DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

About the AF aims & principles...

111 posts / 0 new
Last post
Skips
Offline
Joined: 10-03-09
May 19 2009 08:12
888 wrote:
.
Quote:
In pretty much every other historical test I can think of anarcho-syndicalist unions have behaved poorly.

What tests? Unfortunately I do not know of any other organisational form that has performed better, otherwise I would support that form.

You hit the nail on the head. beardiest

Django's picture
Django
Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
May 19 2009 08:16
888 wrote:
Saying that you view workplace resistance groups as a tendency does not count as strategy. It's frustratingly vague. I will read the AF workplace strategy article.

That's because its not a strategy, its a description of one of the forms of organisation that exists in the world. The document you haven't read is a strategy.

888 wrote:
That sounds like a thoughtless retort to me. I said that in response to: "basically we think that when unions act in the interests of their members its usually as a result of being forced into doing so by their membership." Are anarchosyndicalist unions not directly controlled by their membership through direct democracy? So it's very easy for the membership to force the union to act in their interest, no? If it's an article of faith, it's just as much an article of faith for any directly democratic organisation.

Was the problem in the CNT that the members had come to rely on an unofficial leadership to make their decisions for them? Perhaps. Perhaps it was not clear to the majority of the membership what the best course of action was. I don't know. Is there a book that covers the development of the CNT-FAI leadership in detail?

Later on I believe the anarchist ministers ended up having formal decision making power that they didn't have before, due to their government posts. Particularly with the militarisation of the militias and in May 37 when they called the workers back to work. This power was still largely based on the acquiescence and grudging obedience of the workers "for the sake of the organisation". They placed the organisation above their immediate needs. (See Blood of Spain.) But I see no reason to believe this was due to its union nature! I don't see how any other form of organisation could have performed better... and I do definitely see the need for a strong, permanent organisation in workplaces and elsewhere before a revolution.

My point was that it sounds like an article of faith when you complain about anarchist unions straying from the control of their members in the same post. Because if this can and has been the case, which is what you are saying, anarcho-syndicalist unions come with no guarantee that they will stay under the control of their membership at all.

The 'betrayals' of the CNT leadership were not simply isolated, but were propagandised for at a number of levels by the CNT-FAI, SO etc and ratified. So blaming problems on a few bad leaders etc isn't really good enough. As for the leadership stringing along the organisation, Peirats and Leval both claim that the CNT's involvement in the government wasn't pushed through but ratified on a number of levels through the institutions of the union.

To make the point again, we don't disagree with having unions, or with being members of them or having them in 'workplaces and elsewhere' before a revolution. We don't say that anywhere, and don't have an 'outside and against' view on unions. But we do think that we need to go beyond them for revolutions to succeed.

I think the point that you can't have an 'anti-union union' is a good one, and works well in the case of the CNT. 'Preserving organisation', even in the case when that organisation isn't fit for duty and needs to be surpassed is exactly the problem. If you have the view that the mass anarcho-syndicalist union will be the agent of the revolution and is the new world in the shell of the old you aren't going to kick it in the head when it comes to be a fetter, as the CNT came to be.

888 wrote:
Again, I don't think that its role in negotiating wages was the key to its failure. It wasn't only a mediating organ, after all. It had launched various insurrections in its recent past.

Its the fact that it saw itself as identical with the interests of the working class, as the agent of revolution and as a mediating organ that led to problems. Pretty much any betrayal of principle could be and was excused as justifiable for keeping the organisation alive. Its not just negotiating wages, its the problem of having to play a part within the capitalist system andclaiming to be able avoid integration into it.

888 wrote:
What tests? Unfortunately I do not know of any other organisational form that has performed better, otherwise I would support that form.

French CGT supporting WW1, anarcho-syndicalists in Mexico entering a bourgeois coalition and helping suppress the rural revolts, the CNT acting organisationally as a brake on the revolution, etc. The experience of anarcho-syndicalism in practice isn't really that good, which is the reasoning behind my point that syndicalism seems more attractive largely because it has been marginal.

I think part of the problem is there having to be a sole organisational form to keep hold of. The argument the Friends of Durruti were trying to make is that organisational forms can lose their value as the situation changes - in their case they argued for workers' councils ('revolutionary juntas') to do the work of organising the revolution, and for these to take over the task from the CNT.

For a revolutionary situation to succeed in building a communist society there will have to be a number of forms of organisation for it to succeed - workplace committees, neighborhood assemblies, regional and national workers councils etc. But these can't be engineered in advance, or set up in advance as the new world in the shell of the old.

Out of interest, what did you think of Brighton Solfed's Strategy and Struggle pamphlet?

asn
Offline
Joined: 2-01-07
May 19 2009 11:48
Quote:
I think the point that you can't have an 'anti-union union' is a good one, and works well in the case of the CNT. 'Preserving organisation', even in the case when that organisation isn't fit for duty and needs to be surpassed is exactly the problem. If you have the view that the mass anarcho-syndicalist union will be the agent of the revolution and is the new world in the shell of the old you aren't going to kick it in the head when it comes to be a fetter, as the CNT came to be.

- you are totally ignoring the impact of the Barcelona based FAI in the CNT in the lead up to the revolution and how the CNT was drawn into the cycle of insurrections of the early 30's, massive waves of state repression and the witch hunting and wild slandering by the FAI of opposing tendencies ie the BOC( later to become the POUM and formerly the revolutionary syndicalist committees) and the trentistas - all this led to an hysterical climate in the CNT unfavourable to developing a discussion regarding the development of a more sophisticated and realistic political strategy rather than the simplistic FAI approach - that the CNT was self sufficient to the revolutionary project - once the CNT was being drawn into bourgeois state collaboration and reconstruction and the associated exceptional circumstances of the civil war - it couldn't pull out of this trajectory
-you are not looking at the development of the CNT in historical context - you just focus on its organisation - if the CNT had not been taken over by the barcelona based FAI in the years before 1936 - things would have been quite different - the counter revolutionary role it played during the civil war may never have occurred or the Franco/General's coup may never have happened

Quote:
French CGT supporting WW1, anarcho-syndicalists in Mexico entering a bourgeois coalition and helping suppress the rural revolts, the CNT acting organisationally as a brake on the revolution, etc. The experience of anarcho-syndicalism in practice isn't really that good, which is the reasoning behind my point that syndicalism seems more attractive largely because it has been marginal

- for your info - most of the membership of the CGT in France were not in syndicalist unions - they were in what was known as the "reformist unions" - opposed to direct action etc - a minority were in syndicalist unions but the way the cgt was organised was that they had more votes at congresses than the larger reformist unions - and so elected syndicalists to key committees - it was radically different to the cnt - in the years immediately before WWI - the "reformists" fully shaped the direction of the CGT

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
May 19 2009 17:45

The argument that the reformists in the CNT were good but the reformists in the CGT were bad seems a little odd to me.

Gizmoguy's picture
Gizmoguy
Offline
Joined: 3-03-09
Jul 12 2009 10:15

Couldn't we reword #10 to something like "We support Humanist/materialist views"? It doesn't sound as aggressive towards religion, and I think #10 may actually be scaring people away.

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Jul 12 2009 20:49

It's a really difficult one to sort out. We have to be clear about our acceptance of a materialist world view. We cannot have people joining who fail to understand our views on religion, so the principle is worded very bluntly. Otherwise we'd have a kind of two-tiered membership. But you are right, it comes across terribly! (And I'm speaking as one of those who pushed for its acceptance).

Fortunately someone's come up with a decent alternative suggestion for the next Delegate Meeting to discuss - though of course no decision can be made till the next conference.

I take it you are an AF member? Why not bring the discussion over to the AF internal forum? If you're not sure how to get on it, send me a pm and I'll make inquiries for you.

buena_exposiva's picture
buena_exposiva
Offline
Joined: 8-06-09
Jul 18 2009 21:44

Does the AF realise that a lot of people from poorer backgrounds identify themselves with some sort of religion whether they follow it or not? I think its a really odd prinicple to have as it makes some people with religious backgrounds and views very reluctant to join and without trying to sound racist or sexist or classist in anyway a lot of "ethnic" people living in the poorest constituencies certainly tend to identify themselves with a religion, so this just makes it seems to them that the AF is just another white boy middle class organistion telling them what they should believe and what they shouldnt. The AF are not going to get very far with this ridiculous principle.

Skips
Offline
Joined: 10-03-09
Jul 18 2009 22:01
buena_exposiva wrote:
Does the AF realise that a lot of people from poorer backgrounds identify themselves with some sort of religion whether they follow it or not? I think its a really odd prinicple to have as it makes some people with religious backgrounds and views very reluctant to join and without trying to sound racist or sexist or classist in anyway a lot of "ethnic" people living in the poorest constituencies certainly tend to identify themselves with a religion, so this just makes it seems to them that the AF is just another white boy middle class organistion telling them what they should believe and what they shouldnt. The AF are not going to get very far with this ridiculous principle.

"What you personally believe in is indeed your private affair; but when you get together with other people and organize them into a body to impose your belief on others, to force them to think as you do, and to punish them (to the extent of your power) if they entertain other beliefs,, then it is no more your 'private matter'." Alexander Berkman.

The Anarchist Federation should get its act together with regards to religious discrmination. There is some truth about some of the members of the AF being middle class or mostly and as with most lefty organisations in the UK they are majority white.

Skips
Offline
Joined: 10-03-09
Jul 18 2009 22:14
Jack wrote:
buena_exposiva wrote:
Does the AF realise that a lot of people from poorer backgrounds identify themselves with some sort of religion whether they follow it or not? I think its a really odd prinicple to have as it makes some people with religious backgrounds and views very reluctant to join and without trying to sound racist or sexist or classist in anyway a lot of "ethnic" people living in the poorest constituencies certainly tend to identify themselves with a religion, so this just makes it seems to them that the AF is just another white boy middle class organistion telling them what they should believe and what they shouldnt. The AF are not going to get very far with this ridiculous principle.

Do you have any idea how patronising this is?

Are people from poorer and "ethnic" backgrounds too thick to get atheist and materialism?

The AF is a revolutionary anarchist organisation, not a populist one. Therefore, they aren't going to dillute their views just to be popular.

I don't think everyone is gonna know what is materialism. Go to a council estate, a pub and start talking about materialism see how many people know what you are talking about. Ok you shant be popular then.

buena_exposiva's picture
buena_exposiva
Offline
Joined: 8-06-09
Jul 18 2009 22:16
Jack wrote:
buena_exposiva wrote:
Does the AF realise that a lot of people from poorer backgrounds identify themselves with some sort of religion whether they follow it or not? I think its a really odd prinicple to have as it makes some people with religious backgrounds and views very reluctant to join and without trying to sound racist or sexist or classist in anyway a lot of "ethnic" people living in the poorest constituencies certainly tend to identify themselves with a religion, so this just makes it seems to them that the AF is just another white boy middle class organistion telling them what they should believe and what they shouldnt. The AF are not going to get very far with this ridiculous principle.

Do you have any idea how patronising this is?

Are people from poorer and "ethnic" backgrounds too thick to get atheist and materialism?

The AF is a revolutionary anarchist organisation, not a populist one. Therefore, they aren't going to dillute their views just to be popular.

Do you have any idea how patronising it is to imply that those who hold religious beliefs are too thick and therefore cannot be members of Afed?

They don't need to dilute their views, in my view I don't see why anyone would want to join such a shitty anarchist organisation anyway.

Its just a little odd that the very people Afed - working class people tend to have religious beliefs of some sort or another, so technically you're just excluding them.

Skips
Offline
Joined: 10-03-09
Jul 18 2009 22:17
Jack wrote:
sickdog24 wrote:
I don't think everyone is gonna know what is materialism. Go to a council estate, a pub and start talking about materialism see how many people know what you are talking about. Ok you shant be popular then.

Why would I go into a pub and start talking about the Aims and Principles of an anarchist organisation? confused

Exactly you wouldnt.

flaneur's picture
flaneur
Offline
Joined: 25-02-09
Jul 18 2009 22:18
buena_exposiva wrote:
Does the AF realise that a lot of people from poorer backgrounds identify themselves with some sort of religion whether they follow it or not?

No, we were completely oblivious to it up until now. Now you've said it though, we've obviously gotta go back to the drawing board and sort it out.

What a load of shite. If "ethnic" folk identified with homophobia, should we suddenly adopt that? We are an anarcho-communist current; materialism is fundamental to that. We believe in organising in a horizontal manner which doesn't make sense if someone thinks a deity comes above all that. If folk don't agree, they don't have to join. I can see how that's obviously telling people what to do.

Religious discrimination? Jesus Christ.

buena_exposiva's picture
buena_exposiva
Offline
Joined: 8-06-09
Jul 18 2009 22:27
molly0000000s wrote:
buena_exposiva wrote:
Does the AF realise that a lot of people from poorer backgrounds identify themselves with some sort of religion whether they follow it or not?

No, we were completely oblivious to it up until now. Now you've said it though, we've obviously gotta go back to the drawing board and sort it out.

What a load of shite. If "ethnic" folk identified with homophobia, should we suddenly adopt that? We are an anarcho-communist current; materialism is fundamental to that. We believe in organising in a horizontal manner which doesn't make sense if someone thinks a deity comes above all that. If folk don't agree, they don't have to join. I can see how that's obviously telling people what to do.

Religious discrimination? Jesus Christ.

This is about working class people in general, telling someone you can't be an anarchist because you might believe God exsits is a bit strange to me. But fair enough if most members of the AF support that principle then keep it, just don't expect to acheive very much.

Skips
Offline
Joined: 10-03-09
Jul 18 2009 22:41
Jack wrote:
buena_exposiva wrote:
Do you have any idea how patronising it is to imply that those who hold religious beliefs are too thick and therefore cannot be members of Afed?

I'm not implying anything. I'm saying people who do not share the politics of an organisation can't be members. The AF is an anarchist organisation, and therefore materialist and atheist. Therefore, by definition, if you are religious, you are going to come into conflict with that.

Quote:
They don't need to dilute their views, in my view I don't see why anyone would want to join such a shitty anarchist organisation anyway.

What, an organisation with shared politics that you have to agree with to join?

Quote:
Its just a little odd that the very people Afed - working class people tend to have religious beliefs of some sort or another, so technically you're just excluding them.

Working class people also tend to not be for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and its replacement with libertarian communism. They are also excluded. Is this a problem?

If not (and if you think it is, then you've basically ruled out arguing for any major change to the status quo whatsoever), then what's the problem with excluding people who disagree with other parts of the organisations politics?

(just for clarity, I'm not in AF, and my organisation is softer in our principles towards religion, but I think the AF position is better than ours)

You would be surprised how many working class people are for the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and its replacement with libertarian communism. Its how we get there thats the problem, I mean are the AF gonna be one of the catalysts I think not. I mean what the fuck are you guys doing as we speak? Do you try to engage with the working class in council estates,workplaces etc? Or is it all left to the politicos and uni students as a talking shop.

flaneur's picture
flaneur
Offline
Joined: 25-02-09
Jul 18 2009 23:13
buena_exposiva wrote:
molly0000000s wrote:
buena_exposiva wrote:
Does the AF realise that a lot of people from poorer backgrounds identify themselves with some sort of religion whether they follow it or not?

No, we were completely oblivious to it up until now. Now you've said it though, we've obviously gotta go back to the drawing board and sort it out.

What a load of shite. If "ethnic" folk identified with homophobia, should we suddenly adopt that? We are an anarcho-communist current; materialism is fundamental to that. We believe in organising in a horizontal manner which doesn't make sense if someone thinks a deity comes above all that. If folk don't agree, they don't have to join. I can see how that's obviously telling people what to do.

Religious discrimination? Jesus Christ.

This is about working class people in general, telling someone you can't be an anarchist because you might believe God exsits is a bit strange to me. But fair enough if most members of the AF support that principle then keep it, just don't expect to acheive very much.

Someone believing there's some unquestionable hierarchy wanting to join an anarchist organisation is very strange to me.

What are we doing as we speak? Considering it's midnight, nothing. But I wouldn't exactly think bombarding folk in their homes and workplaces with the fall of capitalism is the way to go. I don't want to pester people, and I'm not in the SWP.

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Jul 19 2009 07:46

buena_exposiva wrote:

Quote:
Does the AF realise that a lot of people from poorer backgrounds identify themselves with some sort of religion whether they follow it or not?

Yes we do realise that. It's particularly true of people from Asian and black backgrounds. But I don't see how being less honest about our materialist views would make a Muslim, for example, more likely to join us. Nor would it make a Christian any more likely to. In the end it all comes down to whether you think you have to obey a god or not. If you do, then it's very difficult to be an anarchist. All we could do is pretend we are fine for people to hold "private" religious views and then run a hierarchical organisation with all power in the hands of a non-believing elite with everyone else just being a paper seller - which is how the SWP operate.

Quote:
The AF are not going to get very far with this ridiculous principle.

We're not doing too badly with it at the moment. But most of us would accept that it's very badly written and seriously needs looking at. However, we put it there because it was an unwritten principle for years. If someone wants to join they have to agree with the Aims and Principles (all. We don't want there to be a hidden one

Django's picture
Django
Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
Jul 19 2009 09:43

Also we always point out that we don't require people to be atheists for us to support them in struggle. I'm sure there were those at Visteon who believed in God, just are there are those involved with all major struggles who will have some form of religious belief, private, public or whatever. We'll support them as we support all class struggles.

However, the point is that we aren't aiming to incorporate the entire working class into the anarchist federation in order to make a revolution. We're an agitational group which aims to spread libertarian communist ideas where they matter, and make them the leading ones. So we're obviously going to be clear on things like having a materialist worldview that doesn't involve magical explanations for events, just like we're clear on things like nationalism, arguments which are probably more unpopular than opposition to religion.

Farce's picture
Farce
Offline
Joined: 21-04-09
Jul 19 2009 09:46
sickdog24 wrote:
I don't think everyone is gonna know what is materialism. Go to a council estate, a pub and start talking about materialism see how many people know what you are talking about. Ok you shant be popular then.

If I went into a council estate and started talking to people about Mormonism I probably wouldn't be that popular either, does that prove we're right to be atheists? But if, during a conversation that arose naturally in a pub, I expressed materialist views (i.e., saying that things happen for reasons in the real world that we can understand rationally), I don't think it'd be much less popular than expressing non-materialist views (saying things happen because of magic invisible men in the sky or whatever). No?

buena_exposiva wrote:
They don't need to dilute their views, in my view I don't see why anyone would want to join such a shitty anarchist organisation anyway.

What exactly makes us so shitty? Just our atheism, or is there anything else?

Quote:
Its just a little odd that the very people Afed - working class people tend to have religious beliefs of some sort or another, so technically you're just excluding them.

And working-class people tend to be nationalistic, does that mean we should stop be internationalists? Class-conscious workers tend to be in unions, so we shouldn't criticise the unions?

Django's picture
Django
Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
Jul 19 2009 17:34
Sickdog wrote:
I mean are the AF gonna be one of the catalysts I think not. I mean what the fuck are you guys doing as we speak? Do you try to engage with the working class in council estates,workplaces etc? Or is it all left to the politicos and uni students as a talking shop.

No, we are involved in material struggles as far as possible - we were involved in the Visteon support group and in fundraising for it nationally, we were very involved on the ground in the school occupations and other local campaigns in Glasgow, we've built links in the refinery and energy sector after the recent wildcat strike wave, we've done lots of solidarity work with immigrants, propaganda work at jobcentres, organising drives in workplaces, campaigns against academies etc, you name it. Though obviously we can be much better, as can class struggle anarchism / libertarian communism more generally.

Not that I think having a checklist of DOING STUFF is necessary for us to defend our politics, which are the right ones IMO. I mean, are you doing the stuff you're advocating, which sounds like pitching up on council estates and asking people if they're interested in anarchism? We've got comrades who live on council estates and think you'd be batshit if you parachuted in like this.

Edit - Anyway, the idea that you have to sacrifice opposition to religion to get anywhere is rubbish - the Spanish anarchists were anti-clerical, as was much of the early socialist movement generally.

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Jul 19 2009 15:15

What I find odd is that sickdog acts like he knows us really well, but the profile says he's in Northern America. So unless that's not true, I wonder how he appears to know enough about us to denounce us so heartily as being "such a shitty anarchist organisation"?

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jul 19 2009 16:15
Quote:
Does the AF realise that a lot of people from poorer backgrounds identify themselves with some sort of religion whether they follow it or not?

I absolutely agree with the AF's stance on this. Revolutionary organisations have a materialist outlook, which is by definition opposed to religious ideas.

Knightrose is also very right when he talks about the need for people in an organisation to understand its ideas and not for it to be run by some 'enlightened' elite.

Devrim

Skips
Offline
Joined: 10-03-09
Jul 19 2009 17:27
knightrose wrote:
What I find odd is that sickdog acts like he knows us really well, but the profile says he's in Northern America. So unless that's not true, I wonder how he appears to know enough about us to denounce us so heartily as being "such a shitty anarchist organisation"?

Columbo! I was living there for abit thanks for pointing that out- in North Carolina to be precise. Now im back in the UK- London so I believe after spending most of my life in the UK I can criticise and question the AF if I want.

Please don't put words into my mouth such as stating that I said this -"such a shitty anarchist organisation"(I never said that) I respect the AF although I don't agree with many of its principles (written down) particularly on the topic of religion and its vagueness regarding unions. I also have other reasons to feel disillusioned with the AF that I shall not air in public regarding things that happened in the past.

Django's picture
Django
Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
Jul 19 2009 17:46
sickdog24 wrote:
Columbo! I was living there for abit thanks for pointing that out- in North Carolina to be precise. Now im back in the UK- London so I believe after spending most of my life in the UK I can criticise and question the AF if I want.

You are of course free to criticise/critique/knock around the AF as much as you like, but I was wondering if you could give us some examples of the kinds of things that are happening in the UK that we should be doing too? Because otherwise its pretty arrogant to demand to know "what the fuck you guys are doing as we speak".

Like I said above there's lots more we can be doing, but I think a lot of our failure to do these things is down to size limitations. I mean, I'd like to see some kind of Manchester Coalition Against Poverty going and an active workers fightback group in Manchester, but we've found there isn't the capacity between us and people on the same page in the city to do those things despite attempts to get the ball rolling.

sickdog24 wrote:
Please don't put words into my mouth such as stating that I said this -"such a shitty anarchist organisation"(I never said that) I respect the AF although I don't agree with many of its principles (written down) particularly on the topic of religion and its vagueness regarding unions. I also have other reasons to feel disillusioned with the AF that I shall not air in public regarding things that happened in the past.

I think where we're coming from regarding religion has been made clear here, but I don't think we're 'vague' on the unions - while I'm not looking in from the outside of course now I was a year ago and thought that the AF's approach to unions was pretty sensible: not the 'outside and against' at all costs approach of some left communists and not the uncritical approach of some Platformists.

buena_exposiva's picture
buena_exposiva
Offline
Joined: 8-06-09
Jul 19 2009 19:01
knightrose wrote:
buena_exposiva wrote:
Quote:
Does the AF realise that a lot of people from poorer backgrounds identify themselves with some sort of religion whether they follow it or not?

Yes we do realise that. It's particularly true of people from Asian and black backgrounds. But I don't see how being less honest about our materialist views would make a Muslim, for example, more likely to join us. Nor would it make a Christian any more likely to. In the end it all comes down to whether you think you have to obey a god or not. If you do, then it's very difficult to be an anarchist. All we could do is pretend we are fine for people to hold "private" religious views and then run a hierarchical organisation with all power in the hands of a non-believing elite with everyone else just being a paper seller - which is how the SWP operate.

Quote:
The AF are not going to get very far with this ridiculous principle.

We're not doing too badly with it at the moment. But most of us would accept that it's very badly written and seriously needs looking at. However, we put it there because it was an unwritten principle for years. If someone wants to join they have to agree with the Aims and Principles (all. We don't want there to be a hidden one

I think you make a fair point, I doubt a religious person would want to join the AF or devote themselves to any anarchist movement. It's just the fundamental point thats being made about having no religious and spiritual beliefs that is a put off.

Yeah I am sure you are doing wonders at the moment..Fair enough though you admit its badly written which I agree with.

buena_exposiva's picture
buena_exposiva
Offline
Joined: 8-06-09
Jul 19 2009 19:11
Quote:
What exactly makes us so shitty? Just our atheism, or is there anything else?

Atheism? You mean paranoia over if someone may believe in God. Well that's one point. AF just seems like a pointless organisation, not harming anyone but neither benefiting, then again you can say that about other organisations.

knightrose
Offline
Joined: 8-11-03
Jul 19 2009 19:36

Sorry sickdog - it was buena_exposiva who called us a "shitty little organisation" - I should read posts more carefully.

PartyBucket's picture
PartyBucket
Offline
Joined: 23-03-08
Jul 19 2009 22:06

sickdog24, why do you keep banging on about 'the council estates'? They arent generally nice places so dont fetishize them. I'll be going to visit my mum in the one she lives in this week and its like fucking Beirut at this time of the year, so I most likely wont try to start a public debate about atheism or materialism. But you seem to be saying that, since we cant just out of the blue walk into Teh COunCIl eSTaTEs and start such a discussion, we should abandon basic principles?
Seriously, why does this topic continually rear its head? Religion is a barrier to revolution. Anarchists and Communists need to think about how to overcome said barrier, not how to accomodate it.

PartyBucket's picture
PartyBucket
Offline
Joined: 23-03-08
Jul 19 2009 21:13
Jack wrote:
sickdog24 wrote:
I don't think everyone is gonna know what is materialism. Go to a council estate, a pub and start talking about materialism see how many people know what you are talking about. Ok you shant be popular then.

Why would I go into a pub and start talking about the Aims and Principles of an anarchist organisation? confused

For that is what the working class does. They live in 'council estates' and go to 'pubs'. That is all they do.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jul 20 2009 01:31
Quote:
sickdog24, why do you keep banging on about 'the council estates'?

It is a good question. He is not the only person on here who keeps going on about them though. It seems to be a standard line from some people "council estates and workplaces" in that order.
How many people actually live on them nowadays? How many of them have been sold off or knocked down?

Quote:
I'll be going to visit my mum in the one she lives in this week and its like fucking Beirut at this time of the year

I don't know how you imagine it to be but Beirut is lovely at this time of year, beautiful sunny days, and a pleasant breeze blowing in from the mediterranean. I'd love to be there at this time of year.
Devrim

PartyBucket's picture
PartyBucket
Offline
Joined: 23-03-08
Jul 20 2009 10:00

Yeah, referring to places as 'Beirut' is a peculiar Northern Ireland colloquialism, kind of outdated now I suppose. A bit rich too, really smile