Debate and action

[The Black Hand]

Don't be fucking childish.


Which isn't what I said. What I said was that eventually 'objective conditions' will reach a point where high levels of millitancy (as opposed to protest) kick off, it's incredibly difficult to predict when this will happen.

Who would have predicted Paris '68?

Admitedly I was taking the piss out of your blanket ahistorical statement, but protest DOES differ in different epochs. I was trying to get you to talk about different forms of capitalism. Were you talking about the Keynesian Welfare state model, or neo-liberalism today?

Also if protest is difficult to predict, why the need for specialist political organisation? Cos they won't get it right anyway... The best book I have read on protest (and I have read many) is "DOmination and the arts of resistance" by James C. Scott...

 

[In Bloom]

Admitedly I was taking the piss out of your blanket ahistorical statement, but protest DOES differ in different epochs. I was trying to get you to talk about different forms of capitalism. Were you talking about the Keynesian Welfare state model, or neo-liberalism today?

Ooh, "ahistorical" is it? Any other meaningless buzzwords you'd like to toss around?

I was talking about the fact that class struggle in one form or another, by whatever name, is always going to happen under capitalism, whatever form capitalism might take at the time. Capitalism depends on the existence of the proletariat, which is revolutionary by it's very nature. This is basic stuff, mate

Also if protest is difficult to predict, why the need for specialist political organisation?

Difficult does not mean absolutely impossible, what it means is a lot of bloody hard work, getting involved in campaigns you support, trying to link together struggles and arguing for what has worked in the past in similar situations, which is a lot easier as part of an organised group.

 

[Taxamo Welf]

Funnily enough no, that article hectors with a holier than thou pov. This is typical anarcho Leninism of which the AF have long been critisised for - 'after the fact I know better crap' when they do nothing themselves that indicate they can do anything better - you have to apply the terms of your criticism to yourselves or it is not honest (not the voice of a participant regardles of how much you were there 'physically'), and I do not see that here, or ever. It is demoralising that you could even think that a 'good' articles such as this exists in the first place, let alone be published by a national organisation. It is irrelevant apolitical bollocks if you ask me that falls far short of class struggle as it does not 'organise' a way forward. To forever hector without organising yourselves shows you up as hypocrites... By forever saying you 'Organise' when you don't really...

I notice that you were critised by an 'independent' for publishing this. Quelle surprise.

Edited to add - Organise 67 was full of shite, self indulgent anarchist rubbish, of no relevance to any non aligned working class person - in short 'ordinary people'. Look at the topics - 20 years of the AF - 'irrelevant as ever, but we need more like us, more organisation to do nothing'; what somebody else thinks we've achieved 'fuck all', Hungary Belarus, Swaziland etc - the ridicule continues... Let me know if you publish something on class struggle then I will read it....

T you seem to have read the article you wanted to read, not the one thats in the link pal

And its not an article published by a national organisation, its a b log contributed to by any AFer.

i think:

you have to apply the terms of your criticism to yourselves or it is not honest

is fair enough, and i intend to.

ATB,T

 

[The Black Hand]

Ooh, "ahistorical" is it? Any other meaningless buzzwords you'd like to toss around?

I was talking about the fact that class struggle in one form or another, by whatever name, is always going to happen under capitalism, whatever form capitalism might take at the time. Capitalism depends on the existence of the proletariat, which is revolutionary by it's very nature. This is basic stuff, mate


Difficult does not mean absolutely impossible, what it means is a lot of bloody hard work, getting involved in campaigns you support, trying to link together struggles and arguing for what has worked in the past in similar situations, which is a lot easier as part of an organised group.

Ahistorical isn't meaningless - you just don't know what it means!!

If the proles were revo by nature we would be in the 'promised land' by now - but we are not....

Hmmmm I just don't think that the process is as simple, or as teleological, as you make out...

 

[nonamenopackdrill]

I thought I was on your ignore list, by the way.

He keeps forgetting who he's pretending is on his ignore list.

Teejay, you seem to be saying 'don't argue with things I agree with'.

 

[nonamenopackdrill]

Oh shit, I'm very late to this thread aren't i? Apols.

 

[Wilf]

Back to the topic:

If somebody is planning some kind of action/direct action... well, I'd prefer it to be anarcho influenced, class based, anti-capitalist etc. ...

...but..

1. Given the low level of any kind of resistance at the moment, you take what you can get. Perhaps too many actions are built around post-materialist issues rather than things rooted in people's lives and communities. But what the hell - that's whee we are now. You work with people, you talk to them..

2. What about the old anarcho notion of prefigurative politics? If an action or a movement is non-hierarchical, participatory - and is getting stuck into some aspect of capital/neo-liberalism, some interesting things are likkely to follow (not guarenteed, I'll grant). The experience of that kind of working, that kind of solidarity can give people a glimpse of how things might be and maybe increase thier own self-confidence - all positive things (or at least better than not doing anything). Yes, people can be disillusioned if it fucks up - but thats the risk you have to take - trusting people and the idea that good things usually follow people taking charge of their own lives. Always putting pre-conditions on this or suggesting that its 'too green', 'too hippy' or 'tactically inept' is being a bit negative IMO. More than that though it underplays what can come out of the actual experience of struggle.

 

[treelover]

Bring back the Scouser!

 

[soulman]

Bring back the Scouser!

Indeed!

 

[rich!]

What about the old anarcho notion of prefigurative politics? If an action or a movement is non-hierarchical, participatory - and is getting stuck into some aspect of capital/neo-liberalism, some interesting things are likkely to follow (not guarenteed, I'll grant). The experience of that kind of working, that kind of solidarity can give people a glimpse of how things might be and maybe increase thier own self-confidence - all positive things (or at least better than not doing anything).

I was going to highlight a few bits of that, but I don't think I need to.

The idea that most people don't have is that their actions can change the body politic.

People who have engaged in, by way of example direct action campaigns, know that this is possible.

The most important thing for "us" to do is to get as many people as possible engaged in action. Later, we can argue the merits of the particular actions. First, we want to break them out of the "consume obey die" mindset into the "i can change shit" space.

 

[In Bloom]

What about the old anarcho notion of prefigurative politics? If an action or a movement is non-hierarchical, participatory - and is getting stuck into some aspect of capital/neo-liberalism, some interesting things are likkely to follow (not guarenteed, I'll grant). The experience of that kind of working, that kind of solidarity can give people a glimpse of how things might be and maybe increase thier own self-confidence - all positive things (or at least better than not doing anything). Yes, people can be disillusioned if it fucks up - but thats the risk you have to take - trusting people and the idea that good things usually follow people taking charge of their own lives. Always putting pre-conditions on this or suggesting that its 'too green', 'too hippy' or 'tactically inept' is being a bit negative IMO. More than that though it underplays what can come out of the actual experience of struggle.

If the action is 'tactically inept' it's pretty much doomed to failure from the start. By refusing to criticise how people use certain tactics, you perpetuate the cycle of pointless, energy wasting activity for its own sake.

That's not to say that it's a good idea to just dismiss people out of hand, but you at least have to tell them when they're talking a load of bollocks.

 

[In Bloom]

Ahistorical isn't meaningless - you just don't know what it means!!

I'm perfectly aware of what it means, using it in a stupid context to try and sound clever, however, robs it of that meaning

If the proles were revo by nature we would be in the 'promised land' by now - but we are not....

Hmmmm I just don't think that the process is as simple, or as teleological, as you make out...

You're completely misrepresenting what I'm saying here, and I think you know it.

The point I was trying to make is that class struggle occurs with or without the toings and froings of lefties, it is an innevitable result of the proletarian condition. How it follows from this that a communist revolution should already have happened, you're going to have to tell me.

 

[The Black Hand]

I'm perfectly aware of what it means, using it in a stupid context to try and sound clever, however, robs it of that meaning


You're completely misrepresenting what I'm saying here, and I think you know it.

The point I was trying to make is that class struggle occurs with or without the toings and froings of lefties, it is an innevitable result of the proletarian condition. How it follows from this that a communist revolution should already have happened, you're going to have to tell me.

All I said was that you are not being precise in what you are saying. Its basic really, why was the post WW2 period different to today? There are different things going on, and you do have a simplistic approach btw, teleological even. From 'protest to militancy and possibly revo situation cos of objective conditions' - with nothing in between is schematic with no real people involved. By asserting class interests as the only 'real' sources of human motivation this entirely mistakes people's nature... Economic changes impel changes in social relationships, in relations between real men and women; and these are apprehended, felt, discussed, and reveal themselves in feelings of injustice, frustration, aspirations for social change; all is fought out in the human consciousness, including the moral consciousness....

 

[Donna Ferentes]

And that's "precise"?

 

[The Black Hand]

And that's "precise"?

He was not being precise when he said this originally;

"There have always been periods of low millitancy, this one is no different to any of the others."

I came back and said this "What epoch(s) are you talking about here? SInce the dinosaurs? Post stone age? Feudalism and onwards?" I woz havin a bit of a larf, but there was a serious point.

The situation today IS soooo different to the 1950s, and therefore blanket sayings about different times in history are not useful - they are ahistorical - without history, hence without conditions or real people. It was my aim to talk about the complicated nature of social conditions, and their impacts upon interacting people and their consciousnesses, and so in that sense I was precise.

 

[Wilf]

If the action is 'tactically inept' it's pretty much doomed to failure from the start. By refusing to criticise how people use certain tactics, you perpetuate the cycle of pointless, energy wasting activity for its own sake.

Something might be tactically inept - but it doesn't follow from that that it will be pointless, energy wasting or activity for its own sake - the 2 things are not necessarily related. I'd say actions and campaigns should be prefigurative, should have some real goals and should be worthwhile and empowering to do (however much i hate the word empowering ). I would also say that a number of the things you have objected to in recent months would fit those criteria. They should aim to achieve things and make actual changes - but the process by which that happens is almost always going to be indirect and messy (and may take time).

That's not to say that it's a good idea to just dismiss people out of hand, but you at least have to tell them when they're talking a load of bollocks.

Telling people that they are talking boathooks sounds a bit like dismissing them out of hand, TBH. It also puts you in an ambiguous position with regard to a movement that is supposed to be built on self organisation and spontaneity (if you repeatedly end up telling them that their actions are a waste of space). [and with regard to 'you' I suppose i do mean you mean you and your arguments on here - but i really mean the wider position in terms of pre-judging actions and campaigns]

 

[In Bloom]

Something might be tactically inept - but it doesn't follow from that that it will be pointless, energy wasting or activity for its own sake - the 2 things are not necessarily related.

Not quite what I said. I was saying that failure to criticise tactical inneptitude and total ignorance of what has worked and what has failed in the past is a major part of the reason why there is so much activity for it's own sake.

Telling people that they are talking boathooks sounds a bit like dismissing them out of hand, TBH. It also puts you in an ambiguous position with regard to a movement that is supposed to be built on self organisation and spontaneity (if you repeatedly end up telling them that their actions are a waste of space). [and with regard to 'you' I suppose i do mean you mean you and your arguments on here - but i really mean the wider position in terms of pre-judging actions and campaigns]

Are you always this literal?

 

[The Black Hand]

Not quite what I said. I was saying that failure to criticise tactical inneptitude and total ignorance of what has worked and what has failed in the past is a major part of the reason why there is so much activity for it's own sake.

Are you always this literal?

It is arguable that the Sack parliament failed only because it wasn't large enough. As such those in orgs who do not take part in organising events, or participate (that's not isolated individuals) as an org are part of the problem.

IMHO that includes your org In Bloomer. Your org doesn't EVER put its arse on the line (or its bollocks) so you can't then critisise others who do because you would be expecting things you are not prepared to do yourself (in short hypocrisy). You NEVER organise anything!

 

[The Black Hand]

T you seem to have read the article you wanted to read, not the one thats in the link pal

As it goes Tax I read an article that spouted from an holier than thou pov which that article did. I've read too many of them. Its time those who write such articles such as that got together and organised something themselves for a change

 

[In Bloom]

It is arguable that the Sack parliament failed only because it wasn't large enough. As such those in orgs who do not take part in organising events, or participate (that's not isolated individuals) as an org are part of the problem.

Even if the entire London membership of all three organisational anarchist groups had gone, it still wouldn't be enough. The stunt was badly organised, ill thought out and required more people to work than it was ever going to get.

IMHO that includes your org In Bloomer. Your org doesn't EVER put its arse on the line (or its bollocks) so you can't then critisise others who do because you would be expecting things you are not prepared to do yourself (in short hypocrisy).

Except that that's just factually innacurate.

The actions the AF has criticised are actions that we would never take part in as a group.

You NEVER organise anything!

Other than the upcoming G8 legal costs benefit, the anarchist block at the last anti-war demo*, the upcoming education workers' conference*, numerous solidarity actions up and down the country for a variety of causes from strikes at home to repression in Eastern Europe, our involvement with various social centres, our involvement with Defy-ID...

Do you want me to go on? It doesn't particularly matter anyway, since the AF doesn't set out to be the Anarchist Party.

*These two done as a joint effort with SolFed

 

[The Black Hand]

Even if the entire London membership of all three organisational anarchist groups had gone, it still wouldn't be enough. The stunt was badly organised, ill thought out and required more people to work than it was ever going to get.

The actions the AF has criticised are actions that we would never take part in as a group.

Other than the upcoming G8 legal costs benefit, the anarchist block at the last anti-war demo*, the upcoming education workers' conference*, numerous solidarity actions up and down the country for a variety of causes from strikes at home to repression in Eastern Europe, our involvement with various social centres, our involvement with Defy-ID...

Do you want me to go on? It doesn't particularly matter anyway, since the AF doesn't set out to be the Anarchist Party.

*These two done as a joint effort with SolFed

You have just proved what I said...

You organised yourselves to go on a demo some other people organised - that doesn't count. Neither does organising a conference or gig - that is not protest/resistance etc. Being involved in a social centre/squat doesn't either. Now, I have seen you organising a 'solidarity protest' - better labelled a solidarity picket, they don't count.

You do not organise protests/resistance/manifestations to real live issues. Only those at a nice safe distance, that involve no thought or imagination on your own part, eg. solidarity pickit. You are parisitical on the back of real struggles that have been created by others and you don't initiate things yourselves.

And you said it all - yourself - here;

"The actions the AF has criticised are actions that we would never take part in as a group."

 

[In Bloom]

You organised yourselves to go on a demo some other people organised - that doesn't count. Neither does organising a conference or gig - that is not protest/resistance etc. Being involved in a social centre/squat doesn't either. Now, I have seen you organising a 'solidarity protest' - better labelled a solidarity picket, they don't count.

Those were the first things off the top of my head, but they are the groundwork for what you arbitrarily separate off into 'real' resistance. Without resources, without organisation, without support networks, without solidarity work and legal funds and fundraisers to pay for it all, you hamstring the other, possibly more exciting parts of your politics.

But never mind all that boring stuff, eh? Let's all dress like wallies and get ourselves nicked, that'll show the capitalist bastards!

 

[Taxamo Welf]

As it goes Tax I read an article that spouted from an holier than thou pov which that article did. I've read too many of them. Its time those who write such articles such as that got together and organised something themselves for a change

TBH YOU FUCKING PLUM, THE AF WERE THERE!!!! THE PERSON WHO WROTE WAS THERE, ON THE BLOODY ACTION!
In fact they may well have been involved in organising it.

sorry mate but read the article won't you?

The authors acknowledge the time effort and money put into the Monday, and hope the organisers find ways of making actions like this work in future, and most importantly linking them to long term issues. See you there.

ooh so holier than thou, they agreed to work with them in future.



LOLZORS

 

[The Black Hand]

TBH YOU FUCKING PLUM, THE AF WERE THERE!!!! THE PERSON WHO WROTE WAS THERE, ON THE BLOODY ACTION!
In fact they may well have been involved in organising it.

sorry mate but read the article won't you?

ooh so holier than thou, they agreed to work with them in future.

LOLZORS

I did read it - and there were some AF individuals there.... so what? I didn't view them as organiser participants - merely the David Attenborough type who is so obviously not 'one of them', who has better accents, a soft voice, and obviously are superior to those other people...

 

[The Black Hand]

Those were the first things off the top of my head, but they are the groundwork for what you arbitrarily separate off into 'real' resistance. Without resources, without organisation, without support networks, without solidarity work and legal funds and fundraisers to pay for it all, you hamstring the other, possibly more exciting parts of your politics.

But never mind all that boring stuff, eh? Let's all dress like wallies and get ourselves nicked, that'll show the capitalist bastards!

Yes, you are right the infrastructure of a working class movement is important, but you had better be truthful about it then. You had better say;

"we do not 'Organise' cutting edge protest, infact we are sceptical of initiatives, we do like to organise nice safe stuff from a distance away from the cutting edge, and what we do is part of the infrastructure a working class movement needs. We won't be on the frontline though, we will be away from confrontation, oh no, you won't find us there."

 

[Wilf]

Are you always this literal?

Literal, never - pedantick, always (blimey, extraneous K - i must have been infulenced by the 'Post in the Style of a Banned Poster' thread )

 

[The Black Hand]

Literal, never - pedantick, always (blimey, extraneous K - i must have been infulenced by the 'Post in the Style of a Banned Poster' thread )

4th right - where has In Bloom gone?

 

[In Bloom]

Why would I bother responding to the same things I already refuted in my last post?

Arguing with you is a waste of time I could spend doing more productive things, like banging my head against a brick wall or counting the number of hairs on the back of my hand.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Could you try the second after doing the first?

 

[The Black Hand]

Why would I bother responding to the same things I already refuted in my last post?

Arguing with you is a waste of time I could spend doing more productive things, like banging my head against a brick wall or counting the number of hairs on the back of my hand.

You have answered it that's true;

you have a position of defence of mediocrity and irrelevance in struggle,

and I forward a fully political theory of class conflict and praxis.

Yours is for the anally retentive who want an easy to defend position, which doesn't make mistakes cos it doesn't do anything radical - ONLY THOSE WHO DO NOTHING MAKE NO MISTAKES. You try to mediate the class condition by imposing the party/federation - it doesn't matter what you call it - upon the class struggle.

Whereas others, more open minded and sophisticated try different approaches.