DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

IBT vs. NEFAC

169 posts / 0 new
Last post
Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Oct 22 2007 21:51
OliverTwister wrote:
rebelworker wrote:
I personally feel that alo of anarchist have very kneee jerk positions on many issues (electoralism is another one), now I fall within the anarchist position on that also, but I think we have to be alot more open to pragmatic politcs. Most anarchists disagreee with me. For the record, i recenetly publicly kept my mouth shut on the electoral issue because my section took a position and i respected it, although privately I hold the right to express my beleifs.

I think you'd have to do a bit of a magic trick to make the above into :

Quote:
As in one member didn't agree with doing a anti-electoral campaign, but the rest of his local group did, so they did an anti-electoral campaign, they got a lot of press out of it, attracted a lot of people to what they were doing because of it, adhesed many more members who joined who had been attracted initially from the anti-electoral campaign, and the member who didn't agree with it at the time speaks positively about that anti-electoral campaign.

The "knee-jerk position" of anarchists on elections is usually to ignore them and work on more worthwhile activities. Rebelworker never explained what he meant, but being "open to pragmatic politics" sounds like considering electoralism to me.

Pretty sure he meant that it is a waste of time to bark at people not to vote with anti-electoral campaigns (which is what many anarchists do) and instead focus energy on constructive alternatives to electoralism. I would certainly agree with that. Regardless, who cares? Why do you continually feel the need to start shit over some off-handed comment someone says in a personal capacity? Should the rest of us sling shit at the IWW everytime something questionable comes out of your mouth? Fuck off already.

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Oct 22 2007 21:58
OliverTwister wrote:
The irony of our 'mass society' is that there are no 'mass organizations' worth having.
Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Oct 22 2007 22:52
MJ wrote:
OliverTwister wrote:
The irony of our 'mass society' is that there are no 'mass organizations' worth having.

OMG!! I can't believe the I.W.W. would support such individualist crap!

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Oct 23 2007 00:13
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
MJ wrote:
OliverTwister wrote:
The irony of our 'mass society' is that there are no 'mass organizations' worth having.

OMG!! I can't believe the I.W.W. would support such individualist crap!

Well that's the problem, ANYone can join.

pgh2a
Offline
Joined: 9-12-06
Oct 23 2007 00:36

Point made. I did put purportedly as I considered the source.

PREPARE TO BE DENOUNCED!!

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Oct 23 2007 04:57
MJ wrote:
Devrim wrote:
What they actually seem to be saying is that you are a part of an organisation, which has:

Flint has posted the membership list. They didn't join anything either. Either you and the IBT live in the same fantasyland, or you're gullible enough to be the ideal target audience for their rantings.

No, Actually, I never said they had. The only thing that I would say is that if NEFAC weren't involved in this why didn't your members say so at first. I think I asked civilly enough.

The dynamic that appears when even a hint of a criticism of NEFAC is raised is interesting though. Politics goes out of the window to be replaced by personal insults (by some not all).

Now, you can go back to baiting Oliver. I suggest you mention one of his ex-girlfriends soon.

Devrim

Nate's picture
Nate
Offline
Joined: 16-12-05
Oct 23 2007 05:42

Okay, can someone explain to me exactly what the issue is w/ NEFAC and elections or anti-electoralism or whatever? And Oliver, can you tell me what your objection is? Please? Cuz I'm confused.

Was the issue

a) someone or more than one person in a local NEFAC collective wanted to run for political office, one person objected and was outvoted? (

MJ wrote:
I was surprised when I learned NEFAC-Montreal cadre memers are running as candidates for office. I'm OK with it, though, because they do have their autonomy within the organization, and because there's a dialectical relationship between national liberation and working-class revolution.

)

or

b) someone in a NEFAC collective didn't want to campaign against voting when others did want to campaign in such a way, and the campaign against voting did take place?

or

c) NEFAC members marched in a demo with some other lame groups and may have had their name put on a flyer or something handed out at that march?

A) would trouble me a bit but only a bit. B) and C) sound like remarkably petty and small things to care about in the slightest, and more like moralizing and purism than anything that really matters. I personally think campaigning against voting is only slightly less dumb as campaigning for voting. Certainly in places that don't have mandatory voting and even then I'm not convinced. The time and energy would be much better spent starting a fight about economic matters, preferably at the point of production.

Somebody explain please, and if possible without namecalling and baiting etc.

thugarchist's picture
thugarchist
Offline
Joined: 26-11-06
Oct 23 2007 05:53
Nate wrote:
Okay, can someone explain to me exactly what the issue is w/ NEFAC and elections or anti-electoralism or whatever? And Oliver, can you tell me what your objection is? Please? Cuz I'm confused.

Was the issue

a) someone or more than one person in a local NEFAC collective wanted to run for political office, one person objected and was outvoted? (

MJ wrote:
I was surprised when I learned NEFAC-Montreal cadre memers are running as candidates for office. I'm OK with it, though, because they do have their autonomy within the organization, and because there's a dialectical relationship between national liberation and working-class revolution.

)

or

b) someone in a NEFAC collective didn't want to campaign against voting when others did want to campaign in such a way, and the campaign against voting did take place?

or

c) NEFAC members marched in a demo with some other lame groups and may have had their name put on a flyer or something handed out at that march?

A) would trouble me a bit but only a bit. B) and C) sound like remarkably petty and small things to care about in the slightest, and more like moralizing and purism than anything that really matters. I personally think campaigning against voting is only slightly less dumb as campaigning for voting. Certainly in places that don't have mandatory voting and even then I'm not convinced. The time and energy would be much better spent starting a fight about economic matters, preferably at the point of production.

Somebody explain please, and if possible without namecalling and baiting etc.

I think its just B.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Oct 23 2007 06:05
Nate wrote:
Okay, can someone explain to me exactly what the issue is w/ NEFAC and elections or anti-electoralism or whatever?

I think that this came from something that I said. I can't be bothered to find the post, but I will try to give you the gist of it.

I was talking about 'Platformism', Trotskyism, and what we consider to be class positions. I said that the 'Platformists' were close to Trotskyism, on the unions, and national liberation, and that it was only anarchist tradition that stopped them going that way on parliamentarianism. I then stated that you could see the questions being raised about it though. When asked for evidence for this I quoted a member of NEFAC who posts as Rebel Worker to the effect that he disagreed with their position on parliamentarianism.

I hope that is clear, and 'without namecalling and baiting'

For the record, I think that anti-voting campaigns are pretty useless in the present period.

Devrim

Nate's picture
Nate
Offline
Joined: 16-12-05
Oct 23 2007 06:10

Thanks Devrim, and Duke.

booeyschewy
Offline
Joined: 18-10-06
Oct 23 2007 06:16
OliverTwister wrote:
The "knee-jerk position" of anarchists on elections is usually to ignore them and work on more worthwhile activities. Rebelworker never explained what he meant, but being "open to pragmatic politics" sounds like considering electoralism to me.

That's just an uncharitable way to interpret it. When I read his position I thought I agreed with it. I think the knee-jerk position of anarchists is if there's an election, oppose it actively. it's knee-jerk because it is a reflex that occurs independently of the context.

I don't agree with that sorta thing not because I believe in elections, but because I don't think there is always something to be gained from opposing them (you agree with that). Sometimes (maybe most of the time) it is just a waste of time to campaign against elections. I also don't think that being anti-electoral means waging anti-voting campaigns all the time, nor that elections are totally irrelevant [heresy]. It might matter a great deal if there is a ballot measure to illegalize abortion, but as anarchists we won't do a turn out the vote campaign. In the same light, you won't see me telling people not to vote on that issue. We need to bring it back to means that match our ends, direct action and solidarity.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Oct 23 2007 11:51
Nate wrote:
c) NEFAC members marched in a demo with some other lame groups and may have had their name put on a flyer or something handed out at that march?

i think this is the IBT's issue.

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
Oct 23 2007 12:51

Nate, any time I say "dialectical" it's a red flag that I'm being sarcastic.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Oct 23 2007 12:53

o rly?

Nate's picture
Nate
Offline
Joined: 16-12-05
Oct 23 2007 13:49

MJ, thanks for clarifying. Is it the same with Marx and Hegel, or no? Cuz I get confused when they say it too. sad

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Oct 23 2007 15:03
Devrim wrote:
Now, you can go back to baiting Oliver. I suggest you mention one of his ex-girlfriends soon.

I like to save that one for when he pulls out the repetitive pull-string doll denunciation of Rise supposedly supporting Chavez, Nepalese Maoists, etc.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Oct 23 2007 15:13
Devrim wrote:
Nate wrote:
Okay, can someone explain to me exactly what the issue is w/ NEFAC and elections or anti-electoralism or whatever?

I think that this came from something that I said. I can't be bothered to find the post, but I will try to give you the gist of it.

I was talking about 'Platformism', Trotskyism, and what we consider to be class positions. I said that the 'Platformists' were close to Trotskyism, on the unions, and national liberation, and that it was only anarchist tradition that stopped them going that way on parliamentarianism. I then stated that you could see the questions being raised about it though. When asked for evidence for this I quoted a member of NEFAC who posts as Rebel Worker to the effect that he disagreed with their position on parliamentarianism.

I hope that is clear, and 'without namecalling and baiting'

For the record, I think that anti-voting campaigns are pretty useless in the present period.

Devrim

Considering most Trotskyists generally call for the capturing of leadership positions within unions and cheerlead whatever dominant faction is involved in a given national liberation struggle (not to mention an embracement of palimentarian options on both issues) and "platforimsts" do not, can you see why some of us might be annoyed by your dishonest comparisons?

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Oct 23 2007 15:37
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
Considering most Trotskyists generally call for the capturing of leadership positions within unions and cheerlead whatever dominant faction is involved in a given national liberation struggle (not to mention an embracement of palimentarian options on both issues) and "platforimsts" do not, can you see why some of us might be annoyed by your dishonest comparisons?

Maybe they call for capturing leadership positions in the States, most of them are a bit more sophisticated in Europe. Actually, I recently came across an American Trotskyist group that seemed to be against the unions.

On the point of national liberation struggles, I don't think the thing is whether you cheer on any particular faction, or not. We are not against Hizbollah primarily because it is Islamic, and reactionary, but because it is tying workers to domestic capital in the name of national defence. It isn't who is doing it. It is whatthey are doing.

On both of these issues I don't see much difference between these positions, and those of the 'Platformists'.

On the point of parliamentarianism, I never said that you had any part of it. I said that in my opinion, anarchist tradition was what kept you out of it.

You are personally free to say that this argument is dishonest, as I am sure that you will do. I don't think it is. Others can judge for themselves.

Devrim

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Oct 23 2007 17:20

I don't think that group is Trotskyist. Pretty sure they are a sister organization to the SPGB.

AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Oct 23 2007 17:51
Devrim wrote:
On both of these issues I don't see much difference between these positions, and those of the 'Platformists'.

Sure the same way I don't see a lot of difference between many of your positions on these question and those of primitivists. Does this mean you are the same as a primitivist or that it is politically useful to constantly point out this comparison as if it proves something?

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Oct 23 2007 17:54
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
I don't think that group is Trotskyist. Pretty sure they are a sister organization to the SPGB.

From their site:

WSWS wrote:
The World Socialist Web Site is the Internet center of the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI).

Devrim

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Oct 23 2007 18:42
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
I don't think that group is Trotskyist. Pretty sure they are a sister organization to the SPGB.

the SPGB sister organization is the WSP-US, i beleive.
i'm no trotskyite, but the WSWS is a going concern and worth reading sometimes.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Oct 23 2007 18:46
Devrim wrote:
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
I don't think that group is Trotskyist. Pretty sure they are a sister organization to the SPGB.

From their site:

WSWS wrote:
The World Socialist Web Site is the Internet center of the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI).

Devrim

My bad. I was thinking World Socialist Party.

redboots's picture
redboots
Offline
Joined: 10-09-07
Oct 23 2007 18:50

I think there is value in arguing about voting with people. It seems to me that part of getting people to accept the need for a different type of social organization is articulating why it is the currernt one can not achieve lasting and widspread change. Obviously a more important piece of this is actively demonstrating alternative power, such as when we organize in the labor movement or act directly to confront opression, but certainly both are needed.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Oct 23 2007 19:03
redboots wrote:
I think there is value in arguing about voting with people.

I didn't question this. What I said was:

Devrim wrote:
For the record, I think that anti-voting campaigns are pretty useless in the present period.

That doesn't mean that it is not something we argue, just that we don't see any point in running 'don't vote' campaigns at the moment.

Devrim

Nate's picture
Nate
Offline
Joined: 16-12-05
Oct 24 2007 04:04

I dunno. Given all the things that tend to suck about working class people's lives because of capitalism and which can be used in conversations to move people to new actions and views, I think picking voting as a conversation topic is a waste of time, relatively speaking. Now, if someone's like "hey, what do you think about voting?" during some other more useful activity, then by all means argue about it. I would. But I'd also be fine to end up agreeing to disagree.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Oct 24 2007 05:27

I think at election times you end up in conversation about it naturally.

Devrim

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Oct 24 2007 15:39

booeyschewy
Offline
Joined: 18-10-06
Oct 25 2007 02:41

Devrim, I'd be careful making inferences from platformists who are most vocal/you read/on libcom-->all platformists. The two aren't identical, and in fact probably the most contentious issues amongst platformists are positions on unions and national liberation struggles.

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Oct 25 2007 07:59
Quote:
The two aren't identical, and in fact probably the most contentious issues amongst platformists are positions on unions and national liberation struggles.

What evidence is there for this?