crimethink to the nth degree

115 posts / 0 new
Last post
woundedhobo
Offline
Joined: 16-02-04
Mar 24 2004 00:43
crimethink to the nth degree

from DominicMallary at http://crimethinc.net >General Discussion:

1. The main flaw with Leftism (and all of its offshoots, yes, anarchism is leftist) is that it preceives society politically, economicly, and "rationally". However, it does not understand the world aesthetically.

2. Because of this "rational" perspective, Leftism, in Marx, interpreted the working class as the revolutionary class, as, politcally, economicly, and rationally, they had the most to gain.

3. Contrary to Leftist philosophies, humanity is a primarily aesthetic being: we are creators, not scientists, economists, or politicians. In a world without meaning, we create meanings for ourselves with our religions, our ideologies, our goals, our "Truth", etc. These are at root, aesthetic creations, works of art, lies.

4. The false nature of such creations does not make them valueless creations. A novel is not worthless because it is a fiction. The Western concept of Truth, in the absoulte sense, has mangled the aesthetic prespective, as all aesthetics are "rationally" false. This is why Western thought ultimately concludes in nihilism.

5. We must recognize the aesthetic nature of our beliefs and ethics (and in the end, our actions/lives), while at once, affirming their value as our creations.

6. The absence of an absoulte Truth does not imply realitivism. The realitivist quagmire is the product of our own distorted Western "rational" way of thought. Scientifically, nothing distingushes Beethoven over NSYNC, yet most people who honestly appreciate music would prefer Beethoven.

7. I believe we should be "anarchists" (we need a better, traditionless word) not because it is the most rational, moral, mutually benefical, or intelligent ideology, but because it is the most beautiful.

8. The Situationists, and henceforth Crimethinc, understood this better then the last two centuries of radical thought. However, they did not make the final break from the Western philosophical tradition. They couldn't abandon Hegel/Marx. Neither, it seems, can Crimethinc.

9. The most pressing question in 20th century radical thought was "why did the working class side with fascism". It is not because they were uneducated, the electors of Hitler were the best educated workers in the world. It is not merely because capitalism "brainwashed" them, though a great deal of "brainwashing" did occur. Rather, Leftism presented itself as politically, economicly, and logically preferable. However, fascism understood the aesthetic, the importance of Myth.

10. Leftism, as Nietzsche, Ted Kyzenski, and others have pointed out, is a religion, a secularized Juedo-Christianity. It is largely negative, promoting self-loathing, guilt, pity, and an overall domestication of the spirit. This is not to say its political and economic critiques have not been largely accurate and enlightening.

11. Leftism must be abandoned, as it is at root, purely metaphysical, a godless, dull, theology. We need a new, brave, artful perspective. A deWesternization of the Western mind, which has by effect of globalization devoured the Eastern mind as well.

12. Some bright lights in a beautiful direction: Nietzsche, Dada, the Situationists, Hakim Bay, Zen Buddhism, poststructuralism (Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze, etc), punk rock, William Burroughs, free jazz. Once we realize everything is a fiction, we can push the toppling Western pretension of Truth into the void of infinite possibility. Total self affirmation = total annihilation of the self.

13. The typical Leftist defense would be "easily for you to say as a straight white American male". Undoubtedly. However, a quick look at the Middle East should teach us; the wretched of the earth do not want our "standard of living" anymore then we do. They rightfully recognize it for the nihilistic beast that it is. They want meaning, they want myth, as we do. The reason why anarchism appeals in greater numbers to the American middle class rather then the American working class, is those who have to struggle for survival can find purpose in that struggle. Those who never have to struggle for material goods find little value in them, and therefore, little value in the values of consumer society.

14. The primary values of contemporary American society are comfort security, and conveinance, essentially, the absence of struggle. They are the most valueless of values, the most aesthetically ugly, the most rank. This is the actual nature of our postmodern discontent.

15. In other words, we don't need a peace movement, we need a war movement.

16. Our war is a war against cancer.

17. The State is an inheriently cancerous entity. It is the daming of the equalizing flow of power relations to form a concentration, which then pursues immortality via endless expansion, much as a tumor, a cell that refuses to die, spreads throughout the body, only stopping when its host can no longer sustain it. The State will drain the planet until both are dead.

18. This carcinogenic logic manifests itself in all of Western thought. It is the ugliest logic. It is the desire for immortality, for statis, for security, for control, to be controled, for quantity over quality, for binary systems (Good/Evil, Black/White, Gay/Straight/, Male/Female, Reason/Unreason, etc) for One as opposed to Many, for Truth as opposed to Art. Plato exemplifed this. Christianity repeated it. It infects all of us to a certain extent. It is the switch that needs to be flipped.

19. We must no longer define ourselves as in opposition. Anti-globalization, Anti-sexism, Anti-war, Anti-homophobia, Anti-rascism, Anti-capitalism, Anti-speciesism. These are (despite their entirely noble goals) the symptoms of a decadent, Leftist, mindset, intoxicated to the point of immobilitiy on its own repressed metaphysic.

20. Returning to my first points, Marx defined the working class as the revolutionary class because, in the dull light of Western reason, they had the most to gain. I propose that since the aesthetic prespective, the creative mindset, is the most discouraged and therefore alienated segment of society, the artistic class is the revolutionary class. This is easily demonstrated in history, the most welcoming home for revolutionaries has always been the neighborhoods of the artistic urban Bohemians. In turn, the working class is one of the least revolutionary classes, as it already has a function, a meaning, built for it by capitalist society. They make the machine run. The ultimate modern human sacrafices. It should be noted here that I am from a working class background.

21. If we are interested in changing the world, politcal action (pamphelts, demonstrations, petitions) is self-defeating. We need aesthetic action, as Trocchi said "The Invisable Insurrection of a Million Minds". The system is impossibly strong from a political and militaristic standpoint, yet shockingly vulnerable from a philosophical, aesthetic view. A simple undermining of the cancerous logic, and the whole facade collapses. This isn't to say this will be easy, or even likely. This is only to say there is hope.

22. The system functions due to the collective belief in total falsehoods. Money is money because people believe it is money. Even assumeing money is money, the American Dollar is valueable in relation to other currancy only because there is so much faith in it, as our massive trade deficets and national debt have effectively drained even any symbolic value from the dollar. It, like nearly all of the system, exists simply because we believe it exists. The only necessary action to make it simply disappear is once again, to make that leap into the void. Realize Nothing, and everything follows.

23. The ultimate conclusions of Zen Buddhism, poststructuralism, Dadaism, Nietzsche, and anarchism are very similer and warrent extensive investigation. However, no more "papers" should be written. Only communiques and poetry. This, by the way, is a communique.

24. Due to the aesthetic nature of humanity, things cannot simply get worse. There will at some point be a reaction. If this reaction fails, the world may very well die. It is important that such a reaction be active and not reactive, positive and not negative, creative and not resentful. Talk of "justice" only furthers the language of tumors. In short, it cannot be Leftist.

25. One of the essentials of carcinogenic logic is the law of contradiction. Western thought seems convinced that a statement such as "God both does and does not exist" is nonsensical. I would counter that within the enigma of the contradiction lies the apex of thought.

26. Spirituality, as long as it is understood outside of cancerous thought, is a creative, positive force. The perversion known as religion is spirituality molested by Truth. This is not an invitation for New Age charlatanism. A spirituality that proposes a higher world to this one is of no use. Unless heaven is here, then it is hell.

27. If one assumes revolution is impossible, that everything is only going to get progressively worse, etc, and they still would want to call themselves revolutionaries then they might understand what I am talking about. Once again, because it is a beautiful way to live, not for any transcendant armeggendon, ethics, logic, etc.

28. Anarchism itself is a lie and a religion worshipping Man as God. We must escape all conceptions of an essentially "good" human nature or even the concept of Good. By now, this should be obvious.

29. So what is our basis of revolution? By what ethics do we justify prefering anarchy to fascism? Because it is more beautiful, that should be enough, without counting corpses. This is the northwest passage out of postmodernism.

30. All of the above is false, including this statement. If I have stated myself correctly, what I have said should be frightening. What we lack most is courage. The challenge is to make love to the absurd, to fall into that complete absence and come out the other side, affirming Nothing and therefore Everything again and again. I argue only that these are the best lies around. So make up better ones.

31. The only alternative is the oblivion of eternal survival, ultimate stagnation, statis forever, complete control, total security, total solidification, centralization, and depersonalization of Power, the most revolting and hideous of Western desires, the epitome of cancerous thought.

32. All philosophers thus so far have attempted to change the world, the important thing, however, is to stop believing in it.

wink

Jacques Roux's picture
Jacques Roux
Offline
Joined: 17-07-06
Mar 24 2004 01:38

Nicely written as usual.

Nicely shallow as usual.

Crimthinc should re-model themselves as a PR agency for groups with substantial thouht behind their politics so it comes across interesting to read but with subtsance instead of nice to read with no substance or too intellectual to understand with no beauty.

celtic67
Offline
Joined: 17-12-03
Mar 24 2004 03:41

yeah i find this stuff annoying just because i want it to actually be saying something...but then you read a sentence like

"Once we realize everything is a fiction, we can push the toppling Western pretension of Truth into the void of infinite possibility."

that simple eh? eek

and this is my other most hated bit

"21. If we are interested in changing the world, politcal action (pamphelts, demonstrations, petitions) is self-defeating. We need aesthetic action, as Trocchi said "The Invisable Insurrection of a Million Minds". The system is impossibly strong from a political and militaristic standpoint, yet shockingly vulnerable from a philosophical, aesthetic view. A simple undermining of the cancerous logic, and the whole facade collapses. This isn't to say this will be easy, or even likely. This is only to say there is hope. "

Oh the state is shockingly vulnerable from a philosophical, aesthetic standpoint? Goddam it why had we never spotted this weakness before? Quick lets attack it with with some philosophical discources and bad poetry before we have to all go to work roll eyes

I've read loads of stuff like this and I'm still at a loss about what it's actually calling for....more vague bullet points? anything at all?

Lemming
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Mar 24 2004 06:01

1. I don't think the communique is either vague or shallow. It's certainly very flawed, but as an attempted synthesis of spiritual, existential and postmodern radicalism - all of which it shows to be axes striking at the roots of authority - it's to be applauded. (And unlike most writings on those topics, it is at least simple and to the point! As someone unknowingly raised on A-is-A, Aristotlean logic I appreciate its clarity!)

2. As a document claiming to point the way toward anarchy, though, I can't take it seriously. Its glib dismissal of political action is foolish: yes, we often go about challenging white-supremacist-capitalist-patriarchy in ways that inadvertently give credence to the logic on which the system of oppression is based, but that's not a reason to abandon real-world resistance to them altogether. The point is to challenge tyranny aesthetically and politically; philosophically and practically.

3. Like so much contemporary anarchist theory, the article casually bashes 'leftism'. As I see it, there's no such thing -- at least not as an ideology. 'Leftism' has never been anything more than a vague political identification, a term which has historically descibed all manner of people and groups, ranging from ultra-libertarian to ultra-authoritarian. As such, I think it's a term equally pointless to identify with or attack as if it were a coherent set of ideas.

4. The observation that 'privileged' people tend to develop deeper critiques of society - precisely because they can see the falsehood of their 'privilege' - is an accurate one. (Though far from an absolute rule!) At risk of sounding like a Marxist, though, I'll defend the notion that the working class - precisely because they "make the machine run" and get fuck all in return - is the more likely to revolt. Historically, this revolt has been on capitalist terms - for the 'fruit of their labor' - but what better can be said for the middle class? All they've done is exploit working class revolt and steer it in their favored direction! Surely the point is for us all to revolt on our own terms?

5. The point about fascism is almost an astute one. (I say almost because it's in desperate need of elaboration!) Yes, the Nazis tapped into (among other things) deep-rooted anti-modernist sentiment that had existed in Germany for some years. To the romantic distrust of 'progress', the refusal of science and reason, the hunger for ritual (yet disillusionment with the Church), the perception of foreign influence on the country, and the pathological anti-Semitism, they added the worship of industrialism and created a chaotic and contradictory ideology held together by (masculine) willpower. The Nazis' rise to power was of course enabled by the turmoil of their era, but the reason why they could present their ideology as a viable alternative to liberal democracy and Soviet Communism was because 90% of it had already been present from as far back as Wagner's time.

The great irony, of course, is that this reaction against modernity became its most destructive manifestation.

More about this theory can be read in a book by (don't laugh) Martin Wank, called Hitler And The Holocaust: The Hidden Story.

6. The bit about artists constituting a revolutionary class is absurd. As far as art is a way of communicating visions and reflecting on society, it's a revolutionary instinct. But way too many artists accept their role as producers of commodities. And those who think they're more special than the rest of us are particularly annoying -- there's no need to encourage them by claiming that they're the revolutionary class!

7. I think I understand what the author means about beauty, but I'm sure thousands wouldn't. I'm guessing that what is meant is that all our preferences are purely arbitrary and we should not make claims of moral objectivity. To me this seems to be a philosophical truism, but there are less vulgar ways of explaining this than praising anarchy as more beautiful than fascism smile

8. There's no mention of this in the communique, but one of the main reasons why the quest for objective reality sucks is because it's primarily a masculine approach to life. The pathological urge to establish the nature of A, to uncover every 'truth', is the foundation of what some feminists call the "dominator culture". Perhaps the author would benefit from reading, say, Mary Daly's critiques of this harbinger of patriarchy, human supremacy, and imperialism.

9. I actually really like a lot of the communique, it's not like I've ripped it to shreds or anything. Its main thrust I wholeheartedly concur with.

Anonymous
Mar 24 2004 11:41
rkn wrote:
Nicely written as usual.

Nicely shallow as usual.

I didn't think it was shallow at all.

In fact it was one of the most coherent pieces of anarchist writing I've read.

I think the problem is that a lot of "anarchists" actually aren't anarchists, but rather are anti-state, anti-capitalists.

Whilst the state and capitalism are two forms of oppressive organisation, they are not the only form. Indeed, any attempt to organise and structure the thought and behaviour of others is inherently oppressive - this surely is the logical conclusion of anarchism? And one that is well contained within the Crimethinc piece posted above.

I think the problem is that the anti-statists/anti-capitalists want to organise to overcome those particular forms of oppression.

I think we need to disorganise in order to overcome all forms of oppression.

ClassWar
Offline
Joined: 24-10-03
Mar 24 2004 12:03

[quote="john

I think we need to disorganise in order to overcome all forms of oppression.

Oh please!

Jacques Roux's picture
Jacques Roux
Offline
Joined: 17-07-06
Mar 24 2004 12:36
john wrote:
I think we need to disorganise in order to overcome all forms of oppression.

Fair enough, at one point i may have agreed with you in that post, (but like the crimethinc article) what_the_fuck does that mean?

Norwicher
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Mar 24 2004 12:40
Quote:
I think we need to disorganise in order to overcome all forms of oppression

Scary.

You aren't my Uncle Bert are you? eek

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Mar 24 2004 12:50

I like the points about creation and beauty being the basis of our humanity. I think that much directaction is beautiful -- a lot more aesthetically satisfying than much produced by 'artists'.

FUCK ALL SPECIALISTS Mr. T

Anonymous
Mar 24 2004 13:03
ClassWar wrote:
[quote="john"

I think we need to disorganise in order to overcome all forms of oppression.

Oh please!

What?

Although CLASS war is pretty unlikely to agree with what I said.

the point is that if we accept the primacy of class (economic relations, etc.) as the main point of oppression, then we get into all sorts of arguments justifying oppression in order to overcome the MAIN form of oppression - the capitalist class system. But we simply replace it with other forms of oppression - e.g. guilt imposed upon people who refuse to uphold the class struggle.

You need to be open-minded if you're going to allow freedom to exist - to begin with a closed-minded conception of what oppression is, will inevitably foil the creation of freedom.

Anonymous
Mar 24 2004 13:08
rkn wrote:
what_the_fuck does that mean?

it means

1) tolerate other individuals' point of view

2) don't try to oppress other people

3) do what you want to do

4) don't try to make other people do what they don't want to do

5) don't hold people to account if they don't do what they said they'd do

6) in fact, don't try and get commitments from people to do things - just rely on the fact that they do them

7) try not to do things that will prevent others from doing something

8) In sum, do what you want to do, let other people do what they want to do, and don't try and impose order on what you or others are doing.

Anonymous
Mar 24 2004 13:09
Norwicher wrote:
Quote:
I think we need to disorganise in order to overcome all forms of oppression

Scary.

You aren't my Uncle Bert are you? eek

No - sorry - but are you my Auntie Norris?

nastyned
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Mar 24 2004 13:15
john wrote:
rkn wrote:
what_the_fuck does that mean?

6) in fact, don't try and get commitments from people to do things - just rely on the fact that they do them

Oh come on, don't you even get a bit miffed if you're blown out?

ClassWar
Offline
Joined: 24-10-03
Mar 24 2004 13:22
john wrote:

it means

1) tolerate other individuals' point of view

2) don't try to oppress other people

3) do what you want to do

4) don't try to make other people do what they don't want to do

5) don't hold people to account if they don't do what they said they'd do

6) in fact, don't try and get commitments from people to do things - just rely on the fact that they do them

7) try not to do things that will prevent others from doing something

8) In sum, do what you want to do, let other people do what they want to do, and don't try and impose order on what you or others are doing.

This is beginning to sound like a Federation of Conservative Students manifesto from the mid-80s!

Anonymous
Mar 24 2004 13:47
ClassWar wrote:

This is beginning to sound like a Federation of Conservative Students manifesto from the mid-80s!

there are obvious similarities between libertarianism and neo-liberalism.

The main point of difference is that neo-liberals respect (or, rather, worship) the ownership of property.

I'd argue that the ownership of property is just one of a number of structured incursions into an individual's liberty that we ought to seek to overcome

Anonymous
Mar 24 2004 13:48
nastyned wrote:

Oh come on, don't you even get a bit miffed if you're blown out?

yes - but I wouldn't blame the person - If she doesn't like me what am I going to do - force her to!?

butchersapron
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Mar 24 2004 15:16

The original post is reactionary crap of the first water - reactionary because it takes us back to the 1914 and the Dadaist reaction to the war - it's a complete rip-off of the 'artistic' movements that flourished in this reaction (much of which was actually openly conservative - see Vorticism) - and therefore takes no account whatsoever of the developements in class-struggle (theoretically, practically etc) of the last 100 years and returns us to some bohemian back-slapping camp. And they call this stuff new!. Do me a favour.

Musings entirely divorced from the real concret struggle that therefore express only the worst aspects of bourgeois idealism - something i thought we'd largely got off out backs decades ago - apparently not.

Anonymous
Mar 24 2004 15:21

in that case, isn't any attempt to further the 'class struggle' merely a reactionary return to the 19th century politics of Bhakunin and Marx?

butchersapron
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Mar 24 2004 15:29
john wrote:
in that case, isn't any attempt to further the 'class struggle' merely a reactionary return to the 19th century politics of Bhakunin and Marx?

You what John?

ClassWar
Offline
Joined: 24-10-03
Mar 24 2004 15:30
john wrote:
in that case, isn't any attempt to further the 'class struggle' merely a reactionary return to the 19th century politics of Bhakunin and Marx?

No because the class struggle would be with us - and is with us - regardless of what golden oldies with beards say.

When your boss decides you are not getting a pay increase this year, or the council increase your council tax by 30% to pay for Public Finance Initiatives - that is the struggle between classes.

End of!

woundedhobo
Offline
Joined: 16-02-04
Mar 24 2004 15:34
Quote:
Indeed, any attempt to organise and structure the thought and behaviour of others is inherently oppressive - this surely is the logical conclusion of anarchism? And one that is well contained within the Crimethinc piece posted above.

I think there is a big difference in trying to change people by coercive

means (mandatory education, "re-education camps", admissions of guilt or death, etc) and trying to influence a non-captive audience with a rational arguement. The latter should be the work of anti-authoritarians.

I do agree with DomincMallary that crimethinc, fascists and other aesthetic "radicals" have an advantage in popularizing their ideas.

For one, they do have some sexy thoughts that look good on paper, but not in reality. Anarcho-syndicalists, platformits, council-communists have the opposite problem: good ideas for the real world, not too sexy to contemplate though. I'm not sure even the writer of "Days of War" could get most contemporary readers interested in the ideas of having a meeting to discuss collective disobedience for the purpose of seizing the means of production and placing them under workers control.

Anonymous
Mar 24 2004 15:39
ClassWar wrote:

No because the class struggle would be with us - and is with us - regardless of what golden oldies with beards say.

When your boss decides you are not getting a pay increase this year, or the council increase your council tax by 30% to pay for Public Finance Initiatives - that is the struggle between classes.

End of!

And, similarly, the battle against all forms of oppression (class, state, 'grand truths') are with us regardless of the "Dadaist reaction to the war" in 1914.

Everything isn't a struggle between classes - the bosses decision not to give a pay increase is also about the need to produce as cheaply as possible, which many in the working class support implicitly when they try to buy things for the cheapest price.

The Council Tax is imposed by the state - not the upper class.

Why is PFI a class issue?

NOT END OF!! - this is exactly your problem - you see things only in terms of class, whether other people interpret their interests along class-lines or not - which means that whilst your political strategy might (but is unlikely to) remove oppression based on property ownership (i.e. capitalism), it cannot remove all forms of oppression (because it doesn't even recognise their existence!)

ClassWar
Offline
Joined: 24-10-03
Mar 24 2004 15:47
john wrote:
[

Everything isn't a struggle between classes - the bosses decision not to give a pay increase is also about the need to produce as cheaply as possible, which many in the working class support implicitly when they try to buy things for the cheapest price.

I was'nt aware that the working class had that much choice in the matter.

Or do you think people buy the Value range in Tesco because they actually like it?

butchersapron
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Mar 24 2004 15:53
john wrote:

NOT END OF!! - this is exactly your problem - you see things only in terms of class, whether other people interpret their interests along class-lines or not - which means that whilst your political strategy might (but is unlikely to) remove oppression based on property ownership (i.e. capitalism), it cannot remove all forms of oppression (because it doesn't even recognise their existence!)

And this is exactly yours - a complete and utter failure to comprehend what class-struggle anarchists mean by class analysis and your consequent childish strawman idea that recognising the primacy of class relations means the non-recognition of other forms of domination. It's simply not true and never really has been.

I suggest that if you want to criticise those that take up a class struggle position that you try and make an honest appraisal of what holding that position entails (by looking at they have said and done) - not what you'd like it to entail in order for you to easily be able to dismiss it.

Anonymous
Mar 24 2004 15:56

I was'nt aware that the working class had that much choice in the matter.

Or do you think people buy the Value range in Tesco because they actually like it?[/end quote]

I assume people buy it because it's the cheapest.

But what's the relevance?

I'm arguing that capital isn't the only form of oppression - and that all forms of structured organisation should be resisted.

Are you claiming that because some people buy the Value range that obviously capital is the only form of oppression? Or are you arguing that those that buy the Value range are the true working class?

Anonymous
Mar 24 2004 15:58
ClassWar wrote:

No because the class struggle would be with us - and is with us - regardless of what golden oldies with beards say.

When your boss decides you are not getting a pay increase this year, or the council increase your council tax by 30% to pay for Public Finance Initiatives - that is the struggle between classes.

End of!

It seems like someone else is building a straw man for me.

I can give a more sophisticated critique if you provide a more sophisticated position

AlexA
Offline
Joined: 16-09-03
Mar 24 2004 16:11
john wrote:
It seems like someone else is building a straw man for me.

I can give a more sophisticated critique if you provide a more sophisticated position

Er well I'm sorry john but you do have absolutely no idea about what class struggle anarchism is - and you've proved it by these posts. Especially about saying how believing in class means rejecting struggles against other forms of domination.

Quote:
The Council Tax is imposed by the state - not the upper class.

Why is PFI a class issue?

You are joking here aren't you?

Quote:
NOT END OF!! - this is exactly your problem - you see things only in terms of class, whether other people interpret their interests along class-lines or not - which means that whilst your political strategy might (but is unlikely to) remove oppression based on property ownership (i.e. capitalism), it cannot remove all forms of oppression (because it doesn't even recognise their existence!)

Like BA said that statement's absolute bollocks.

The Black Panthers believed in the class struggle - does this mean they didn't believe in racism? Did it my arse.

To be honest I can't really understand why an intelligent person would so dismiss something they don't even know the first thing about.

And as for this comment:

Quote:
I'm arguing that capital isn't the only form of oppression - and that all forms of structured organisation should be resisted.

eek

Are you serious?? So my grandma's bowls club should be resisted because it has a treasurer, a secretary and annual elections? That has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard an anarchist say...

Anonymous
Mar 24 2004 16:34
Quote:

Er well I'm sorry john but you do have absolutely no idea about what class struggle anarchism is - and you've proved it by these posts. Especially about saying how believing in class means rejecting struggles against other forms of domination.

I know what class struggle anarchism is:

you draw together members of the working class to organise against employers. You have bottom-up workers' groups that seek to provide mutual assistance to the members of the group - thereby creating solidarity between the workers. You have solidarity groups outside the workplace so that alternatives to capitalist employment become possible. Other forms of oppression - racism, sexism, nationalism etc. - are seen as a dividing the working class, and should, then, also be resisted. Eventually you end up with an anarcho-syndicalist society in which the capital-labour relation has been destroyed - in this society people work in collectives which are probably managed by a central committee which has regular elections to it.

Quote:
You are joking here aren't you?

No, I wasn't. - everything isn't about class

Quote:
So my grandma's bowls club should be resisted because it has a treasurer, a secretary and annual elections?

well, most of these clubs are extremely hierarchical and reactionary. They are normally full of very judgemental people with very closed minds. I wouldn't want to join one, and I imagine the Secretary is on a bit of power kick.

Quote:
That has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard an anarchist say...

if society is going to change, then thoughts/ideas need to change. The new ideas are bound to sound stupid to people living in the present society. I found it quite amusing that you thought my comments were so stupid - maybe I'm on the right lines?

butchersapron
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Mar 24 2004 16:46
john wrote:

if society is going to change, then thoughts/ideas need to change. The new ideas are bound to sound stupid to people living in the present society. I found it quite amusing that you thought my comments were so stupid - maybe I'm on the right lines?

No, you're not.

Do you think David Icke or Tony Blair is on the right lines as well - i think their ideas are stupid so they *must* be great. Idealist nonsense, no wonder you liked that original post.

butchersapron
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Mar 24 2004 16:51

...and let's just skip over the messianic leninist conceit involved in you imagining you're bringing the new gospel to the ignorant masses...fucking ubermensch is it?

Anonymous
Mar 24 2004 16:52
Quote:
Do you think David Icke or Tony Blair is on the right lines as well - i think their ideas are stupid so they *must* be great. Idealist nonsense, no wonder you liked that original post.

Tony Blair is not a heretic - he's been elected as the Prime Minister with a massive majority - twice!

I would consider David Icke's opinions (but I can't remember what they are)

Closed-minded nonsense. That must be why you disliked the original post so much.