Bbc Ban Anti-war Song

[tbaldwin]

RMP3 thanks for your opinions...I`ll get back to them properly tommorrow.

BUT, i don`t want this to dwell on anarchists vs the SWP. thats not really my point. I`m concerned about people who don't fit neatly into a box, but are political....what do they think of the SWP. You've seen plenty of bad attitude from these people towards the SWPs here - helped along by the likes of Das Uberdog....

I think that is a very good question. Probably a lot better than the record....

 

[TremulousTetra]

RMP3 thanks for your opinions...I`ll get back to them properly tommorrow.

BUT, i don`t want this to dwell on anarchists vs the SWP. thats not really my point. I`m concerned about people who don't fit neatly into a box, but are political....what do they think of the SWP. You've seen plenty of bad attitude from these people towards the SWPs here - helped along by the likes of Das Uberdog....

will you keep asking me for reasons, and I keep giving you lots of reasons. So who are these people, you keep saying these people, which people? Give me some examples so we can go and ask them. Surely they are the people to ask?

 

[chilango]

will you keep asking me for reasons, and I keep giving you lots of reasons. So who are these people, you keep saying these people, which people? Give me some examples so we can go and ask them. Surely they are the people to ask?

well, me for one....

 

[TremulousTetra]

I think that is a very good question. Probably a lot better than the record....

yes you are a good example. So are you vitriolic towards the SWP? Only the SWP? Isn't your vitriol based upon a political difference over immigration?

 

[TremulousTetra]

well, me for one....

well you have already said you are not vitriolic towards the. I find your position quite reasonable, you have political and philosophical differences with the SW analysis, why shouldn't you? evolution has shown that diversity of approach is a good thing.

I have to admit you may possibly be raising this topic with the wrong person. For the vast majority of my active membership I had no interest whatsoever in the rest of the revolutionary left in the UK. Coming to urban 75, made it quite clear there was no obvious alternative to SW for me.

 

[Das Uberdog]

Do you not agree, though, that the construction of a definable "working class identity" using cultural terms is problematic?

Maybe it's hard to strictly define, but that doesn't mean the phrase itself is meaningless or worthless as a description, as laptop and McFunny have been trying to suggest.

Try having another go, only this time think before you type; here's a clue...anger is not the only emotional response to exploitation, injustice and oppression.

Well alright, talking as a general rule, give me one mass movement that hasn't been successful without widespread anger at injustice. Even Ghandi's non-violent movement was marred with violence all over the show the minute it looked like it was succeeding... and the violence did spur the British to get the crap out of there. It also lead into civil war though obviously, which wasn't a good thing.

It's not that I think anger is the best theoretical notion to overthrow an unfair system, it's just obviously what you're gonna get. Non-violence/aggression is more than a method of gaining power, it's an individual life philosophy and discipline which takes time to learn, hone and fully understand. Ghandi was helped along by Hindu/Buddhisti teachings on the subject, but essentially it's an idea which is very individualistic in it's approach (with individual acts being classed as important as the result or intentions). And despite all this, I'd still say that unless people were angry in the first place (hard to define against 'other emotional responses to injustice') then you wouldn't have seen the mass movement which did exist in British Colonial India or at any other time.

You're 38 and living at yo mamma's yard, innit?

'Yo Mamma's yard, innit'? What, is this an actual estimation of my age here? If there's an actual dispute about this I can link you to my myspace,or perhaps to some internet articles wit' ma face in them? If not, then your phoney mud-slinging/pathetic pseudo-intellectual trollops should go elsewhere. You've quite blatantly been shown to be wrong on pretty much every count you've posted so far.

 

[pk]

I would like to achieve anarchism/communism.

See - I believe in neither.

Anarchism and communism are unachievable, and go against human nature.

The only way they could possibly work is if they were imposed upon global society simultaneously by means of an uber-dictatorship. Unlikely.

So I just don't waste my life hoping for the impossible.

As for the Freedom to Party campain... I think most people involved went out and got wrecked that night and forgot what they were campaigning about...

But we still had more fun than the SWP ever will.

 

[mk12]

Again misreading. We believe that the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary to achieve anarchism/communism. But I will be quite happy to be proved wrong, and us jump straight from capitalism to communism.

but anarchists too want a dictatorship of the proletariat. there will be times in the process of transition from capitalism to anarchism when anarchists recognize there will be conflict between pro-revolutionary and counterrevolutionary forces. There will be times in this process where workers will claim within a geographic area the sole right to the legitimate use of force, and use of violence by bourgeois forces/counterrevolutionary forces will be deemed illegitimate.surely the ultimate aims are exactly the same, communism and anarchism are different how? And surely whether the means and ends cannot be separated, is a philosophical point of difference between Marxist Leninist and Marxist anarchists which has not been resolved?

Our means to achieving those aims are different, yes, but at the end of the day we have the same aims. That groups on the left constantly fail to recognize this simple nuance is another explanation for the unbalanced vitriol you asked me to examine, in my opinion. this failure even leads some on the left to honestly believe SW is state-controlled.

I think the point is, there is no possible way that the "aim" of anarchism/communism will be reached by using the methods the Leninism/Bolshevism/Trtskyism or whatever you want to call it! I thin that's what others are getting at.

Plus - have you read that book yet

 

[TremulousTetra]

I think the point is, there is no possible way that the "aim" of anarchism/communism will be reached by using the methods the Leninism/Bolshevism/Trtskyism or whatever you want to call it! I thin that's what others are getting at.

Plus - have you read that book yet

but as I have already said the veracity of that statement has not been resolved. Whether it is right or wrong can only be proven in the class struggle. And I repeat again, evolution has shown a diversity of approaches is a good thing. So it comes down to don't say it, do it, built a mass movement. If any of you do, I will surely join it.

And then comes my question above. If Marxist Leninism is so ill suited to the class struggle, why does it have the most influence in the UK (out of the revolutionary groups according to Chill)?well at least compared to the other groupings on these boards.

 

[chilango]

If Marxist Leninism is so ill suited to the class struggle, why does it have the most influence in the UK (out of the revolutionary groups according to Chill)?well at least compared to the other groupings on these boards.

Maybe its not cos its suited to class struggle, but rather because its provides the structure/discipline/belief etc etc necessary for the maintenance of an organisation. The SWP place a high emphasis on self-promotion and recruitment for example. Surely this, rather than relevence to class struggle explains its prominance.

I`ll get back to your other points later....

 

[mk12]

but as I have already said the veracity of that statement has not been resolved. Whether it is right or wrong can only be proven in the class struggle. And I repeat again, evolution has shown a diversity of approaches is a good thing. So it comes down to don't say it, do it, built a mass movement. If any of you do, I will surely join it.

And then comes my question above. If Marxist Leninism is so ill suited to the class struggle, why does it have the most influence in the UK (out of the revolutionary groups according to Chill)?well at least compared to the other groupings on these boards.

I didn't think a handful of people "build" a mass movement? Party's don't make movements.

Marxism Lenininsm has "the most influence in the UK (out of the revolutionary groups)" - well, there's many reasons for that. But I am not interested in comparing membership figures, this group and that group. It's not all about groups/parties/organisations.

 

[Jazzz]

Has it disappeared from the charts? They should have had it cheaper to download... it might have made the top ten

 

[JHE]

Well my mistrust and general contempt goes back to the Freedom to Party movement in '89... Lots of people busted, beaten and jailed for throwing parties.

A few thousand people at Trafalgar Square protesting about it all, slagging off The Scum "newspaper" and generally demanding the right to do what the fuck we want if it hurts nobody... And sure enough the SWP were there trying to claim credit for it.

Didn't last long though, some Swappie twunt managed to grab the microphone and start banging on about lesbian equality and oppression of the working classes, she was shouted down and laughed off the stage within seconds by the hordes of muntered punters, and replaced by a flute player doing a rendition of Guru Josh accompanied by a human beatbox.

Only then did people realise the event had been potentially hijacked by a load of beret wearing Marxists (or cunts, as Ricky Gervais accurately observed) and the SWP members were abused and ejected accordingly. I think the girl who got laughed off the stage cried.

It was a good day for people who like to organise a bit of a protest without the interference of a load of self serving tossers trying to canvas support for their blurred agendas.

You have no idea what damage you druggy party animals did. On the rebound from you lot, the Social Workers hitched up with the clean-living Muslim Brotherhood. You should have been nicer to the Trots.

(They've had to drop their concern for lesbians, obviously.)

 

[TremulousTetra]

I think the point is, there is no possible way that the "aim" of anarchism/communism will be reached by using the methods the Leninism/Bolshevism/Trtskyism or whatever you want to call it! I thin that's what others are getting at.

Plus - have you read that book yet

what I should have said said about these comments.

What you and chill are doing here, is exactly what you accuse Socialist worker of, "Ours Is the Only Vehicle". You are ruling out Leninism/Bolshevism/Trtskyism. If we talked about reformism, you would rule that out too, and so on.

Now I would be a hypocrite if I was to say there is anything wrong with that argument. You are perfectly entitled to believe and make that argument, it is exactly the same as what Socialist worker would say about anarchist methods, reformist methods. But the claim anarchists do not behave in exactly the same fashion as Socialist worker members, "Ours Is the Only Vehicle", I think is bogus. Witness the arrogant ignorant over the top attitude of anarchists who have been on this website.

The "Ours Is the Only Vehicle" is a one-dimensional caricature. Each of us has looked at the options, and come to a conclusion about which is the best methodology. I do not think anarchists can claim to be holier than thou.

 

[TremulousTetra]

You have no idea what damage you druggy party animals did. On the rebound from you lot, the Social Workers hitched up with the clean-living Muslim Brotherhood. You should have been nicer to the Trots.

(They've had to drop their concern for lesbians, obviously.)

lies masquerading as political argument, and you wonder why the left isn't taken seriously Chillango.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Maybe its not cos its suited to class struggle, but rather because its provides the structure/discipline/belief etc etc necessary for the maintenance of an organisation. The SWP place a high emphasis on self-promotion and recruitment for example. Surely this, rather than relevence to class struggle explains its prominance.

I`ll get back to your other points later....

absolutely right, these are important factors to maintain a bigger better organised revolutionary left in a hostile capitalist environment, and the lack of which may explain to some degree as why the anarchist left is so small. However, many other organisations on the left had such organisation etc. Communist Party, militant, the Labour Party etc ad nauseam. You can be very well organised, without the ideas that fit of class struggle you will cease to exist as history shows.

 

[mk12]

what I should have said said about these comments.

What you and chill are doing here, is exactly what you accuse Socialist worker of, "Ours Is the Only Vehicle". You are ruling out Leninism/Bolshevism/Trtskyism. If we talked about reformism, you would rule that out too, and so on.

Now I would be a hypocrite if I was to say there is anything wrong with that argument. You are perfectly entitled to believe and make that argument, it is exactly the same as what Socialist worker would say about anarchist methods, reformist methods. But the claim anarchists do not behave in exactly the same fashion as Socialist worker members, "Ours Is the Only Vehicle", I think is bogus. Witness the arrogant ignorant over the top attitude of anarchists who have been on this website.

The "Ours Is the Only Vehicle" is a one-dimensional caricature. Each of us has looked at the options, and come to a conclusion about which is the best methodology. I do not think anarchists can claim to be holier than thou.

Ruling it out because it's already failed, yes.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Ruling it out because it's already failed, yes.

bogus. Every revolutionary method has failed, so far.

 

[JimPage]

How dare the BBC ban a song by the producers of that well known hymn to internationalism "Who do you think you are kidding Jurgen Klinsman"

 

[emanymton]

And then comes my question above. If Marxist Leninism is so ill suited to the class struggle, why does it have the most influence in the UK (out of the revolutionary groups according to Chill)?well at least compared to the other groupings on these boards.

The communist parry used to have influence the SWP only dreams about, would you argue therefore that Stalinism is the ideology most suited to class struggle? I assume not; so can we agree that size and influence does not necessarily reflect the validity of a party’s position?

 

[mk12]

bogus. Every revolutionary method has failed, so far.

Correct!

 

[In Bloom]

bogus. Every revolutionary method has failed, so far.

But only the Leninists have "won" the actual physical fight, and it resulted in dictatorship every time. Doesn't that tell you something about the value of Leninist methods?

 

[TremulousTetra]

But only the Leninists have "won" the actual physical fight, and it resulted in dictatorship every time. Doesn't that tell you something about the value of Leninist methods?

and have the anarchists EVER "won" the actual physical fight?

 

[chilango]

I think looking at the successes and failures of the Zapatistas and the Oaxaca commune would be instructive...

...kinda anarchist (minus the dogma) with plenty of left influence too - but by and for the community regardless.

But then that is prolly a whole other thread, no?

 

[TremulousTetra]

I think looking at the successes and failures of the Zapatistas and the Oaxaca commune would be instructive...

...kinda anarchist (minus the dogma) with plenty of left influence too - but by and for the community regardless.

But then that is prolly a whole other thread, no?

maybe, maybe not. But there you go again trying to convince me yours, anarchism, is the one true vehicle. How is that different from what Socialist worker does, and makes anarchists so vitriolic?

and who else are "these people"?

 

[chilango]

But there you go again trying to convince me yours, anarchism, is the one true vehicle.

How so?

 

[In Bloom]

and have the anarchists EVER "won" the actual physical fight?

No, and that's a good reason to seriously examine the methods used by anarchists in the past and try to understand why they lost.