DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Primitivism and Left Communism

107 posts / 0 new
Last post
Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Nov 20 2006 09:33

I think that one point here that relates to the original discussion is that a lot of these people who end up moving towards primitivism are not actually 'left communists' as the left communists understand the term, and wouldn't claim to be left communists themselves.
What this discussion original developed from is that people lumped in together what they termed 'ultra-left', which is a very vague political insult, and left communism, which is a specific term, which applies to definite organisations.
Of course if you used the communist party's definition of ultra-left, it includes everyone nearly.
Devrim

Beltov
Offline
Joined: 10-05-05
Nov 20 2006 18:02
skraeling wrote:
And the score between the anarchists and left communists remains locked at nil all. The anarchists have launched some confused, incoherent and half-arsed attacks which have easily been mopped up by the left commie defence, but the left commies haven't really launched any counter-attacks yet.

Let's see what we can do then...

First, I agree with Devrim and Leo's response to Joeblack on the supposed similarities between primitivism and left communism. There supposed similarities are nothing of the sort. The discussion has also taken up the question of insurrectionalism, which to me also has nothing in common with marxism. I'll try to back this assertion up with a slight diversion. Bear with me!

I too have participated on the anti-politics discussion forum and as a result I've been trying to get my head around the whole question of anarchist insurrectionalism for a while now. I recently came across the text 'The Anarchist Tension' by Alfredo Bonanno, which summed this approach up quite well really.

He begins by stressing the need for anarchists to develop 'strong ideas' (such as Freedom and Justice), and that anarchists should be motivated to act because they feel guilty that these eternal truths haven't been achieved.

Bonanno wrote:
Anyone who thinks about what freedom actually is even for a moment will never again be able to content themselves by simply doing something to slightly extend the freedom of the situations they are living in. From that moment on they will feel guilty and will try to do something to alleviate their sense of suffering. They will fear they have done wrong by not having done anything till now, and from that moment on their lives will change completely.

Anyway, from this idealist beginning things get even worse. He moves on to take a pop at the anarcho-syndicalists for being stuck in the 19th century - "things have moved on" - and then the obligatory knock of the Marxists for their insistence on the centrality of the working class.

Then we have this gem...

Bonanno wrote:
Now, in a situation where the working class has practically disintegrated (!), the possibility of an expropriation of the means of production no longer exists. So what is the conclusion? The only possible conclusion is that this set of instruments of production we have before us be destroyed. The only possible way is to pass through the dramatic reality of destruction. If the revolution we imagine and which moreover we have no certainty of ever comes about, it will not be the revolution of the past that saw itself as one single event that might even take place in a day or one fine evening but will be a long, tragic, bloody affair that could pass through inconceivably violent, inconceivably tragic processes.

All this is the kind of reality we are moving towards. Not because that is what we desire, not because we like violence, blood, destruction, civil war, death, rape, barbarity. It is not that, but because it is the only plausible road, the road that the transformation wanted by those ruling us and who are in command have made necessary. They have moved on to this road. We cannot with a simple flight of fancy, a simple dream, change all that. In the past hypothesis where a strong working class existed, one could fool oneself about this passage and organise accordingly. For example, the organisational proposal of anarcho-syndicalism saw a strong syndicalist movement which, penetrating the working class and organising almost the whole of it, was to bring about this expropriation and passage. This collective subject, who was probably mythical from the start, no longer exists even in its mythical version so what sense would there be in a syndicalist movement of a revolutionary nature? What sense would there be in an anarcho-syndicalist movement? None at all. (Emphases added)

Here we have it: complete lack of confidence in the working class and its nature as the revolutionary subject. And we also have something similar to the approach put forward by cph_shawarma: a fetish with 'destruction', and in particular a distrust of modern technology.

And what alternative is posed by Bonanno? The usual guff about affinity groups and informal structures, whose main focus should be 'permanent conflict, autonomy and facing problems one-by-one'.

So, we have:
- Impatient activism driven by guilt vs. militancy based on a historic confidence in the working class
- Local individualism vs. international centralisation
- Blind destruction vs. development of the productive forces under radically changed social relations.

It seems clear that anarchism offers nothing to the working class, and the only healthy basis for the proletariat is marxism.

B.

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Nov 20 2006 18:17

Beltov, I thought it was an excellent post until:

Quote:
It seems clear that anarchism offers nothing to the working class, and the only healthy basis for the proletariat is marxism.

This does not really follow from the quotes of Bonnano, for all that the posts demonstrate is the inanity of insurrectionalism specifically, not anarchism generally. In fact Bonnano attacks anarcho-syndicalism (on the basis of its orientation to the working-class), and not marxism. So the most we can draw out of this is that:

It seems clear that [insurrectionalism] offers nothing to the working class, and the only healthy basis for the proletariat is [revolutionary class solidarity].

The comparison of anarchism to marxism will have to wait.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Nov 20 2006 18:19

Beltov, good try.

Quote:
I recently came across the text 'The Anarchist Tension' by Alfredo Bonanno, which summed this approach up quite well really.

Quote:
It seems clear that anarchism offers nothing to the working class, and the only healthy basis for the proletariat is marxism.

That the vast majority of anarchists have probably never read Bonanno and many wouldn't agree with him seems to have escaped you. Insurrectionalism is a very specific trend, it's like using autonomism or Marxist Humanism to speak for all Marxists (although they're probably more comparatively influential even). Lumping in cph shawarma with Bonanno, you also miss cph shawarma's earlier assertion I remember from one thread that he's a "Leninist" (with some caveats).

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Nov 20 2006 18:26

Hi

Quote:
Communisation will not be a trip in the park, it will probably be extremely terrible, but it's the only way to stop the totalising dialectic of capital.

Good job it's inevitable then, no one would put up with it otherwise.

Love

LR

coffeemachine
Offline
Joined: 31-03-06
Nov 20 2006 18:44
Beltov wrote:

It seems clear that anarchism offers nothing to the working class, and the only healthy basis for the proletariat is marxism.

B.

lest we forget many marxist thinkers (adorno, horkheimer, gorz, holloway, negri) have also disavowed the central role of the proletariat in any revolutionary change.

Your argument, facile and featherlight, is tantamount to quoting marcuse then declaring to the world marxism offers nothing to the working class.

For further reading i recommend bonanno's 'workers autonomy'. Unlike the text you quoted (which was in fact a talk bonanno gave) it offers a more coherent analysis.

Felix Frost's picture
Felix Frost
Offline
Joined: 30-12-05
Nov 20 2006 18:48
Beltov wrote:
I recently came across the text 'The Anarchist Tension' by Alfredo Bonanno, which summed this approach up quite well really.

(...)

Here we have it: complete lack of confidence in the working class and its nature as the revolutionary subject. And we also have something similar to the approach put forward by cph_shawarma: a fetish with 'destruction', and in particular a distrust of modern technology.

Yes, but you fail to mention what position Bonnano started out from: A workerist critique of unions as destoying the autonomy of the working class:

Quote:
Quicker and better results would be obtained from making a radical critique of the unions and extending it equally to revolutionary and anarcho-syndicalism. Workers will become more aware of the union's limitations if they are presented with a possible alternative: that of leaving this public service to its own fate and preparing to create small autonomous base organisations dedicated to the radical struggle against the present structures of production.
These groups should assume the form of production nuclei. There is no alternative to this. The worker is part of the machinery. and the factory. Capitalist exploitation continues to brutally condemn him to the almost total alienation of his personality, still today in the era of advanced technology. Once outside the factory the worker is a poor tired man who can only go to bed, make love and fall asleep. His fighting potential is drained out of him. To drag him out into revolutionary ‘broods’ would be a psychological as well as tactical error Only a small highly sensitised minority are able to do this, and always with great limitations. That is why any organisations, even the so-called anarchist ones, that set off from a fixed point to determine a line of action has all their cards set for a speedy degeneration. Given that the real place of revolution is the factory, the land, the school, the housing estate, etc., the general and particular conditions of exploitation must be identified at these levels of experience.

(...)

The worker must live revolution through the reality of the economy, The difference between a trade union or syndicalist organisation and autonomous groups at the level of the base can only be understood at the concrete level of economic relations, not through the filter of an ideological interpretation. In this sense there is an element of guarantee in the above suggestion that one should work to cut the worker off from his union, or to disorganise it but to make him see the limits of all unions and their essence as a public service.

(...)

The primary necessity today is direct struggle organised by the base; small groups of workers who attack the centres of production. This would be an exercise in cohesion for further developments in the struggle which could come about following the obtaining of increasingly detailed information and the decision to pass to the filial expropriation of capital, i.e. to the revolution. It would be the worker who established the terms of the relationship between labour and the product. This done he would have no other solution than to ignore any kind of organisation that asserts capitalist or any other kind of power and proceed to the construction of production nuclei, possibly making them last through the whole period of the struggle, to the final elimination of exploitation.

from A Critique of Syndicalist Methods, originally published in the mid 70s.
http://www.geocities.com/kk_abacus/ioaa/critsynd.html

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Nov 20 2006 19:01
Beltov wrote:
Let's see what we can do then...

... not alot, except expose your own hack mentality.
I tend to ignore the ICC now - but that is such a pathetic non-engagement with the faults and relationship of anarchism and marxism.
As already pointed out, it is the amalgam tactics of leftist and bourgeois hacks alike, as arrogant as it is ignorant.

AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Nov 20 2006 19:59
Beltov wrote:
First, I agree with Devrim and Leo's response to Joeblack on the supposed similarities between primitivism and left communism. There supposed similarities are nothing of the sort.

I must say I'm rather underwhelmed by the quality of these responses which boil down to 'I disagree' and 'here are some red herrings'.

I was hardly arguing they were identical, just that there is quite a bit in method they hold in common that makes the transiation from one to the other not so difficult.

BTW in itself this proves neither wrong but I think what I posted is pretty self-evident.

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Nov 20 2006 20:02

Many people call themselves marxists, it does not mean they are. There was a whole flourishing of academic marxism from the 1950's which sort to rip the revolutionary guts out of marxism, which was the reason it was encouraged. adorno, horkheimer, gorz, if I remember correctly were part of this. As for holloway, negr, I do not know their background but by denying the revolutionary nature of the proletariat they abandon any relationship with Marxism.

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Nov 20 2006 20:34
Quote:
lest we forget many marxist thinkers (adorno, horkheimer, gorz, holloway, negri) have also disavowed the central role of the proletariat in any revolutionary change.

I would say that none of those "marxist" academicians had anything to do with actual "marxism", that is the method marxism uses to examine history, economics and sociology.

Quote:
I tend to ignore the ICC now

Yeah, that'll teach the ICC (!)

Quote:
I must say I'm rather underwhelmed by the quality of these responses which boil down to 'I disagree' and 'here are some red herrings'.

I'm assuming that's why you didn't bring yourself down to defend your overly prejudiced "observations".

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Nov 20 2006 21:13
Leo Uilleann wrote:
I would say that none of those "marxist" academicians had anything to do with actual "marxism", that is the method marxism uses to examine history, economics and sociology.

Less than Engels or Kautsky (considering their lesser physical and chronological proximity)?

I think you have to accept that there's a load of "Marxists" that have talked bollocks the past 150 years or so. That doesn't invalidate Marx's method or whatever, but I think it's counter-productive to disavow these people as Marxists, even if they're wrong. Same as I accept that there's loads of anarchists who talk bollocks, but that doesn't invalidate everything within the body of history and ideas that happens to have been called "anarchism", as Beltov unconvincingly just tried to do yet again.

It's a good reason not to use either term to describe yourself though.

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Nov 20 2006 21:24

REvol68 first of all I agree with much of what you have said in defence of Marxism against privitivism, especially the defence of the historical materialist concept of history. However, in relation to the academic Marxists,how can you be a Marxist and deny the revolutionary nature of the proletariat, let alone not be actively involved in revolutionary activity? Yes Adorno etc could use some of elements of the marxist method but then they had to if they were going to be taken seriously. And Adorno was able to make some interesting analyses of cultural aspects of capitalism. Nevertheless, in the end all this activity only strengthened the bourgeoisies' ability to distort Marxism and turn it into another academic activity, into something alien to the interests of the working class and its revolutionary traditions. We did an article on Academic Marxism in the 70's I will see if I can find it.
Revol68: What is pish Marxism?

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Nov 20 2006 21:50
Quote:
I think you have to accept that there's a load of "Marxists" that have talked bollocks the past 150 years or so. That doesn't invalidate Marx's method or whatever, but I think it's counter-productive to disavow these people as Marxists, even if they're wrong.

The thing is, it is not about being "right" or "wrong" in every case. It is about practicing a method of analysis, some sort of a tool to look into the society. All those people, adorno, horkheimer, gorz, holloway, negri probably have said several at some points of their life that I would have agreed wholeheartedly. But rejecting class analysis has nothing to do with the "marxist" method; meaning: method introduced by Marx.

Quote:
Less than Engels or Kautsky (considering their lesser physical and chronological proximity)?

Again, the same thing, Kautsky did not use the method I am talking about, at all; however I would have agreed with him on Christianity, for example. And Engels was wrong, in my opinion, to support bourgeois political parties, but he was, after all, practicing the method Marx introduced. It is not about being always "right" or "wrong". Everyone makes mistakes. What matters is the basic tools used, which gives us most basic principles of the working class movement.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Nov 20 2006 22:41
revol68 wrote:
like the Golden Calf this ends up mistaking the image for the god.

nice

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Nov 20 2006 22:54
Leo Uilleann wrote:
But rejecting class analysis has nothing to do with the "marxist" method; meaning: method introduced by Marx....[snip] what matters is the basic tools used, which gives us most basic principles of the working class movement.

Or to paraphrase "The marxist method is the basic principle of the working class movement". I think Marx was part of the working class movement, (which has revol says has been called a lot of things at various times), and is invaluable for understanding it, but he's not the source of it.

Feel free to correct me if you think I'm misrepresenting your position, but it seems to take Marx or "marxism" or "Marx's method" as the starting point rather than "the real movement towards the abolition of classes" of which Marx and some Marxists are a part.

And yes, some people are right for the wrong reasons or vice versa, but it does matter sometimes. If you're methods keep coming up blank all the time then they need to be re-evaluated in light of experience.

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Nov 20 2006 23:15

Catch you are correct, Marxism, the historical materialist concept of history, modern socialism (as Engel's called it) arose from and is the highest expression of the proletariat struggle to emancipate itself. As Engels explained very clearly at the end of Socialism, Utopian and Scientific

Quote:
Proletarian Revolution — Solution of the contradictions. The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out. Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master — free.

To accomplish this act of universal emancipation is the historical mission of the modern proletariat. To thoroughly comprehend the historical conditions and this the very nature of this act, to impart to the now oppressed proletarian class a full knowledge of the conditions and of the meaning of the momentous act it is called upon to accomplish, this is the task of the theoretical expression of the proletarian movement, scientific Socialism.

[url=http://]http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm
I am sure the Leo would agree with this.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Nov 21 2006 00:32
Leo wrote:
Quote:

Quote:
I tend to ignore the ICC now

Yeah, that'll teach the ICC (!)

I'm not interested in 'teaching' the ICC or anyone - I want to engage with those who feel a real need for a revolution. You ultra-leftists seem more interested in establishing the credibility of your 'pure' theoretical bloodlines. Theory is what is useful in our struggles for grasping their significance and developing it, not the eternal truths of the left communist or anarchist churches. There is much that is redundant and some that is still useful in anarchism and marxism, historically they have both defined themselves in relation to the other, and trying to prove the superiority of one over the other is the endeavour of irrelevant cretins.

The actual movement of the proletariat has been at different times and places more or less related to these currents. The need to prove the superiority of one strain is sectarian and flies in the face of historical reality. The proletariat, when it really acts for itself, is already moving beyond the immediate limits of all radical theory and so is renewing it; it has no need of sectarian labels.

Demogorgon303's picture
Demogorgon303
Offline
Joined: 5-07-05
Nov 21 2006 09:47

Primitivism seems to represent a loss in confidence in the working class to destroy capitalism and an abandonment of the idea that human society can progress.

There's no particular reason why Left Communists should be immune to this - comrades can become demoralised, impatient, disgusted with the failure of humanity to live up to its potential.

As for the point about academic Marxism, this is different to "Marxists that talk rubbish". Marx himself talked rubbish from time to time, such as giving credence to the idea of democratic transformation of capitalism in Britain. I don't find myself in total agreement with Trotsky, Lenin or Bordiga for that matter.

But academic marxists are a different animal. It's no accident that everyones favourites, Gramsci and Althusser were both rabid Stalinists. Gramsci in particular represented the most conservative wing of the PCI and participated greatly in providing the ideological justification for "Bolshevisation". His theory of hegemony is basically the theoretical cover for the united front. Marcuse was said to have advised the CIA's "Soviet Studies" group. Adorno theorised the defeat of the working class and the victory of liberal capitalism over Stalinism and quickly became a target for student protests after 1968.

These academic marxists are thus far from "harmless". On the one hand, their incorporation into the academic establishment represents a bourgeois attempt to understand the working class. To some extent, in the West, support for academic Trotskyism and pseudo-Trotskyism was an effort to undermine Stalinist ideology. Secondly, like leftism in general, they provide an ideological firebreak for capitalism. When elements begin looking for alternatives to bourgeois ideology, many turn instinctively to marxism and find waiting for them a whole plethora of fascinating theoreticians waiting for them. But academicism reduces marxism to an inoffensive "cultural studies", with no revolutionary content whatsoever.

Marxism, although it employs a scientific method is first and foremost an instrument of class war, the development of proletarian class consciousness. It seeks to understand capitalism not for its own sake but to overturn it, destroy it, transform it. In this sense, Marxism moves beyond science. Marx's Capital, for example, is not simply a study of capitalism, it's an attack, a denunciation, a call to arms. Marxism's effort to understand reality must always be understood in this light.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Nov 21 2006 10:42

Agree with this distinction. Academic marxism is a contradiction in terms. That doesn't mean that everything that academics who apply the marxist method in their field of studies is without any worth, but neither does it place them inside the proletarian movement. The key problem is seeing Marx or other marxists as one 'thinker' among others rather than seeing his work as a product of the proletariat.
I agree that we have to be highly critical of Gramsci and above all of the intellectuals' cult that has grown up around him, but wouldn't define him as a rabid Stalinist. The Italian left in the 30s still saw him as a kind of lost comrade and if my memory serves me well paid their respects to him in an article in Bilan when he died in 37.
The Frankfurt school had already largely lost any connection with the proletariat when it started up, although as comrades have said some of their work, espceially in the 'cultural' sphere, is of interest - I would include Marcuse in that (eg earlier writings on Hegel and Freud, rather than the stuff he became famous for in the 60s). Althusser on the other hand...I must confess I have never tried to read him but everything I know about him seems entirely repugnant, from his 'philosophical' interpretation of marxism to his actual Stalinist politics. Proof that even the intellectuals are subject to the 'advance' of decadence?

Anarchoneilist
Offline
Joined: 10-12-04
Nov 21 2006 11:51

Forgot about these primmy threads.
These are some comments I wrote over the summer,may be relevant, I'm afraid I've not time at the mo to read the whole thread: http://legalsmeagol.blogspot.com/2006/10/why-class-struggle-ecologism-fi...

http://legalsmeagol.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_legalsmeagol_archive.html

Comments on Primitivism (and Anarchism) 1.

Obviously Primitivism is a controversial subject. Is it Anarchism? I would first say that I do not consider myself to be a Primitivist, although, like Marxism, it is a view of the world and society that should be considered, whether as Anarchism or not.

I happen to believe that there is no single "Anarchism". Anarchism is the natural will of the masses at any time towards solidarity and against heirarchy. Intellectual Anarchists can of course analyse this natural urge and use arguments to justify it, but for one individual to define Anarchism is itself authoritarian, as would be a "Union of Anarchists" who's express purpose is to define and perpetuate it's own brand of Anarchism (but that's an argument for another day)

In a sense, Primitivism is a logical offshoot of Communitarian Individualism. Primitivists obviously believe advanced technology, while advancing mankind materially, has left him, both individually and collectively, emotionally and spiritually dead. Historically, it could be stated that history is on their side. Civilisations always end, and the modern liberal democracies are not even 150 years old, compared to, say, the Roman Republic, but human society always moves on, and in the case of the Mayan civilisation survive, arguably to this day, by reverting to a less advanced state.

Primitivism is also consistent, mainly because it is the only "economic" system that could exist, with Individualist Anarchism

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 21 2006 11:54
Anarchoneilist wrote:
but for one individual to define Anarchism is itself authoritarian

Anarchoneilist wrote:
Anarchism is the natural will of the masses at any time towards solidarity and against heirarchy.

AUTHOWITAWIAN!!11!!1!

wink

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Nov 21 2006 13:03
Anarchoneilist wrote:
Anarchism is the natural will of the masses at any time towards solidarity and against heirarchy.

"natural"?

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Nov 21 2006 14:12

I think he meant to write that it the feces font.

cph_shawarma
Offline
Joined: 26-11-05
Nov 21 2006 15:33

Beltov: No, I don't think that the working class is a "revolutionary subject", since I do not believe in any revolutionary subject. And it's certainly true that working class identity has become rather impossible, unity of the proletariat is only possible in communisation, ie. in its self-destruction, thus making this entire postulation quite problematic. Théorie Communiste has put forth a good theory of this restructuration of the relation between proletariat and capital. Class unity has become impossible on everyday demands, because class identity has become a phenomenon on the margins (ie. in the leftist sects).

catch: No, I'm not a Leninist!? Where did you get that? I read Lenin without anarchoid dogmatic glasses, but I read Bonanno too (and the people who propone my POV in Sweden are almost exclusively people influenced by Bonanno in some way or another, even if Bonanno IMO does not escape the ultra-left/leninist problematic either).

Lazy Riser: Oh, so you think that the revolution will be all fun and no pain? That sounds nice and fine for a utopist, but not for a serious communist.

Joseph K: Immediate does not mean "over night", it means that the revolution does not precede communisation (ie. "production of communism" [even if the concept of "communism" is quite impossible in the current epoque, we can only talk about communisation]). It means that the means for destroying capitalism is production of communism and that these processes are impossible to separate, ie. we can not gradually "take over" society in order to later constitute "the new", but we must understand revolution as the immediate destruction of society qua constitution of communism (which could take a while, from years to generations, who knows?).

-------

General: Marxism is a problematic term, and the "treachery" and "plots" that revol68 put forward seem even more problematic, since they do not seek the material basis for this "treachery" and these "plots" of "distortion". As TC wrote in their piece on Normative history as a polemic with Dauvé:

Quote:
If we follow this interpretation Spanish proletarians are idiots. It is extraordinary to write such expressions as: “fatal error” “the masses placed their trust…”, “the proletarians, convinced that they had effective power”, “because they accepted the mediation…”, without any doubts or questions such as: why does it work? Why did they place their trust? Why did this error happen? Why this conviction? If these questions don’t seem occur to the author, we should nonetheless ask ourselves why they are not posed.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 21 2006 15:41
cph_shawarma wrote:
we can not gradually "take over" society in order to later constitute "the new", but we must understand revolution as the immediate destruction of society qua constitution of communism (which could take a while, from years to generations, who knows?).

but surely if 'immediate' actually means 'over the course of generations' then it's just being used for rhetorical effect to reject reformism?

Anarchoneilist
Offline
Joined: 10-12-04
Nov 21 2006 16:43

And this has what to do with primitivism?

Actually it does have a lot to do: i.e the end times are inevitable. Doesn't mean the positions are the same. May as well have a debate about fundamentalist christians.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 21 2006 17:58

flaming revol ...

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Nov 21 2006 18:06
cph_shawarma wrote:
catch: No, I'm not a Leninist!? Where did you get that? I read Lenin without anarchoid dogmatic glasses, but I read Bonanno too (and the people who propone my POV in Sweden are almost exclusively people influenced by Bonanno in some way or another, even if Bonanno IMO does not escape the ultra-left/leninist problematic either).

Sorry I didn't mean you're a "Leninist" in the normally understood sense of the term, but I remember you (or someone else from Riff Raff), saying something about Lenin being right at the time and that you considered yourself to be a "Leninist" in that he was only wrong post-facto. Maybe my memory is playing me up.

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Nov 21 2006 20:13

Revol68

Quote:
Marcuse, Adorno et al are as much Marxists as the Kautsky and Lenin, infact in terms of their theory they are better Marxists.

Marcuse; maybe better than both but probably not, Adorno; only better than Kautsky I would say.

Quote:
Marxism will always be distorted and set against the working class

Why? If you think that everyone who called themselves "marxists" were actually marxists, the same thing would apply to anarchism, and it would give us the equation which goes like this:

anarchism = elitism (bakunin) + nationalism (bakunin) + anti-semitism (bakunin) + sexism (proudhon) + trade unionism (anarcho-sydicalists) + support for national liberation (wayne price)

It doesn't seem that good, really.

Quote:
it's because Marxism isn't the real revolutionary movement of the working class that must be zelously protected

Nothing should be zealously protected.

Catch,

Quote:
Or to paraphrase "The marxist method is the basic principle of the working class movement...

so far...

Quote:
but he's not the source of it.

Obviously! Was Newton the source of physics when his method was the most developed form of physics?

Quote:
Feel free to correct me if you think I'm misrepresenting your position, but it seems to take Marx or "marxism" or "Marx's method" as the starting point

No, I take the method as the highest point so far.

Ernie

Quote:
I am sure the Leo would agree with this.

=) Yes, I would agree!

Marut

Quote:
I'm not interested in 'teaching' the ICC or anyone

So I have noticed.

Quote:
You ultra-leftists

Wait a second please, I am trying to think how many times I heard this term from Stalinists.

EdmontonWobbly,

Quote:
So is there a connection between left communism and primitivism?

No

Quote:
Can Zerzan and Perlman's earlier work even be considered be considered left communist?

No!

Alf,

Quote:
Academic marxism is a contradiction in terms.

Yes!