A question - NEFAC and national liberation

1182 posts / 0 new
Last post
thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 25 2007 17:50

I can't believe I slept through being purged and rehabilitated!

Catch's mum is a closet Leninist.

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
Apr 25 2007 17:54
Mike Harman wrote:
Flint wrote:

I'd rather see the U.S. out of Iraq. Does that mean I support Sunni Nationalists?

Do you think a unilateral withdrawal of the US from Iraq is the same as a win for Sunni Nationalists?

No. If I had to predict, I'd say an immediate (I'm not sure why you use "unilateral" here... the U.S. invasion and occupation was already "unilateral") withdraw of the U.S. from Iraq... Iraq would continue it's civil war. I suspect that is going to happen regardless of when the U.S. leaves. Civil society was so dominated by the Baath; and the Baath control of civil society so decimated by the U.S. invasion and occupation... I don't see a great welling up of proletarian force or even civil society to counter what seems to be a fairly brutal civil war around religious (Sunni/Shia) and ethnic (Arab/Kurd) lines... but there are so many different factions in Iraq right now, it's really hard to tell how things might shake out. Perhaps one group would come out on top, perhaps they'd decide that continuing the civil war would just erode all of their positions and kill a lot of people and destroy a lot of infrastructure in the process and would come to some sort of compromise. I don't know. I figure if there is going to be any kind of peace or social revolution in Iraq, then it's got to be created by the folks who... you know... actually live there. It won't come about through the U.S. persueing it's own economic and geo-political strategic ends. The continuing U.S. occupation can only be a source of instability and imperialist exploitation.

Also, as a worker in the U.S.--I recognize what an economic burden that war is on the working class in the U.S. and how it is used by the U.S. state to suppress dissent in the name of "security".

I don't know... what do you think is going to happen in Iraq? Do you think U.S. anarchists should be pushing for immediate withdraw? Do you think there is any group that folks in the U.S. can materially support in Iraq?

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Apr 25 2007 18:26
Quote:
Do you think U.S. anarchists should be pushing for immediate withdraw?

no. this administration - no administration - is going to answer to anyone about the war. maybe to millenialist christians or multinationals or neocons (viz. trotskyist converts to capitalism), but not to the US electorate and certainly not to groups of protesters. making an issue out of troop withdrawal only underlines the weakness of opposition and provides a source of mockery for rightwingers. the only people who are going to get the troops out are the troops, and they're doing an increasingly good job of absenting themselves.

for anarchists or for anyone, this is a moment for larger targets (like statism and corporatism) and for larger goals (worker self-organization, e.g.).

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Apr 25 2007 18:27
Quote:
Do you think U.S. anarchists should be pushing for immediate withdraw?

no. this administration - no administration - is going to answer to anyone about the war. maybe to millenialist christians or multinationals or neocons (viz. trotskyist converts to capitalism), but not to the US electorate and certainly not to groups of protesters. making an issue out of troop withdrawal only underlines the weakness of opposition and provides a source of mockery for rightwingers. the only people who are going to get the troops out are the troops, and they're doing an increasingly good job of absenting themselves.

for anarchists or for anyone, this is a moment for larger targets (like statism and corporatism) and for larger goals (worker self-organization, e.g.).

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Apr 25 2007 19:00
Flint wrote:
Mike Harman wrote:
Flint wrote:

I'd rather see the U.S. out of Iraq. Does that mean I support Sunni Nationalists?

Do you think a unilateral withdrawal of the US from Iraq is the same as a win for Sunni Nationalists?

No.

Then judging by that quote, there's some distance between you and Wayne Price.

Quote:
If I had to predict, I'd say an immediate (I'm not sure why you use "unilateral" here... the U.S. invasion and occupation was already "unilateral")

Because I'm such a big nation nationalist I was probably thinking of the necessary prefix when talking about the UK withdrawing - i.e. leaving while the US is still in there.

Quote:
I don't know... what do you think is going to happen in Iraq?

I don't think anything good is going to happen in the near future. Like you, I don't think it's possible to make accurate predictions, but any I could come up with are bad.

Quote:
Do you think U.S. anarchists should be pushing for immediate withdraw?

I think all of us know that it won't make any material difference to what happens in Iraq whether they do or not - same with all anarchist and left communist and even relatively large leftist and left liberal groups in the UK.

I do think it's important to put forward a principled anti-war and internationalist position against the war - one which clearly differentiates itself from the quasi-pro-war-from-the-other-side sloganeering by groups like the (UK) SWP and Workers Power. Although they can't change anything in Iraq, no matter how much they "support the Iraqi resistance", they can suck genuinely angry people into their front groups and either put them off any kind of struggle via their tactics as they did to many in the Stop the War Coalition, or incorporate them into their firmly anti-working class organisations - which they did much less successfully than putting them off politics altogether.

Quote:
Do you think there is any group that folks in the U.S. can materially support in Iraq?

I'd love there to be, but I'm not sure that there is. I guess you're thinking of the Southern Oil Workers Union, the FWCUI and the WCPI.

The Southern Oil Workers Union - some of their members have done some very brave things as workers from what I've seen, the organisation itself seems not to be not very good though.

The FWCUI - their news is very good usually, and this: http://www.uuiraq.org/english/248.htm is not bad either, they also tend to call for workers committees and strikes rather than calling for "unions" as such (edit, no there seems to be lots about union rights as well, but at least their main focus seems to be on economic struggle and internationalism), I don't know enough about them though but would like to know more - both about what they do in practice/organisationally and their politics.

The WCPI - I get confused between the Iraqi and Iranian parties - and apparently the Iranian one split - one closer to Stalinism, one more "libertarian marxist", but there's not loads in English and a long thread on here didn't resolve much iirc.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Apr 25 2007 19:07
newyawka wrote:
Quote:
Do you think U.S. anarchists should be pushing for immediate withdraw?

no. this administration - no administration - is going to answer to anyone about the war. maybe to millenialist christians or multinationals or neocons (viz. trotskyist converts to capitalism), but not to the US electorate and certainly not to groups of protesters. making an issue out of troop withdrawal only underlines the weakness of opposition and provides a source of mockery for rightwingers. the only people who are going to get the troops out are the troops, and they're doing an increasingly good job of absenting themselves.
.

cross posted but agree with newyawka - no point making demands if you can't back them up.

WCPI threads here fwiw:
http://libcom.org/forums/thought/the-worker-communist-parties-of-iraq-and-iran
http://libcom.org/node/8446 (broken, I think it was a poll but it's readable)

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 25 2007 19:17
Mike Harman wrote:
newyawka wrote:
Quote:
Do you think U.S. anarchists should be pushing for immediate withdraw?

no. this administration - no administration - is going to answer to anyone about the war. maybe to millenialist christians or multinationals or neocons (viz. trotskyist converts to capitalism), but not to the US electorate and certainly not to groups of protesters. making an issue out of troop withdrawal only underlines the weakness of opposition and provides a source of mockery for rightwingers. the only people who are going to get the troops out are the troops, and they're doing an increasingly good job of absenting themselves.
.

cross posted but agree with newyawka - no point making demands if you can't back them up.

WCPI threads here fwiw:
http://libcom.org/forums/thought/the-worker-communist-parties-of-iraq-and-iran
http://libcom.org/node/8446 (broken, I think it was a poll but it's readable)

As I recall... this is all fairly well off topic. The subject at hand is whether NEFAC supports national liberations struggles and if so are they counter-revolutionary fascist stalinists and if not should they merely purge Wayne "The Hammer" Price or actually string him up by his toes as a clear form of disagreement.

So Catch...

1. Is NEFAC pro-nationalism?
2. Is The Hammer pro-nationalism?
3. Should The Hammer be purged?
4. Should The Hammer be strung up by his toes?

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Apr 25 2007 19:21

I think NEFAC's views and actions around the occupation in Iraq and any potential war in Iran are precisely on-topic.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Apr 25 2007 19:23
Quote:
As I recall... this is all fairly well off topic.

true, but the question was asked so i spouted.
btw people who provide crash pads for soldiers deserting are, like, heroic.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 25 2007 19:24
Mike Harman wrote:
I think NEFAC's views and actions around the occupation in Iraq and any potential war in Iran are precisely on-topic.

Thats not an answer to the questions about NEFAC and The Hammer.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Apr 25 2007 19:31

this hammer?

Quote:
1. Is NEFAC pro-nationalism?

I think Wayne Price is, I think his relatively high profile makes NEFAC look pro-nationalist, and I think the majority of NEFAC members on here aren't that interested in stopping this from happening because either they think it's irrelevant or they disagree that he's pro-nationalist. In other words, I don't know, but I'm hoping to eventually find out via this thread or a similar one if people can stop claiming it's some kind of left-communist conspiracy and answer clear questions.

Black Flag
Offline
Joined: 26-04-06
Apr 25 2007 19:40

Now I could be wrong here but this NEFAC guy saying we must help oppressed nations might have a point because a nation is not necessarily a state.So maybe thats what he meant.Or perhaps he just meant the oppressed people of the world.Or maybe he is a dodgy platformist,dunno.

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
Apr 25 2007 19:42
Mike Harman wrote:
newyawka wrote:
Quote:
Do you think U.S. anarchists should be pushing for immediate withdraw?

no. this administration - no administration - is going to answer to anyone about the war. maybe to millenialist christians or multinationals or neocons (viz. trotskyist converts to capitalism), but not to the US electorate and certainly not to groups of protesters. making an issue out of troop withdrawal only underlines the weakness of opposition and provides a source of mockery for rightwingers. the only people who are going to get the troops out are the troops, and they're doing an increasingly good job of absenting themselves.
.

cross posted but agree with newyawka - no point making demands if you can't back them up.

WCPI threads here fwiw:
http://libcom.org/forums/thought/the-worker-communist-parties-of-iraq-and-iran
http://libcom.org/node/8446 (broken, I think it was a poll but it's readable)

Trouble is... the U.S. congress, which is just barely controlled by the Democratic party, is pushing out a bill with a withdraw date of October 1st, 2007. They were moved to that position by the left, and the results of the ongoing conflict. I do think the folks best placed to get the U.S. troops out of Iraq is the U.S. troops themselves. I've argued such before, but in addition pointing out that those of us not in the military can work on draining the war effort by discouraging folks from enlisting in the military. How successful has that been? I have no idea, but I know a lot of people have put effort into it, and that even Time is claiming that the U.S. military is broken down; but what that really means is the U.S. executive branch isn't able to get much more in the way of funds or soldiers to fight the war.

Without opposition to the war, and without calls for immediate withdraw; I think the U.S. would have been willing to draft. Likewise, the opposition to the war in Vietnam and calls for immediate withdraw and opposition to the draft then--have had an effect on what the U.S. felt it could do in terms of making demands on the U.S. population for an unpopular war.

But hey, newyawka, do whatever you want... if you think when asked "What are you doing to end the war" and you respond "targetting statism and corporatism and for larger goals worker self-organization"--let me know how that works out for you.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 25 2007 19:48
Mike Harman wrote:
this hammer?
Quote:
1. Is NEFAC pro-nationalism?

I think Wayne Price is, I think his relatively high profile makes NEFAC look pro-nationalist, and I think the majority of NEFAC members on here aren't that interested in stopping this from happening because either they think it's irrelevant or they disagree that he's pro-nationalist. In other words, I don't know, but I'm hoping to eventually find out via this thread or a similar one if people can stop claiming it's some kind of left-communist conspiracy and answer clear questions.

I think The Hammer's generally misunderstood because he writes and speaks like he does. Clunky and obtuse. He's not a nationalist. He has views on liberation struggles that I disagree with but ultimately its a view that comes from an anarchist perspective. As for NEFC they should speak for themselves of course, but I think its clear from the aims and principles that they reject nationalist liberation and in the only area of NEFAC whereits practically relevant (Quebec) they're virulently against the seperatist movement. NEFAC doesn't spend a lot of time, it seems to me, pontificating on a lot of issues that aren't specific to where it is geographically and what it wants to accomplish practically. That may be a weakness as some here seem to be pointing out, but I tend to be of the opinion that its what makes NEFAC's form of focused engagement superior.

Guess what my opinion of leftist sects in Iraq is? Don't have one. Ask me again if I move to Iraq.

--- Edit: I forgot to ask.... since The Hammer is, in your opinion, a Nationalist then if NEFAC are actually anarchists (and thats a huuuuuuuuge if apparently) should The Hammer be purged or strung up by his toes or both?

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
Apr 25 2007 19:50
Mike Harman wrote:
I think that's pretty clear - if members have views consisently in opposition to the stated principles of an organisation then either the principles or the membership ought to change.

Catch, besides the libcom group, what organizations with stated principles are are you a member of?

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
Apr 25 2007 19:57
thugarchist wrote:
As for NEFC they should speak for themselves of course, but I think its clear from the aims and principles that they reject nationalist liberation and in the only area of NEFAC whereits practically relevant (Quebec) they're virulently against the seperatist movement.

NEFAC on the Quebec National Question

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Apr 25 2007 19:59
Flint wrote:
Trouble is... the U.S. congress, which is just barely controlled by the Democratic party, is pushing out a bill with a withdraw date of October 1st, 2007. They were moved to that position by the left, and the results of the ongoing conflict.

I wonder which of those had the most effect...

Quote:
I do think the folks best placed to get the U.S. troops out of Iraq is the U.S. troops themselves. I've argued such before, but in addition pointing out that those of us not in the military can work on draining the war effort by discouraging folks from enlisting in the military.

Targeting military recruitment is always going to be better than "calling for" stuff you can't effect.

Quote:
Likewise, the opposition to the war in Vietnam and calls for immediate withdraw and opposition to the draft then--have had an effect on what the U.S. felt it could do in terms of making demands on the U.S. population for an unpopular war.

I think the fraggings, the mass demonstrations etc. meant that could be backed up a bit more than equivalent demands now - the US was still in Vietnam for a very long time though.

Quote:
But hey, newyawka, do whatever you want... if you think when asked "...or larger goals worker self-organization"--let me know how that works out for you.

Long-term, that's the only way it's going to end. Mass strikes against the war would achieve far more than big marches.

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
Apr 25 2007 20:06
Mike Harman wrote:
Flint wrote:
Mike Harman wrote:
Flint wrote:

I'd rather see the U.S. out of Iraq. Does that mean I support Sunni Nationalists?

Do you think a unilateral withdrawal of the US from Iraq is the same as a win for Sunni Nationalists?

No.

Then judging by that quote, there's some distance between you and Wayne Price.

There is distance between myself and The Hammer on the issue in regards to the U.S. Occupation of Iraq. Wayne has pushed for... and I'm paraphrasing but the general jist was "For the defeat of the U.S. in Iraq"; while I've argued for "U.S. Out of Iraq". A majority of NEFAC has preferred "U.S. Out of Iraq". So that's where we are. Even if a U.S. withdraw is a defacto "defeat" of the U.S. in Iraq, it's not long the Iraqi army is going to be occupying Baltimore.

Anarchists in the U.S. have even less impact in Iraq than they potentially do in the U.S. so it seems to me, it is to U.S. policy where we could be most effective... if at all.

Whatever material aid we could give to folks in Iraq... is very limited; but at the same time... a U.S. dollar can buy a lot for the right folks in the right place. We've generally preferred to aid social movements that we presume that we would be involved in if we were lived there. Those social movements tend to be the opponents of both the U.S. occupation, as well as various Baathist, Sunni nationalist, Shia nationalist (is "nationalist" even the right word for a religious rather than ethnic distinction?), and Kurdish nationalist groups.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Apr 25 2007 20:08
thugarchist wrote:
Mike Harman wrote:
this hammer?
Quote:
1. Is NEFAC pro-nationalism?

I think Wayne Price is, I think his relatively high profile makes NEFAC look pro-nationalist, and I think the majority of NEFAC members on here aren't that interested in stopping this from happening because either they think it's irrelevant or they disagree that he's pro-nationalist. In other words, I don't know, but I'm hoping to eventually find out via this thread or a similar one if people can stop claiming it's some kind of left-communist conspiracy and answer clear questions.

I think The Hammer's generally misunderstood because he writes and speaks like he does. Clunky and obtuse. He's not a nationalist. He has views on liberation struggles that I disagree with but ultimately its a view that comes from an anarchist perspective. As for NEFC they should speak for themselves of course, but I think its clear from the aims and principles that they reject nationalist liberation and in the only area of NEFAC whereits practically relevant (Quebec) they're virulently against the seperatist movement. NEFAC doesn't spend a lot of time, it seems to me, pontificating on a lot of issues that aren't specific to where it is geographically and what it wants to accomplish practically. That may be a weakness as some here seem to be pointing out, but I tend to be of the opinion that its what makes NEFAC's form of focused engagement superior.

Guess what my opinion of leftist sects in Iraq is? Don't have one. Ask me again if I move to Iraq.

--- Edit: I forgot to ask.... since The Hammer is, in your opinion, a Nationalist then if NEFAC are actually anarchists (and thats a huuuuuuuuge if apparently) should The Hammer be purged or strung up by his toes or both?

If nothing else, I hope that this thread will encourage more people to refer to Wayne as "The Hammer".

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Apr 25 2007 20:14
Flint wrote:
Mike Harman wrote:
I think that's pretty clear - if members have views consisently in opposition to the stated principles of an organisation then either the principles or the membership ought to change.

Catch, besides the libcom group, what organizations with stated principles are are you a member of?

None really. I've been a member of the AF, but not paid subs or been to a meeting for ages, and seem not to be on the internal list anymore, so I'm at best lapsed now. I don't have time due to family and work to get involved with any other groups at the moment either, not that there's any I want to. fwiw I don't have fundamental disagreements with the AF. The two things I think I disagree with some members on are whether ID cards should be an organising priority, and whether the IWW is a good idea or not. I don't think these are fundamental (although I think I have some fundamental disagreements with some IWW members/the IWW but that's a bit different).

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 25 2007 20:15
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:

If nothing else, I hope that this thread will encourage more people to refer to The Hammer as "The Hammer".

black bloc

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
Apr 25 2007 20:26
Mike Harman wrote:
I wonder which of those had the most effect...

Who knows. You can't know. That's the nature of these things. I suspect it isn't a question of "root cause", but rather many things adding up. If I thought congressman were human beings, I think watching Military Families Speak Out pour the hearts out about their dead relatives to democratic congressman might have had more effect than my own repetition of grisly statistics.

Mike Harman wrote:
Targeting military recruitment is always going to be better than "calling for" stuff you can't effect.

Tactics don't happen in a vacuum. A failure to retain and recruit, or grow recruitment... has an effect on whether demands for withdraw are even heard. Also, the folks often pushing hardest against recruitment are ALSO calling for immediate withdraw.

Mike Harman wrote:
I think the fraggings, the mass demonstrations etc. meant that could be backed up a bit more than equivalent demands now - the US was still in Vietnam for a very long time though.

So, mass demonstrations are helpful then? What do you think mass demonstrations are doing besides calling for withdraw?

Mike Harman wrote:
Long-term, that's the only way it's going to end. Mass strikes against the war would achieve far more than big marches.

Certainly. I'm all for a general strike against war. I wrote:

Quote:
When a state is determined to pursue war, and all forms of indirect symbolic protest actions have failed to sway politicians to halt their imperialist aggression, the only remaining option is direct action by the working class. One option is a general strike by workers that can effect the production and transportation of military capital, that is the materials essential for the war machine. The other is to deprive the military of the labor it needs to fight the war.

Others in NEFAC have pointed out that we need to strike against the war. NEFAC has pointed out that we need to object, desert, mutiny, strike and revolt.

But this stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum. You've got to have the mass demonstrations calling for immediate withdraw to provide the political space and public support for more militant tactics to be popularly supported. In the Vietnam war, deserting and objecting troops were explicit in saying the mass demonstrations gave them moral confidence to oppose the war.

You just can't pick "general strike against war" as the only tactic you are going to use like it was an option on a menu.

As it is, going into the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq; it sounded like the only folks who had organized labor in a position to actually wage a general strike against the war was in the U.K. and your union bureaucrats just rolled over after threatening it (I believe the phrase was "industrial action"). The U.K. is the number one ally (after mercenaries) for the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. It's conceivable that you folks could still organize a general strike to force the U.K. to withdraw. Italy withdrew. In the U.S., the folks in the AFL-CIO had to be drug to even vocally opposing the war; and a general strike has never been suggested by them.

Anyway, yeah... mass demonstrations, calls for immediate withdraw and the like are weak actions, they are indirect actions, they are begging. It sucks. That's not the same thing as them having absolutely no effect. There is an effect. Sometimes the folks who are effected aren't even the ones the demonstrations are officially targeted at.

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
Apr 25 2007 20:32
Mike Harman wrote:
Flint wrote:
Mike Harman wrote:
I think that's pretty clear - if members have views consisently in opposition to the stated principles of an organisation then either the principles or the membership ought to change.

Catch, besides the libcom group, what organizations with stated principles are are you a member of?

None really. I've been a member of the AF, but not paid subs or been to a meeting for ages, and seem not to be on the internal list anymore, so I'm at best lapsed now. I don't have time due to family and work to get involved with any other groups at the moment either, not that there's any I want to. fwiw I don't have fundamental disagreements with the AF. The two things I think I disagree with some members on are whether ID cards should be an organising priority, and whether the IWW is a good idea or not. I don't think these are fundamental (although I think I have some fundamental disagreements with some IWW members/the IWW but that's a bit different).

Then with all due respect, since you can not be bothered to be involved in an organization or even make a minimum commitment like paying dues (but have plenty of time to complain about oneliners that thugarchist forces you to read!), maybe you should shut the fuck up about differences of opinion within an organization and to what extent those differences should be allowed to be publicly expressed without being expelled.

daniel's picture
daniel
Offline
Joined: 8-04-06
Apr 25 2007 20:58
Big Jack McTussoch wrote:
Now I could be wrong here but this NEFAC guy saying we must help oppressed nations might have a point because a nation is not necessarily a state.So maybe thats what he meant.Or perhaps he just meant the oppressed people of the world.Or maybe he is a dodgy platformist,dunno.

In the words of Joe Hill: “Well, it is about time that every rebel wakes up to the fact that 'the people' and the working class have nothing in common.”

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
Apr 25 2007 21:00
daniel wrote:
Big Jack McTussoch wrote:
Now I could be wrong here but this NEFAC guy saying we must help oppressed nations might have a point because a nation is not necessarily a state.So maybe thats what he meant.Or perhaps he just meant the oppressed people of the world.Or maybe he is a dodgy platformist,dunno.

In the words of Joe Hill: “Well, it is about time that every rebel wakes up to the fact that 'the people' and the working class have nothing in common.”

Cause, you know... NEFAC is just leading the working class into the trenches World War I. You are ridiculous.

daniel's picture
daniel
Offline
Joined: 8-04-06
Apr 25 2007 21:03
Flint wrote:
Then with all due respect, since you can not be bothered to be involved in an organization or even make a minimum commitment like paying dues (but have plenty of time to complain about oneliners that thugarchist forces you to read!), maybe you should shut the fuck up about differences of opinion within an organization and to what extent those differences should be allowed to be publicly expressed without being expelled.

If I was asked for 10 major reasons why anarchism is stuck in a ghetto of highly active young types, that'd be one of the top five. Those outside the revolutionary anarchist cadre should "shut the fuck up" apparently. They can buy the paper of the revolutionary cadre, but if you got a family and a life, you should "shut the fuck up." Am I being paranoid, or is that the attitude of professional revolutionaries?

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 25 2007 21:09
daniel wrote:
Flint wrote:
Then with all due respect, since you can not be bothered to be involved in an organization or even make a minimum commitment like paying dues (but have plenty of time to complain about oneliners that thugarchist forces you to read!), maybe you should shut the fuck up about differences of opinion within an organization and to what extent those differences should be allowed to be publicly expressed without being expelled.

If I was asked for 10 major reasons why anarchism is stuck in a ghetto of highly active young types, that'd be one of the top five. Those outside the revolutionary anarchist cadre should "shut the fuck up" apparently. They can buy the paper of the revolutionary cadre, but if you got a family and a life, you should "shut the fuck up." Am I being paranoid, or is that the attitude of professional revolutionaries?

You're being insane by suggesting that a random unaligned anarchist an ocean away from a regional organization being told to fuck off is somehow comparable to cadre-ism, professional revolutionism, or insulting to people because they have a "family and a life" ... or am I just being wildly rational?

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Apr 25 2007 21:10
Quote:
Trouble is... the U.S. congress, which is just barely controlled by the Democratic party, is pushing out a bill with a withdraw date of October 1st, 2007. They were moved to that position by the lef tand the results of the ongoing conflict.

but "the left" and "the results of the conflict" are two utterly separate things. apart from wellstone, who voted against the invasion in the first place, all the antiwar speakers in congress have been ex-servicemen, left and right, (like murtha and rangel and jones) who felt that the war was botched, not that it was a bad idea. they were moved by the electorate, not by any marches or leftist sectarians or demonstrations: at the recent DC demonstration only one congressmember even showed up. if congress pushes through a withdrawal schedule, bush will veto it, and congress won't have the balls to override it. if they do, i'll come here and blow you.

i was at the RNC demos, and have given money to antiwar/antistate activities. it's good to show that lots of people are opposed. but none of that is going to get the troops out. on the other hand, if there was mass refusal by the workers in industries ancillary to the war effort, it would be a serious blow.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Apr 25 2007 21:12
newyawka wrote:
Quote:
Trouble is... the U.S. congress, which is just barely controlled by the Democratic party, is pushing out a bill with a withdraw date of October 1st, 2007. They were moved to that position by the lef tand the results of the ongoing conflict.

but "the left" and "the results of the conflict" are two utterly separate things. apart from wellstone, who voted against the invasion in the first place, all the antiwar speakers in congress have been ex-servicemen, left and right, (like murtha and rangel and jones) who felt that the war was botched, not that it was a bad idea. they were moved by the electorate, not by any marches or leftist sectarians or demonstrations: at the recent DC demonstration only one congressmember even showed up. if congress pushes through a withdrawal schedule, bush will veto it, and congress won't have the balls to override it. if they do, i'll come here and blow you.

i was at the RNC demos, and have given money to antiwar/antistate activities. it's good to show that lots of people are opposed. but none of that is going to get the troops out. on the other hand, if there was mass refusal by the workers in industries ancillary to the war effort, it would be a serious blow.

Well if anarchists want to see an ability to have a general strike to oppose the war then maybe a step up in revolutionary pamphleting is in order?

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
Apr 25 2007 21:17
daniel wrote:
If I was asked for 10 major reasons why anarchism is stuck in a ghetto of highly active young types, that'd be one of the top five. Those outside the revolutionary anarchist cadre should "shut the fuck up" apparently. They can buy the paper of the revolutionary cadre, but if you got a family and a life, you should "shut the fuck up." Am I being paranoid, or is that the attitude of professional revolutionaries?

NEFAC has older members (like The Hammer!), we also have middle aged members, we have members with children grown to adults, members with young children, members with new born babies. We also allow for members with children to pay reduced dues (I think I have that right). We understand when folks can't be as active as they were.

But for someone to lecture us about organizational discipline who 1) doesn't pay dues, 2) doesn't go to meetings, and 3) doesn't even participate in an email list (yet finds oodles of time to moderate a web forum)... in what meaningful sense do they participate in the organization and should they have any control of it? Those who actually participate get to decide what they are doing together collectively. A specific political organization is not a mass organization.

No, you are not being paranoid, you are being an idot. Catch, and presumably you... who are by no means alien to revolutionary politics, are dictating what level of ideological discipline should be enforced in political groups WHEN YOU AREN'T EVEN MEMBERS OF GROUPS. If you ARE a member of a group, you can come up with your own shared ideological position... you can try consensus if you like, NEFAC uses majority votes and super-majority votes for changes to the constitution and aims & principles. If you ARE a member, you can make a proposal to expel another member for whatever reason and then try to get the group to agree with your proposal. In NEFAC, we came to a super-majority agreement on our Aims and Principles... as well as issuing numerous majority statements that relate to war, imperialism and nationalism. Noone has proposed to censor or expel The Hammer for having a different opinion that the majority, or expressing it publicly because we value the contributions he makes as a member in those areas we do agree and don't see his publicly expressing the difference he has with the majority opinion as so far off to be grounds to censer or expel. If you WERE members of organizations, you might understand how this sort of thing works and how spending all your time policing for ideological purity and rigidly control the expressions of members in a voluntary organization is counter to actually getting practical stuff done.

Topic locked