At Last! Government grows some balls and stands up to fash nutter

[TremulousTetra]

I suspect he was joking, but I can't be sure. Maybe he really does hate Marx.
I was deducing from your comments about local government that you thought this was the state. It isn't the state, but maybe you know that. It's hard to tell when we're discussing things in snippets and flitting from one thing to the next.

I have to accept some responsibility. I don't always write clearly, this much is obvious to me.

The Gramscian notion of contradictory consciousness? (Just so we're sure we're talking about the same thing).

I should perhaps explain first that I was a Marxist before I was an anarchist, and I had read Gramsci before I read Kropotkin. I still find some of Gramsci's conceptions of societal structures useful. I know butchers often disagrees with me on this, as we've discussed it in the past.

However, if by contradictory consciousness you mean the process by which Gramsci describes (in, for example, Notes for an Introduction and an Approach to the Study of Philosophy and the History of Culture) what he saw as the hegemonic ideology which has been internalized by the working class being weakened by the life experiences of workers, then I would say it's a useful notion, if used carefully. However, I should note that for most anarchists this all skates perilously close to notions of false consciousness, which are rightly decried as the patronizing "we-know-best" platitudes of dead-eyed vanguardists.

so you know of, and would reject, trotsky's analogy where he speaks about the fascist worker, the Bolshevik worker, and workers in between?

Re working with "people on the right of me", I have - and will continue to - take part in single issue campaigns where there is a shared objective held by a variety of people: I have, for example, been on Faslane demos, alongside various members of the clergy. I spoke at length with a very pleasant Catholic priest on one occasion, who was opposed to weapons of mass destruction, but who held reactionary views on social issues such as homosexuality and abortion. I could not join an organization, such as a political party, which sought to make common cause with Catholic priests, and which therefore necessitated policies which pandered to those reactionary views. For example, which fudged the issue of homosexuality so as not to alienate Catholic priests.

yes, I'm the same, that's why Im in SW, RESPECT.

There seemed to be a contradiction in what you're saying there, which is not necessarily wrong, just prompts my interest.

So you are linked arms with the priests, to fight a common enemy. The campaign was over a single issue, which makes things simpler. So there was no compromises necessary? No compromises over nonviolent direct action vurses violent direct action? Would you compromise over such a thing, or would you always impose your beliefs on the organisation or walk?

I know that's a loaded question, but you can see my points can't you? If you would impose your views or walk, it doesn't necessarily make you wrong, it just might mean you have strong moral boundaries, for example.

 

[TremulousTetra]

btw, just looked, and I joined this forum in 2003. You are only the second anarchist who as actually answered questions about his/her viewpoint.

 

[danny la rouge]

btw, just looked, and I joined this forum in 2003. You are only the second anarchist who as actually answered questions about his/her viewpoint.

Answered your questions? Because in the 7 years I've been here I've seen many anarchists answer questions about their viewpoints.

 

[danny la rouge]

So you are linked arms with the priests, to fight a common enemy.

Well, not quite. We were in the same place at the same time.

So there was no compromises necessary? No compromises over nonviolent direct action vurses violent direct action?

It didn't arise. We were in the same place at the same time, not members of the same group.

Would you compromise over such a thing, or would you always impose your beliefs on the organisation or walk?

I would put my viewpoint. Which is, I think, not the same as imposing it. Your question lacks specifics, but if you're asking have I ever ceased activity in a group because I disagreed with its direction or policies. Of course. STWC, for example.

We seem to have by now strayed a long way from the thread topic.

 

[frogwoman]

this thread is great

 

[danny la rouge]

this thread is great

I don't know what happened! It turned into "ask an anarchist"!

 

[belboid]

does it have a theme tune?

 

[frogwoman]

deck the halls with bows of holly

 

[Fedayn]

does it have a theme tune?

Sung by Linda (k)Ronstadt.

 

[Fedayn]

deck the halls with bows of holly

Boughs of holly.

 

[danny la rouge]

Sung by Linda (k)Ronstadt.

Badda boom tish!

 

[belboid]

Sung by Linda (k)Ronstadt.

you've been waiting ages to use that haven't you?

 

[Fedayn]

Badda boom tish!

you've been waiting ages to use that haven't you?

As the great man once said..... Well burrowed old mole.

 

[TremulousTetra]

We seem to have by now strayed a long way from the thread topic.

so what.

Well, not quite. We were in the same place at the same time.

It didn't arise. We were in the same place at the same time, not members of the same group.

I would put my viewpoint. Which is, I think, not the same as imposing it. Your question lacks specifics, but if you're asking have I ever ceased activity in a group because I disagreed with its direction or policies. Of course. STWC, for example.

but if you will forgive me, you are beginning to sound elitist. It seems like a anarchists as a group am not prepared to comprise, for the sake of unity. It seems you're not prepared to accept dialogue, e.g..

An anarchist group joins an organisation/campaign.

@: we as anarchist believe the way of stopping the war is xyz.

R: oh, as reformist believe the way of stopping the war is vwxy.

@: oh well if we dont agree about everything, we cannot work together upon that we which we agree upon xy

Now all @ say your not elitist, and believe you believe that, so how else can I, calincoss, etc, interpret what you're saying in another way?

 

[danny la rouge]

It seems you're not prepared to accept dialogue

Is that your opinion? Based on what?

Furthermore, you seem to be extrapolating from my responses on this thread (inaccurately) to "all anarchists". I speak only for myself.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Is that your opinion? Based on what?

based on; "Your question lacks specifics, but if you're asking have I ever ceased activity in a group because I disagreed with its direction or policies. Of course. STWC, for example." etc.

so what was up, with STWC, that mean't you HAD TO walk. i did ask for an alternative.

I've just had to add, I just cant understand why revolutionaries should walk away from the organization of the biggest social movement in a generation.

Furthermore, you seem to be extrapolating from my responses on this thread (inaccurately) to "all anarchists". I speak only for myself.

no man is an island.

so it was it just Danny anarchist who refused to work with STWC?

 

[TremulousTetra]

I've come back to this, because it's always been niggling me, this idea that you're all individuals, that you can paint a broad brush outline of what anarchists would say on a topic. This sounds like Margaret Thatcher's, no such thing as society. It sounds like what's marxs ridiculed as there Robinsonites. The manufacture of ideas, as much as the manufacture of products, is a social process, isn't it? As a group you've all come to similar enough conclusions, that you are all able to label yourselves anarchist, so why can't you speak for anarchists, in broad brush terms?

 

[danny la rouge]

so it was it just Danny anarchist who refused to work with STWC?

I didn't "refuse to work with them". I was a contact person for them in this area right up until early 2004, when I finally had had enough of the relationship with the MAB.

 

[danny la rouge]

I've come back to this, because it's always been niggling me, this idea that you're all individuals, that you can paint a broad brush outline of what anarchists would say on a topic. This sounds like Margaret Thatcher's, no such thing as society. It sounds like what's marxs ridiculed as there Robinsonites.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're on about.

so why can't you speak for anarchists, in broad brush terms?

I can speak as an anarchist, but it's not like collective responsibility in cabinet. And you certainly can't extrapolate up from your misunderstanding over my involvement with STWC about what "all" anarchists think, do, or say.

This, for example: "@: oh well if we dont agree about everything, we cannot work together upon that we which we agree upon xy" It's not a reasonable representation of anything I said.

There's lots of groups I've been involved in where I don't agree with everything (in fact, probably all the groups and organisations I've ever been involved with, right from before I was even an anarchist). Where did you get that interpretation from?

When fundamental big issues get in the way, of course I don't turn a blind eye, though. Why should I?