I hate.

For the record, for me, veganism is not a consumer boycott, far from it. Animals are not food, so i don't eat them

Yes they bloody are. What else are they good for? They give me energy and protein and they taste nice. Also, some people also enjoy them as pets or zoo exhibits, and I respect this although its not for me, but they don't really provide anything else useful to humanity. Therefore, I view them as food.

Wayne

19 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Wayne on September 26, 2004

JDMF, I know you're just a 'normal guy' who 'hasn't read enough books' to participate in this discussion, but before you post again, gonnae read some- your politics are fucking pish and seeing as you're a dole scrounging bastard with nothing else to do with your time, turn the Exploited off for a minute and read something. Fuck me, it's bad enough that my taxes have to pay for lay about pricks like you, but I'd feel better if you were at least educating your shite lifestylist politics out your system. Crusty fuck. That goes for most of the rest of yous an all.

JDMF

19 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by JDMF on September 27, 2004

Wayne

JDMF, I know you're just a 'normal guy' who 'hasn't read enough books' to participate in this discussion, but before you post again, gonnae read some- your politics are fucking pish and seeing as you're a dole scrounging bastard with nothing else to do with your time, turn the Exploited off for a minute and read something. Fuck me, it's bad enough that my taxes have to pay for lay about pricks like you, but I'd feel better if you were at least educating your shite lifestylist politics out your system. Crusty fuck. That goes for most of the rest of yous an all.

what?

1. Never listened to Exploited - took me a while to understand that you means some punk band! Never liked punk (read my posts on music thread if you are interested).

2. I have a job already (or do you think i would happily spend my free time answering to your stupid post?)

3. Crusty what?

As far as i can see, you are a troll, i mean who would be stupid enough to spit that kind of rubbish in every single post slagging people off and also, who would be stupid enough to put into their location " An impoverished council housing scheme" trying to score some street cred points? Never i thought that living in council houses would be something to bang your drum about. Perhaps i should include some stuff about my background in every post i make to look cool to some wannabe class warriors.

I hope we meet in real life arsehole.

Redyred, we can continue this discussion at some other point when i am not angry because of some kid flaming.

Lazlo_Woodbine

19 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazlo_Woodbine on September 27, 2004

hey JDMF Wayne just does this for laughs. Like a small child punching you he's just trying to test your boundaries; basically looking for love.

If you flame back at him he'll purr and say how nice it is to be 'stroked'.

JDMF

19 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by JDMF on September 27, 2004

I hear you laz, i'll still slap him if i ever get a chance to meet him ;)

redyred

No, its ineffective guilt-trip politics. It's never going to change anything. So long as you are standing with your class, you are practising what you preach.

don't worry, i'm here. I guess we can agree to disagree about this one. I don't see practising what you preach in your personal behaviour as ineffective. Standing with your class is vague, if you do not have a personal angle on it, being against sexism but yet behaving like a sexist (and now don't go saying that it is not the same than eating cheese, because we are not talking about the specifics but the general idea of whether personal behaviour has anything to do with anything but "lifestylism") is not standing with your class. If this negative is true, why wouldn't the opposite be?

Take GM foods for example. Consumer boycott and intet to use it play a big part in it. I'm glad that people (yeah, the working class you claim to know so well) massively rejected GM foods and didn't behave like you do.

Actually, yes, that's exactly what a lifestylist is. Not buying Jerusalem artichokes isn't going to stop Palestinian settlements getting bulldozed.

what is then? Don't say "independent working class rising against it's oppressors" or some bs like that mate, but give me something real :)

Also, you find that your viewpoint would not be very popular among palestinians, though you may think they are just a bunch of lifestylist wankers. They would find it very offensive that you would support israeli goods even though they have called for a boycott. I never cross a picket line and thats what this is in the current commercialised world with global trade.

No, lifestylists are quite a select group within the millieu of people who I hate.

thanks.

Yes they bloody are. What else are they good for?

yes, too right, they are good only for exploitation, push them harder, squeeze the last bit of profit, fuck the weak and defenceless, who cares if they are crammed in small places, barbed wire cages and all that shit what hippies talk about. More industrialised the animal farming is the better. Who gives a fuck if they suffer or not, i wont hear it, or see it, so as long as the price is right, i'm all for it.

redyred

19 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by redyred on September 27, 2004

JDMF

what is then? Don't say "independent working class rising against it's oppressors" or some bs like that mate, but give me something real :)

Are you sure you're on the right forums? Seriously.

JDMF

19 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by JDMF on September 28, 2004

redyred

JDMF

what is then? Don't say "independent working class rising against it's oppressors" or some bs like that mate, but give me something real :)

Are you sure you're on the right forums? Seriously.

seriously, if you say that to a palestinian, what do you think the reaction is? You know my politics, so you don't have to question that. But we are not living the most revolutionary times. Are you saying palestinians have to put all their hopes for anarchosyndicalist revolution to take place before there is any change in their situation?

Are you sure you are on the right planet? Seriously.

redyred

19 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by redyred on September 28, 2004

Yeah I agree we're not living in particularly revolutionary times. But this isn't www.reformer.net.

JDMF

19 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by JDMF on September 28, 2004

redyred

Yeah I agree we're not living in particularly revolutionary times. But this isn't www.reformer.net.

neither it is www.idontgiveashitaboutpresentandpressingproblems.net ;)

redyred

19 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by redyred on September 28, 2004

Class struggle is an up-down struggle. That means I'm concerned with fighting my own bourgeoisie. Its not isolationist, its just the way class struggle works - you fight the people who exploit you, that's the only way real change can come about. We can fight our own bourgeoisie's support of Israeli imperialism, the Israelis can fight their own bourgeousie's imperialism and so on.

To be honest a lot of the boycott probably has more to do with blind anti-Israelism than any strategic attack on those responsible. I'm not saying you're an anti-semite, JDMF, just a lot of the people who support it just have a "ooh Israel's bad, don't touch anything Israeli" attitude.

So you boycott Israeli goods, you maybe have a tiny impact on the Israeli economy. Do you think that'll stop the USA sending millions of dollars and military aid there every year? And of course, the Israeli companies will simply take out any losses on their workers with pay cuts, lay-offs and longer hours. Nice bit of solidarity there!

JDMF

19 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by JDMF on September 28, 2004

redyred

To be honest a lot of the boycott probably has more to do with blind anti-Israelism than any strategic attack on those responsible. I'm not saying you're an anti-semite, JDMF, just a lot of the people who support it just have a "ooh Israel's bad, don't touch anything Israeli" attitude.

being anti-israel doesn't have anything to do with being anti-semite. If this simple fact needs better spelling out than this, please let me know.

Nice bit of solidarity there!

Nicer than yours :)

Anyway, i'm glad we cleared this out, palestinians calling for boycott of israeli goods are just lifestylist wankers.

http://www.bigcampaign.org/

Next example:

I presume you think that the columbian trade unionists are just bunch lifestylist wankers as well, when they had the nerve to call a petit-burgeoise boycott of coca-cola products?

bigdave

19 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by bigdave on September 28, 2004

you fight the people who exploit you, that's the only way real change can come about.

Yes but this is pretty impossible if we can't organise. While others who are trying to make a difference are hated and reviled, I don't see much progress getting made.

To be honest a lot of the boycott probably has more to do with blind anti-Israelism

Why "blind"? Are you repeating the lie that is used by our rulers to deflect criticism - anti-semite, anti-american, anti-bush? - associate protesters with prejudice to shame them silent? I am pretty well against the current state of israel but not people of Jewish descent or religious choice (other than my normal disdain at religion in general). If a state does something offensive, protest is legitemate. Surely the point of boycotts is to raise people's awareness of a problem?

redyred

19 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by redyred on September 28, 2004

JDMF

redyred

To be honest a lot of the boycott probably has more to do with blind anti-Israelism than any strategic attack on those responsible. I'm not saying you're an anti-semite, JDMF, just a lot of the people who support it just have a "ooh Israel's bad, don't touch anything Israeli" attitude.

being anti-israel doesn't have anything to do with being anti-semite. If this simple fact needs better spelling out than this, please let me know.

Oh for fucks sake, I'm actually pissed off now. I specifically said I'm not accusing you of anti-semitism. Although being just anti-Israel rather being anti Israeli imperialism would be anti-semitic, kind of like people who think everyone in Germany during WW2 was a nazi. And yes there are a lot of people into Israeli boycotts who seem to take that view. But like I said, I imagined you had more sense than to group you with them.

Anyway, i'm glad we cleared this out, palestinians calling for boycott of israeli goods are just lifestylist wankers.

Just checking through my posts to see where I said that. Oh hang on, I didn't say it did I? Go back to the definition of lifestylism. A lifestylist would be an active boycotter. Palestinian activists are for the most part national liberationist though, so I'd be wary of romanticising them too much (and more than a few of them will be anti-semitic, which is understandable but certainly not supportable). And pleeaaase don't just come back with another "aha! so you hate palestinians then eh?" type comment, just because I have problems with some aspects of Palestinian liberation movements. It's just silly really.

I presume you think that the columbian trade unionists are just bunch lifestylist wankers as well, when they had the nerve to call a petit-burgeoise boycott of coca-cola products?

Not really. I don't agree with some of the tactics used by some of the revolutionary forces in the Spanish Civil War, doesn't mean I hate the 1930s Spanish working class. The bottom line is consumer politics don't work.

Wayne

19 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Wayne on September 28, 2004

hey JDMF Wayne just does this for laughs.

No, I really do despise crustys, lifestylers and shite politics. I'm not joking when I say 'fuck the anarchist movement', it's the joke. I'm honest on enrager, when I'm dishonest is when I sit silently in meetings listening to activist mentality wank and keep my mouth shut 'cos in real life I feel bad being the negative fucker who points out how fucking stupid and pathetic most 'anarchist' activity is.

As for you Woodbine, I especially despise anybody who supports a social upheaval that goes against everything I want from life and involves the suffering of people I care about. Anybody who wants to destroy human advancements essential to people's standards of living is my class enemy. As an environmentalist I want nuclear waste managed for the next five hundred years. As a communist I want mass production of food and energy, I don't want my old Gran or others like her to die of hypothermia this winter. As a libertarian I want to use technology to enhance people's freedom where ever possiblie- I want my wheel chair using friend to have his independence and the most high-tech wheel chair we can build. I want my friends who are HIV positive to have the longest and healthiest lives possible and the very best drugs available to make this happen. When I have children I don't want them or the woman I have them with to die at birth. Until then I want johnnies or microgyn 50 so I can stop getting people pregnant :oops: At a personal level I want ingredients to cook with from all over the world and not to have to spend hours every day collecting food, making fires, etc. And I want my triple bypass in a few years as well.

I have the same disgust for primitivism that I do for fascism. Neither should be given any platform.

Oh, and I shop at Marks and Spencers 'cos their food court is pretty good and near my work.

Lazlo_Woodbine

19 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Lazlo_Woodbine on September 28, 2004

Wayne

No, I really do despise crustys, lifestylers and shite politics

Ahahaha!

Go on!

Tell us another!

We all appreciate the way you use your comedy talents to keep up our spirits in these dark times, Wayne. :mrt:

Wayne

19 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Wayne on September 28, 2004

The enrager-primmo cycle again...

1. Primitivism rears its (literally) ugly head.

2. People point out why it's stupid.

3. Primmos have no arguments and hope the thread dies.

4. Time passes.

5. Return to 1.

Come on Lazlo, give us the line about 'yeah but it's got some good critiques of technological society' :D

Fuckwit.

Wayne

19 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Wayne on September 28, 2004

seriously tho a very stirring and honest response by young wayne, completely wrongfooted the lifestylist defence with a drop of the shoulder and a quick burst away from sniping jokes cutting inside to totured honesty. top class. pity his marks and spencers finishing sent the ball straight at the keeper. harrods to the top corner or nisa to the bottom left would have been a cert, but marks and spencers was a poor compromise.

I hope this argument doesn't work like the world cup 'cos we've won it that many times, next time we'll have to keep it.

Steven.

19 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Steven. on September 28, 2004

Wayne

When I have children I don't want them or the woman I have them with to die at birth. Until then I want johnnies or microgyn 50 so I can stop getting people

I dunno I hear your personality and appearance is a pretty rock-solid, 100% effective contraceptive.

Wayne

19 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Wayne on September 28, 2004

I dunno I hear your personality and appearance is a pretty rock-solid, 100% effective contraceptive.

You'd have thought! And if that doesn't work, I'm only fucking impotent as well!

Mind you, right now, after fucking the primmos again, I'm smoking a cigarette and enjoying the warm after glow 8)

JDMF

19 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by JDMF on September 28, 2004

redyred

But like I said, I imagined you had more sense than to group you with them.

thank you.

A lifestylist would be an active boycotter.

so we can march, organise, have strikes, smash windows, riot, educate, talk, but if we step over the line of actually collectively withdraw our financial support from some intance which we do not agree with BANG! you are a lifestylist!

The bottom line is consumer politics don't work.

Despite there being plenty of evidence where it has worked, been part of tactics that have worked, or helped in other ways? If you mean by the word "worked" that consumer boycott, or rather having your politics affect the way you use your money, or other behaviour (we are not only talking of boycotts or consumerism here), will not bring about revolution and workers control, then yes you are absolutely right, can't agree with you more. So perhaps we just have a different view of what the word "works" means?

If i see a picket line, i won't cross it. If the workers of a supermarket are out on strike, i wont shop there. And i'm sure you wouldn't either redyred, though i doubt you would call yourself a lifestylist because of that.

Spartacus

19 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Spartacus on September 28, 2004

If a state does something offensive, protest is legitemate. Surely the point of boycotts is to raise people's awareness of a problem?

no, if a state exists, resistance is legitimate, protest is just a big waste of time when you could be resisting. or if you don't feel like that today, watch some violent asian cinema, you'll feel alot better than an ineffectual protest. and i think most people know about the conflict in palestine, as there's something on the news about it pretty much every week.

that said, in some circumstances e.g. to support a strike, then a boycott can be an effective strategy or at least be a way of showing solidarity and hence raising the spirits of said strikers.

veganism is a different matter, i do it because i believe having an exploitative relationship with other animals in a society could in the long run lead to a reemergence of hierarchy even if we did have an anarchist society. that's my personally view, and one which was shaired incidentally by many theorists of the spanish anarchist movement since its birth in 1868, and indeed one of the earlier campaigns of anarchists there, along with supporting and taking part in workers struggles etc., was opposition to bullfighting because of its brutalising effects on human nature. i'm not saying this to suggest that just cos one of the most successful anarchist movements in history had a strong vegetarian tendency then obviously my view is right, just that questioning our relationship with non-human animals is nothing new for anarchists, certainly not just from hippies, and so should be considered separately from other elements of "lifestylism".

redyred

19 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by redyred on September 28, 2004

I wouldn't call buying something financial support. Giving donations, that's financial support. When I buy something I do it because I want that thing, not because I want to support the company. True, my money is going to some bastard corporation or other, but that's capitalism for you. You can't totally cut yourself off from it, so why bother making the odd little gesture? Why be selective?

I mean where would you draw the line? The US is probably more responsible for Israeli imperialism than Israel itself, not to mention loads of other similar crap all over the world. So do you boycott the US? Do you boycott every shop that uses sweatshops, prison slavery or union busting tactics? Do you boycott companies that send donations to the Conservative Party? Or companies which have an obscenely rich person owning and controlling them? The truth is, unless you live in a cave and eat twigs, you're probably contributing somehow to the evils of capitalism. So you have to fight the capitalists that are responsible, anything else is a distraction.

JDMF

19 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by JDMF on September 29, 2004

redyred, funnily enough i agree with what you said there - and no one can escape that - some well meaning individuals try and cave in to the massive amount of personal guilt it produces if you do not have a political understanding of capitalism.

What we have here is two extremes: one is the extreme guilt tripping end carrying the whole weight of the world on your shoulders - and other one is the idea that our personal behaviour and consumption habits should not be affected at all by our politics. I hope you don't think i am in the other extreme as much as i refuse to believe that you are in the other (though we seem to be finghting about this!).

What i mean by crossing a picket line is boycotts organised and called by the people affected or otherwise organised movement. When you shop in a supermarket and buy things, that is not supporting the company. When workers in a coca cola factory for instance have called a boycott but you ignore their calls, then i'd say it is supporting the company (though hardly makes a difference, until the boycott has grown big enough).

If the anti-war movement as a whole would have called for boycott of US products and it would have been endorsed by most of not all, i would have taken part - imagine if 30-40% of the population would take part, you think that would not have any effect? Much more than marching around the cities peacefully (though that is not totally futile either and i am usually there myself if i can just make it).

Ok, closing arguments time because perhaps we have wasted enough of our time and enrager bandwidth for this :D

What I've tried to point out here perhaps unsuccesfully could be summarised in three categories:

1. "Lifestylism" is an empty word used without definition. This I think came out in the futile attempts to try to find a definition for the word. On one extreme definition lifestylism covers anything where your personal politics affect your behaviour, be it interpersonal, in society as a whole, in a supermarket or where ever. If this was the case, then the vast majority of the people would be lifestylists and then the term would lose its meaning and power. More likely lifestylism is used in a context where the attacker uses it to cut out things which they do not agree with, even though when doing so they, by logical extension, lump together most of the people (more later on this point).

The "lifestylist" label reminds me of some leftists obsession to call everything they do not agree on fascist. Neighbor who asks the stereo turned down at 3am is a fascist, anything which differs from the anarchist ghetto is fascist, a person who doesn't want to cross a picket line and refuses to fund a company which actions he doesn't believe in is a lifestylist, no matter how much of their politics and political activity is in collective organising and other traditional anarchist methods.

2. It works! GM foods, brent spar oil platform which shell wanted to ditch to the sea, indian salt boycotts during the independence struggle, numerous won strikes, lockouts and other workers struggles, south african boycott, thousands of examples of small, but not insignificant, changes in different companies policies, or even driving some out of business etc etc etc etc.

Also think about how much peoples consumption and lifestyles have changed just in a relatively short time of post WW2. From vegan point of view for instance, consumption of animal products is 2-4 times higher resulting to hundreds of millions of animals killed per year and massive drive to industrialise the production (factory farming). If this can take place in just a short time, why can't the opposite? Sure, the first change was dictated by capitalism, companies with their advertisement and changes in dietary culture, the reverse is much harder, but still possible. I guess for someone who doesn't see animals as living, feeling beings it's hard to grasp any meaning in this, but just try to see it from another angle. Same of course repeats itself in many other areas, like environmental issues, labour issues etc.

These steps can't be ignored just by saying that they haven?t brought about a revolution based on workers self management, because that is not why they are employed. But there are immediate concerns which perhaps the victims are not too happy to wait until the dreamy days of revolution. I'm personally quite a simple concrete guy, and will always prefer concrete results to ideological and utopian pies in the sky.

3. We are doing it already. According to different surveys (I tried to google them quickly, but failed, if someone has any data, would be nice to hear) already over half of the people are making purchasing decisions based, or influenced, by ethical/political/moral considerations. That?s just the consumerist aspect of it. Simirlarly a large portion of people make adjustements in their personal lifestyles to take into account things like environment (by reducing consumption, recycling and so on. In my experience most people do this in one way or another) and so on basing them on ethical/political viewpoints.

I came in contact with the big -campaign (boycott israeli goods) via trade union activism when I was in the trades union council (for my sins, lol!) of my local city as a rep for our union branch and the campaign was brought about by workers in the local car plant. OK, perhaps not the best example, but my point is, with the illustration of the surveys and personal experience, that we are already doing this within our class.

There are always people who know better, and are frustrated and angry when their class picks the "wrong" struggles, and on top of it does them in "wrong" way. They have a clear blueprint on how things should go, and not only that (because that in it sefl is not such a bad thing), they have strong opinions on how things should NOT go and want to dictate others to follow their lead. Hopefully it has been apparent that I never wanted to criticise the path redyred has taken, and this argument was always about him attacking something which others, such as myself, do.

Now we come to the right definition of lifestylism in my opinion: lifestylist is a person who reduces their politics as a whole to individual consumption, behaviour and lifestyle ignoring collective action (though some could argue that collectively the lifestylists are using collective power!) or without basing their personal politics past the single issue politics. I like this definition because many class war puritanist anarchist fall into this as well due to the fact that some of them don't organise shit, take part into anything else exept criticising others for not following certain predefined behaviour and attitude code, and their class politics are thus reduced to just individual.

Now i've used 10% of my working time for this, so i can with good conscience suft some other sites as well :D sorry about the essay...

Ceannairc

19 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Ceannairc on September 29, 2004

Wayne

I feel bad being the negative fucker who points out how fucking stupid and pathetic most 'anarchist' activity is.

Stupid and pathetic "anarchist" activity... such as hanging around online forums and flaming people? :)

Wayne

19 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Wayne on September 29, 2004

Okay, I'll do something positive. I'll help the anarchist movement look a bit less ridiculous. I've been on to some old mates who are fashion industry insiders and basically the boy band look is as dead as grunge and indy cool. From next spring retro post-modern ironic designer bling is going to be the only thing to be seen in.

What's going to be cool includes...

Lacoste

Ted Baker

Burberry

Henri Lloyd

Teddy Smith

Armani

Yves Saint Lauren

French Connection (not FCUK)

Ben Sherman (just)

Adidias Sambas

Timberland

Polo/ Ralph Lauren

Calvin Klein

Versace

Plain white T-shirts

White gold jewelry

Chinos

Pin striped trousers

Boot cut Levis

Fred Perry

Pringle

Long leather jackets

Pierre Cardin

What's definitely not cool includes...

Hackett

FCUK

Tommy/ Hilfiger

Moschino

Rockport

Caterpillar

Von Dutch

Lonsdale

Hugo Boss

Nicholson

Gucci

JD

Kickers

Prada

Paul Smith

Stone Island

Ellesse

Kappa

Nike (Except trainers)

Umbro

Faded jeans

Jackets that provide adequate protection against the cold

Silver jeweltry

Plain black T-shirts

Motorcycle style leather jackets with zips and buckles

Adidas Gazelles/ Campus

White trainers

Black trainers

Football shirts/ scarves of any description (especially those retro ones that students always wear)

Travis style pseudo mohawks

punk chic

mullets

Anything pierced except ears (both sexes), belly buttons and tounges (girls)

Tattoos in Chinese

T-shirts with slogans

Guiness T-shirts

Combat trousers

Shorts

Boots (for men) of any description but especially Doc Martens

The saggy ass Levis Revol likes and generally black people's clothes on white people (witness the 'phat farm' phenomena- very wrong)

Unbuttoned shirts with T-shirts underneath

CHecked shirts, except the Burberry tartan

Pin striped shirts

Baseball caps (in fact hats of any description)

Tracksuits (especially tracksuits tucked into socks, what the fuck is wrong with the current generation!)

And coming back in the next couple of years...

Dress shirts buttoned to the top with no tie.

Flared jeans

Hooded tops

Bubble jackets

Step haircuts

Russell Athletic

Pringle V-necks

Moccosans (seriously, does anybody else remember going to school in a pair of fucking boating shoes a decade ago?)

Mike Harman

19 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Mike Harman on September 29, 2004

I think there are two different issues being discussed with lifestylism. One is lifestyle choices based on ethics/morals/politics - lifestyle. The other is a) presenting those lifestyle choices as revolutionary activity b) telling other people that if they eat meat/drink coffee/buy clothes they're counter-revolutionary - lifestylism

I don't eat mammals or birds, not because they're cute and fluffy but because most of them are pumped full of water/protein solutions, soaked in organo-phosphates, covered in shit, fed their parents etc. before they reach the supermarket/restaurant. That's a personal lifestyle choice - I know very well that plenty of processed vegetarian food had tonnes of crap in it and try not to eat too much of that either, but if you try to buy food and clothes and everything else, where absolutely no exploitation whatsoever takes place, or even not use money at all you'd be naked and starving pretty much, or robbing people all the time.

That's the problem with it, a bit of consumer choice doesn't do much harm or the other, but if taken to it's extreme - you'd end up boycotting most of the things you need to survive in contemporary society. There may be occasions where it changes things, but spending enough energy getting everyone else to follow your boycott to get minute change in the practices of a single company, might be better spent on doing something else. In this way, it can be a substitution if it becomes the be-all and end-all to activity. It's not bad in itself, but it shouldn't be a requirement for political activity. Plus, there's plenty of liberal groups who argue for and arrange boycotts in their thousands, so that's an activity that's well catered for, no reason why the couple hundred anarchists in the UK should spend all their time duplicating that activity with different politics but fundamentally the same result.

desertR

19 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by desertR on September 30, 2004

Sorry Wayne but why are you here? I was excited to find an anarchist discussion forum only it turns out its not. Its a space for a spoiled rich kid to dictate to us individuality crushing 'fashion tips'. Well Im sorry if I dont look 'cool' enough to be in your gang but we cant all aford that sweatshop produced crap. Normally I dont believe in oppositional conflict but you make it hard not to. Or is he a well known troll and I am wasting my time trying to engage with him? Sorry Wayne its nothing personal perhaps your a really nice person but this is political.

desertR

19 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by desertR on September 30, 2004

Well Revol68 he who may or may not be wayne. I did not attack anybody in fact I made it clear that I was not criticising wayne as a person. I have just joined these boards and you have already attacked me by calling me Rse. If that is the sort of joke you refer to in Waynes post then IM NOT SURPRISED I MISSED IT! I am sorry if I have missed an in joke that is actually oh so funny but I am new here and to me it read like a little rich kid showing off. I dont hate people, and certainly not for a reason like there parents are rich but a lot of my friends live off 40 pounds an week and have to deal with the expectations of conspicuous consumption in mainstream life so why should we have to put up with it here? Is this an anarchist board or have I made a mistake.

Oh look IT IS! :blackbloc:

:roll:

As far as I am aware I do not know the yrewenot3? person and if I do then I do not know him or her as that name.

Steven.

19 years 8 months ago

In reply to by libcom.org

Submitted by Steven. on September 30, 2004

The idea the wayne and revol are the same came from one quite odd character, who can be a bit all over the place.

desertR welcome to the boards!

Wayne's post above was obviously a joke, try not to take him and revol too seriously :cool: