How close does a movement have to be to your political niche for you to fight?

[Spion]

What if the fighting results in better conditions for the people, although the idealogy doesn fit your own vision of revolution?

IMO, a revolutionary would always join people's protests for better conditions/against oppression etc, but would in doing so argue that a radical change in the way society works is the only real way of making permanent any gains they make

 

[In Bloom]

IMO, a revolutionary would always join people's protests for better conditions/against oppression etc, but would in doing so argue that a radical change in the way society works is the only real way of making permanent any gains they make

Yeah, I'd have thought that goes without saying. But that has to include a willingness to engage in serious debate about strategy and tactics, which sometimes means telling people that you think they're wrong, regardless of them being sexy Nepalese peasants.

 

[Spion]

Yeah, I'd have thought that goes without saying. But that has to include a willingness to engage in serious debate about strategy and tactics, which sometimes means telling people that you think they're wrong, regardless of them being sexy Nepalese peasants.

I agree with you. But I get the impression many are keener to say why they won't support stuff than to have the balls to say, 'well, actually I hate the figurehead of this campaign and he'll lead you to hell, but the essence of what the campaign is fighting for is prefectly valid.'

If you believe something tac/strat that's of relevance to a particular struggle, it's criminal to hide it.

 

[The Black Hand]

I do not like half assed anarcho 'methods' of involvement. Which never enter into struggle on an equal basis with people, but are always trying to preserve their effete organisation.

I cannot see how these anarchists will ever understand how serious people view their own struggles unless anarchists drop their pretentions to 'superiority' - 'our organisation is/can do it' - when clearly THEY DO NOT. The important thing is class struggle and enabling more of it, not preserving moribund and sterile conservative organisation which only does social democratic activity.

 

[butchersapron]

So you support the FARC messianic-drug lords and the nepalese maoists and want to go there to help - as this is what this is actually about.

 

[DrRingDing]

So you support the FARC messianic-drug lords and the nepalese maoists and want to go there to help - as this is what this is actually about.

You really can't be arsed can you?

 

[The Black Hand]

So you support the FARC messianic-drug lords and the nepalese maoists and want to go there to help - as this is what this is actually about.

It is a general point, but as I have said before, I have huge problems with writing off people simplistically and forcing them into categories - 'All people must be like this and hence not pure'. In these organisations there will be those who are more committed, those in the middle, and lesser committed, and all the grades in between. If you want their views to harden you go ahead and treat them like that cos you (collective 'you') are too good to be involved in liberation struggles, opting out of a struggle is a self fulfilling prophecy as well, it is simplistic thinking.

I think libertarians prefer to see themselves in the same struggle and want to encourage more libertarian class struggle positions because they have an open mind and think things can change for the better.