# resistance and activism?



## dirtycrustie (Aug 26, 2005)

Despite the growing empirical evidence of a human culture that seems to have accepted a reality of death camps, starvation, climatic change, mass extinction and a growing gap between rich and poor as a certainty, many of us continue to struggle on against this. Yet I still find it baffling that many who believe capitalism, the social relationship that engenders all of the above, can be undone via activism.

This implies that a continuing onslaught of increasingly bizarre and self-referential stunts will impart revolutionary consciousness onto those spectating, until a watermark is reached and the flood of proletarian anger is unleashed. 

This is not to imply that I find all activism pointless or idiotic in its goals. It does allow many of the individuals inside its culture an opportunity to experience new forms of living, while transgressing some of capitalisms more obvious daily oppressions (squatting as opposed to the rent economy etc).

 Over the years many activities have been defined as victories by those in the libertarian and radical ecological scenes. The campaign against genetically modified crops is a good example. Although this can be viewed as a victory through certain lenses, our activity only helped revitalise old markets for capitalism (such as organic food) and strengthened party politics (with many people sucked into the green party machine of the backs of our activity.) I suppose what I’m trying to ask; Do you believe there is an activity that we can engage in politically that cannot be recuperated back by the totality of the state/capitalism?


----------



## scumbalina (Aug 26, 2005)

I feel thick


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 26, 2005)

I agree that revolutionary stuntism is not going to destroy the system, but if we go down the route of only engaging in activity that cannot be recuperated by capitalism surely we risk thinking ourselves out of any activity at all?  I'm not sure I'm ready to be that relentlessly negative.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2005)

seems to me that there's two paths to go down: the foul, hideous trot path, or the imaginative, positive anarchist route.


----------



## tbaldwin (Aug 26, 2005)

Activist's who look down on ordinary people their views and aspirations are worse than useless. Sadly that sums up most left wing activists.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 26, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> seems to me that there's two paths to go down: the foul, hideous trot path, or the imaginative, positive anarchist route.


What does that mean exactly?  Could you expand your point


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 26, 2005)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Activist's who look down on ordinary people their views and aspirations are worse than useless. Sadly that sums up most left wing activists.


That's great - what does it have to do with this discussion though?


----------



## dirtycrustie (Aug 26, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> seems to me that there's two paths to go down: the foul, hideous trot path, or the imaginative, positive anarchist route.


what does this mean? Our you implying that the only alternative to activism is hierachical movement building? Im confused...


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> What does that mean exactly?  Could you expand your point


it sounded good when i posted it. 

i'll expand and submit something for yr consideration in some several minutes.


----------



## dirtycrustie (Aug 26, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> I agree that revolutionary stuntism is not going to destroy the system, but if we go down the route of only engaging in activity that cannot be recuperated by capitalism surely we risk thinking ourselves out of any activity at all?  I'm not sure I'm ready to be that relentlessly negative.


surely its not about being negative, but trying to explore new ways of working that may open possibilites to manouver which activism may not engender.


----------



## mk12 (Aug 26, 2005)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Activist's who look down on ordinary people their views and aspirations are worse than useless. Sadly that sums up most left wing activists.



Did you conduct research on this?


----------



## tbaldwin (Aug 26, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> That's great - what does it have to do with this discussion though?


What is all this activism for?
How much of it really has an effect? And erm "which way forward for the left"

I think most political activity is a bit pointless though i was heavily involved in anti fascism in the late 80s early 90s which kind of worked despite what the established anti groups did. And also went along to RTS stuff which i thought was quite good.
But most activity is a load of wank.


----------



## tbaldwin (Aug 26, 2005)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> Did you conduct research on this?



Sadly matt, much more than id care to remember.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 26, 2005)

dirtycrustie said:
			
		

> surely its not about being negative, but trying to explore new ways of working that may open possibilites to manouver which activism may not engender.


Ok then, do _you_ believe there is an activity that we can engage in politically that cannot be recuperated back by the totality of the state/capitalism?


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 26, 2005)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> What is all this activism for?
> How much of it really has an effect? And erm "which way forward for the left"
> 
> I think most political activity is a bit pointless though i was heavily involved in anti fascism in the late 80s early 90s which kind of worked despite what the established anti groups did. And also went along to RTS stuff which i thought was quite good.
> But most activity is a load of wank.


That seems to be pretty similar to what dirtycrustie is suggesting.  

So what was it about RTS stuff that you liked - do you think any of that activity had an effect?


----------



## dirtycrustie (Aug 26, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> Ok then, do _you_ believe there is an activity that we can engage in politically that cannot be recuperated back by the totality of the state/capitalism?


thats what i asked at the beginning of the thread, and I hope we can find some answers together .Like most people here im still looking for an exit stategy from the totality.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 26, 2005)

dirtycrustie said:
			
		

> thats what i asked at the beginning of the thread, and I hope we can find some answers together .Like most people here im still looking for an exit stategy from the totality.


   I know you asked that at the beginning - I was just wondering if you had any idea of what activity _would_ be positive.


----------



## dirtycrustie (Aug 26, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> I know you asked that at the beginning - I was just wondering if you had any idea of what activity _would_ be positive.


How can we construct an insurrectionary practice in a world where honesty is picked up by echelon?


----------



## tbaldwin (Aug 26, 2005)

dirtycrustie said:
			
		

> How can we construct an insurrectionary practice in a world where honesty is picked up by echelon?



Mattkidd, are you reading this?


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 26, 2005)

dirtycrustie said:
			
		

> How can we construct an insurrectionary practice in a world where honesty is picked up by echelon?


I have no idea what that means.


----------



## tbaldwin (Aug 26, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> That seems to be pretty similar to what dirtycrustie is suggesting.
> 
> So what was it about RTS stuff that you liked - do you think any of that activity had an effect?



I thought RTS June 18th was really good and also went to Islington.
It was good because it was a positive party/protest that made people think.

But RTS was smashed by Globalise resistance/SWP who appointed themselves as spokesmen for a new movement after jumping very late onto the bandwagon.
That June demo there was no SWP, by November they were organising their own anti capitalist event at Euston, which was typically pathetic...


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 26, 2005)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> I thought RTS June 18th was really good and also went to Islington.
> It was good because it was a positive party/protest that made people think.


But _did_ it make people think?  And which people?

Although I think June 18th was excellent, and I'm sorry I wasn't there, did it really have any effect outside activist circles?  Kinda seems a bit like what dirtycrustie says here:



			
				dirtycrustie said:
			
		

> This implies that a continuing onslaught of increasingly bizarre and self-referential stunts will impart revolutionary consciousness onto those spectating, until a watermark is reached and the flood of proletarian anger is unleashed.


----------



## mk12 (Aug 26, 2005)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Mattkidd, are you reading this?



I'm referring to the dictionary, but yes, I am reading this.


----------



## tbaldwin (Aug 26, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> But _did_ it make people think?  And which people?
> 
> Although I think June 18th was excellent, and I'm sorry I wasn't there, did it really have any effect outside activist circles?  Kinda seems a bit like what dirtycrustie says here:




Well both of them made some people aware of some issues they probably hadnt thought that much about. And probably gave people on the demos? more confidence to know others shared their views.
I was in amongst the City types at the Bank who watched the June 18th demo go by and most of them were more interested than hostile.
The Islington demo i saw a few local people i knew who were not Politicos playing with their kids in the sandpits..


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2005)

basically, there's two ways forwards for activists.

on the one hand there's the dated & dull path of which the trots are the best example - bravely leading dwindling numbers of people on increasingly boring marches & trying to sell them increasingly boring papers. it's a route where one finds oneself cut off from the very people you wish to influence as one's practise & ideas are ever more removed from their everyday life.

on the other hand, there's the innovative and imaginative anarchist & assorted others route, where one's ideas and practise remain far more relevant to people's experiences as they (the ideas & practise) emerge from everyday life. centred on dynamick class-based politicks and far removed from the staid and predicatable way the trots & other sad arses operate, the more imaginative anarchists bring people in to their _milieu_  via a large injection of fun & play. though the core message is serious, the way to take the struggle onwards isn't through dated paperselling or rancid electoral fetishism, a la ruc.


----------



## mk12 (Aug 26, 2005)

> on the other hand, there's the innovative and imaginative anarchist & assorted others route, where one's ideas and practise remain far more relevant to people's experiences as they (the ideas & practise) emerge from everyday life. centred on dynamick class-based politicks and far removed from the staid and predicatable way the trots & other sad arses operate, the more imaginative anarchists bring people in to their milieu  via a large injection of fun & play. though the core message is serious, the way to take the struggle onwards isn't through dated paperselling or rancid electoral fetishism, a la ruc.



Examples si'l vous plait.


----------



## Bristly Pioneer (Aug 26, 2005)

I don't think it is about 'imparting revolutionary consciousness' onto the masses at all, infact that patronising attittude is half of the problem with the historical organised left.

Activism is a very empowering and exciting thing, and something which certainly beats shopping on a saturday afternoon.  I think the energy that came into the fore with RTS etc reflected this, and the encouragement for people to take up causes themselves and cause trouble individually and as part of small groups with a wider network of disorganisation has been the life blood which has come into the "activist scene" for the past decade.  

Unfortunately as has been pointed out many times on these boards, the organised left has since jumped into the mix after they had been left behind.  Personally I think this was as a result of the shell shock post september 11 where the focus suddenly switched from companies and the WTO into war.  It took a lot of people a while to adapt to this and to immediately connect the dots and see it as the same problem.  The old left however was built on a lot of this retoric (sp?) and jumped straight in taking the wind out of our sails a bit.

Things are only now beginning to level out again and I am getting excited about the possibilities for decentralised group activities.  The future as I see it is looking bright.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 26, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> on the other hand, there's the innovative and imaginative anarchist & assorted others route, where one's ideas and practise remain far more relevant to people's experiences as they (the ideas & practise) emerge from everyday life. centred on dynamick class-based politicks and far removed from the staid and predicatable way the trots & other sad arses operate, the more imaginative anarchists bring people in to their _milieu_  via a large injection of fun & play. though the core message is serious, the way to take the struggle onwards isn't through dated paperselling or rancid electoral fetishism, a la ruc.


And what, a few more people turn up to each fun and playful action until we have enough for a revolution?


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 26, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> the more imaginative anarchists bring people in to their _milieu_  via a large injection of fun & play.





What kind of 'playful and fun' activities are these?

And at what rate do working class people get drawn into the anarchist 'milieu' because of them?


----------



## blamblam (Aug 26, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> What kind of 'playful and fun' activities are these?
> 
> And at what rate do working class people get drawn into the anarchist 'milieu' because of them?


  

I'd be interested in the answer to this too.


----------



## hibee (Aug 26, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> What kind of 'playful and fun' activities are these?



Dunno, but I think they involve wearing a bandana


----------



## sihhi (Aug 26, 2005)

> The campaign against genetically modified crops is a good example. Although this can be viewed as a victory through certain lenses, our activity only helped revitalise old markets for capitalism (such as organic food) and strengthened party politics (with many people sucked into the green party machine of the backs of our activity.)



What do YOU think about the anti-GM campaign out of interest?


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 26, 2005)

sihhi said:
			
		

> What do YOU think about the anti-GM campaign out of interest?


Isn't the bit you quoted stating what he thinks of it?


----------



## sihhi (Aug 26, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> Isn't the bit you quoted stating what he thinks of it?



Well yeah-- my brain is just not functioning today at this time of day.


----------



## blamblam (Aug 26, 2005)

hibee said:
			
		

> Dunno, but I think they involve wearing a bandana









 ?


----------



## Bristly Pioneer (Aug 26, 2005)

I remember being on an action at the last DSEi, around a dozen of us had suited up and got onto the DLR and buses travelling to DSEi with the arms dealers.  Attempting to strike up conversation we would ask polite questions to break the ice "are you buying or selling today?" etc.  After a while and once conversations had moved on a bit, they would get a bit harder.

"so what kind of weapons are you into, the long distance village busting types, or up close and personal maiming ones?"

Before long several people on board were denying they were going to the arms fair at all.  Especially once we had opened our cases to try and sell them some prosthetic limbs ("arms" boom boom).  Naturally by this point the whole carriage or bus was listening in and our big strong arms dealers had become very sheepish. (being stuck in a room with no police to protect them).

We would finally pull up at ExCeL and announce that we were going to have a round of applause for anyone getting off for the arms fair.  The whole carriage erupted, with red faced arms dealers walking through the crowds (after having denied they were going to the fair).  Mums and kids laughing and slapping them on the back as they did the walk of shame.

Excellent fun, wound up the dealers no end and made everyone on the bus feel great.  May not have started the revolution, but was certainly a step in the right direction.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> What kind of 'playful and fun' activities are these?
> 
> And at what rate do working class people get drawn into the anarchist 'milieu' because of them?


i believe the anarchist federation keeps the statisticks you seek. how the fucking fuck do you think anyone knows how many people drift into and out of and back into the anarchist scene? how many people drift about the iwca? do _they_ keep files on everyone who comes to their socials or occasionally looks at their website?

the anarchist movement in this country is growing, albeit slowly, as a glance at the main anarchist event of the year, the anarchist bookfair, shows. from conway hall it has moved over the last several years through a series of increasingly large venues to the whatsit centre on holloway road this year. according to press reports, there are thousands upon thousands of wombles in the uk, and that's not counting the rest of the anarchist movement.

as for play & fun, examples are given on this thread and throughout p&p. find them yrself, you lazy sod.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2005)

mattkidd12 said:
			
		

> Examples si'l vous plait.


well, there were 1,500 people at the ruc's launch meeting, all of whom were presumably already members or joined shortly after. at the last ruc conference, 2,800 members were represented. in between times, we were told that the ruc were gaining 30 or 300 members a week, some ridiculous number anyway. the numbers simply don't add up, unless many hundreds left the ruc, forced out like flimsier or out of a growing horrified realisation that the ruc were as wanky an organisation as its namesake. although it will be interesting to see just how many people are represented at this year's ruc fiesta, i would be surprised if it were much above 3,000. the campaign to get a million pounds for last year's euro elections fell flat and - again - i feel that the accounts which finally emerge from the ruc's "little castlereagh" in brick lane will show a party in the doldrums rather than a party on the up & up.


----------



## dirtycrustie (Aug 26, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> I know you asked that at the beginning - I was just wondering if you had any idea of what activity _would_ be positive.


I didn’t really want to get into definitions as I saw them as this thread could easily be derailed into people defending their positions or identities in relation to what they perceive as unfair judgement. But perhaps it would be easier to lay my cards on the Urban 75 table. 
I am opposed to the cult of activism, which I see as another identity that one can buy under capitalism. A role that seems to be increasingly occupied by white men and women between the end of school and the beginning of work or family life. I am  opposed to the specialisation of revolutionary practice in the hands of self-proclaimed activists or militants. As conscious pro-revolutionaries we must attempt to overcome, instead of reinforce, the separation between us and the dispossessed who are not at this moment consciously revolutionary. Most activists see themselves as separate from those whose interests they claim to represent.

I am also reject dialectics…but what does that mean…The rejection of dialectics is initially a very basic position: 1) the character of the ruling class defines the character of the opposition and 2) that opposition must of necessity engage with reality as described by the ruling class..Then 3) the subsequent modifications to the power of the ruling class and thus to reality are wholly determined by the ruling class. Not a brilliant exit strategy, yet one, I believe most in the radical milieu continue to pursue. I am for the break…but I don’t know what this is. In answer to your question thora I don’t think I have any solutions.


----------



## blamblam (Aug 26, 2005)

Pickmans I think you're putting your head in the sand here, trying to avoid the unhappy fact that we are fucked.




			
				Pickman's model said:
			
		

> i believe the anarchist federation keeps the statisticks you seek. how the fucking fuck do you think anyone knows how many people drift into and out of and back into the anarchist scene?


I'm sure you can estimate. And we all know it's not a lot. What in london maybe 40-50 in/out every year.



> the anarchist movement in this country is growing, albeit slowly


Even if that were true - it's still a totally self-referencial activist sub-scene, divorced from society.


> according to press reports, there are thousands upon thousands of wombles in the uk


Yeah but you know they're lies. Like the one saying Class War had 300 members. Why are you trying to present a rosier picture than the reality? Lying to ourselves helps no one.


----------



## sihhi (Aug 26, 2005)

> I'm sure you can estimate. And we all know it's not a lot. What in london maybe 40-50 in/out every year



Is that forty enter and forty leave every year?

What reasons do people give for leaving?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 26, 2005)

dirtycrustie said:
			
		

> A role that seems to be increasingly occupied by white men and women between the end of school and the beginning of work or family life.



I've seen a fair amount of that.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 26, 2005)

dirtycrustie said:
			
		

> I am also reject dialectics…but what does that mean…The rejection of dialectics is initially a very basic position: 1) the character of the ruling class defines the character of the opposition and 2) that opposition must of necessity engage with reality as described by the ruling class..Then 3) the subsequent modifications to the power of the ruling class and thus to reality are wholly determined by the ruling class. Not a brilliant exit strategy, yet one, I believe most in the radical milieu continue to pursue. I am for the break…but I don’t know what this is. In answer to your question thora I don’t think I have any solutions.


I'm not sure I completely get what you're saying here - that because our resistance is defined by what we're resisting, we can't escape it?


----------



## dirtycrustie (Aug 26, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> the anarchist movement in this country is growing, albeit slowly, as a glance at the main anarchist event of the year, the anarchist bookfair, shows. from conway hall it has moved over the last several years through a series of increasingly large venues to the whatsit centre on holloway road this year. according to press reports, there are thousands upon thousands of wombles in the uk, and that's not counting the rest of the anarchist movement.
> 
> I dont think attenence at the bookfair is an indication of the'movements' strength in fact I think it shows how fragile we truely are, and only goes to show the strength of capitalism. In so much as radical identities can be sold back to people...in this case books, t-shirts etc..


----------



## blamblam (Aug 26, 2005)

sihhi said:
			
		

> Is that forty enter and forty leave every year?
> 
> What reasons do people give for leaving?


Lots of reasons I guess, I mean I've basically left the anarchist movement. Why? Cos it's a waste of time. Other people I've spoken to seem to be the same, apart from scenesters who got involved cos they thought it was "cool" and didn't give a shit about the ideas (you can tell them early on cos they say they don't like theory and "dead men with beards")


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 26, 2005)

dirtycrustie said:
			
		

> I dont think attenence at the bookfair is an indication of the'movements' strength in fact I think it shows how fragile we truely are, and only goes to show the strength of capitalism. In so much as radical identities can be sold back to people...in this case books, t-shirts etc..


Ooh!  I love the Class War merchandise!


----------



## dirtycrustie (Aug 26, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I completely get what you're saying here - that because our resistance is defined by what we're resisting, we can't escape it?


 In the framework we are operating inside thats what I think Im saying..


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 26, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> i believe the anarchist federation keeps the statisticks you seek. how the fucking fuck do you think anyone knows how many people drift into and out of and back into the anarchist scene? how many people drift about the iwca? do _they_ keep files on everyone who comes to their socials or occasionally looks at their website?
> 
> the anarchist movement in this country is growing, albeit slowly, as a glance at the main anarchist event of the year, the anarchist bookfair, shows. from conway hall it has moved over the last several years through a series of increasingly large venues to the whatsit centre on holloway road this year. according to press reports, there are thousands upon thousands of wombles in the uk, and that's not counting the rest of the anarchist movement.
> 
> as for play & fun, examples are given on this thread and throughout p&p. find them yrself, you lazy sod.





Ask yourself something about the tone of your post.  Jesus, talk about defensive. Can't help wondering why. 

It was a reasonable enough question, and one that should concern yourself, as an anarchist, more than most.

Why mention the IWCA?  I didn't. 

If the Anarchist Bookfair is the main indicator of a growing anarchist movement then that says a lot, in actual fact.  It says nothing, however, about the anarchist movement's ability to attract working class people, which is what I asked you about. 

There might be 'thousands and thousands of Wombles in the UK' or there might not; that's the trouble: they're so difficult to count while they're underground, overground and wombling free. Anyway, I've heard that the whole shebang could go tits up when Uncle Bulgaria kicks it, which can't be that far off now.  Rest assured, however, that I have never met a single working class person who has ever mentioned the Wombles (the ones you're on about).  This would indicate that they've never even heard of them.  Which press reports claim that there's thousands of them, by the way?  

You are the one that said 'fun and play' is the way forward, and yet you can't give me a single example off the top of your head? Still, it must be one hell of a burden when you've got dozens and dozens of other threads to attend to in the cause of anarchy every single day.


----------



## blamblam (Aug 26, 2005)

dirtycrustie said:
			
		

> I dont think attenence at the bookfair is an indication of the'movements' strength in fact I think it shows how fragile we truely are, and only goes to show the strength of capitalism. In so much as radical identities can be sold back to people...in this case books, t-shirts etc..


Nah it's not capitalism recuperating, that's ridiculous. But the bookfair always looks like mostly people who dropped out in the 80s, and random people who are just interested. No "movement" to speak of.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 26, 2005)

dirtycrustie said:
			
		

> In the framework we are operating inside thats what I think Im saying..


If that's true then surely we can't do anything then - everything is recuperated?  Or maybe all we can do is damage limitation stuff while we wait for the revolution...


----------



## dirtycrustie (Aug 26, 2005)

icepick said:
			
		

> Nah it's not capitalism recuperating, that's ridiculous. But the bookfair always looks like mostly people who dropped out in the 80s, and random people who are just interested. No "movement" to speak of.


how has the bookfair escaped the marketplace of capitalism???


----------



## blamblam (Aug 26, 2005)

dirtycrustie said:
			
		

> how has the bookfair escaped the marketplace of capitalism???


It hasn't, but to say anarchists selling books shows it's been recuperated is just ridiculous. It just doesn't make any logical sense.


----------



## dirtycrustie (Aug 26, 2005)

dirtycrustie said:
			
		

> how has the bookfair escaped the marketplace of capitalism???


not being a twat here...but that implies there is an outside.of capitalism..which i suspose is the point of this thread..to explore these ideas and identities further..


----------



## dirtycrustie (Aug 26, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> If that's true then surely we can't do anything then - everything is recuperated?  Or maybe all we can do is damage limitation stuff while we wait for the revolution...



radical conservation as a justification for activism...mmm...maybe...


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2005)

icepick said:
			
		

> Pickmans I think you're putting your head in the sand here, trying to avoid the unhappy fact that we are fucked.


is that from yr vantage point at work?




> _I'm sure you can estimate. And we all know it's not a lot. What in london maybe 40-50 in/out every year._


how'd you define who's in & who's out? there's always a load of people i've never seen before at the bookfair - there were a load at the g8 from london i'd not previously met - & i expect a lot of people who come out for the fun & games at dsei won't be the regulars like yr good self.




> _Even if that were true - it's still a totally self-referencial activist sub-scene, divorced from society.
> 
> Yeah but you know they're lies. Like the one saying Class War had 300 members. Why are you trying to present a rosier picture than the reality? Lying to ourselves helps no one._


doom-mongers who ignore the growth in the anarchist movement and act like cassandras because they no longer have the influence which once they did do no one any good and dissuade people from becoming involved. i'd agree that the movement is not as large as it should be, but i'd rather talk it up than talk it down. if yr judging by the attendance at the g8, large numbers of people i know didn't go - i expect that a large proportion of people involved in the london anarchist movement didn't go, which i reckon is at least some hundreds of people who stopped in london.

if the anarchist movement is to become as large as i believe it should the last thing it needs is people who ignore the diversity and vibrancy of the movement. although membership of the national organisations hasn't increased dramatically over the last few years, neither have they shrunk (as appears to be the subtext to yr rather bitter comments). where some organisations on the scientifick socialist left are in what one hopes is terminal decline, local anarchist groups - small though they may be - appear to be enjoying a bit of a rebirth of popularity, with many springing up in the run-up to the g8.

whilst discussions of bakunin & kropotkin are just as popular now as they were ten years ago, more relevant discussions attract a greater range of people, both in terms of age & experience, than i recollect them doing some years ago. you may wish to write the obituary of the @ movement now, but i suspect you'll find it somewhat premature.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 26, 2005)

dirtycrustie said:
			
		

> radical conservation as a justification for activism...mmm...maybe...


But dancing in Tescos - that's good too, right?


----------



## sihhi (Aug 26, 2005)

icepick said:
			
		

> Lots of reasons I guess, I mean I've basically left the anarchist movement. Why? Cos it's a waste of time. Other people I've spoken to seem to be the same, apart from scenesters who got involved cos they thought it was "cool" and didn't give a shit about the ideas (you can tell them early on cos they say they don't like theory and "dead men with beards")


  Really? Aren't you in SolFed?

I thought you were describing the AF in particular when you said "40-50 in out".


----------



## dirtycrustie (Aug 26, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> is that from yr vantage point at work?
> 
> 
> [/i]how'd you define who's in & who's out? there's always a load of people i've never seen before at the bookfair - there were a load at the g8 from london i'd not previously met - & i expect a lot of people who come out for the fun & games at dsei won't be the regulars like yr good self.
> ...


 Icepicks right here. Why continue to lie to ourselves. I suspect on some levels its to justify the roles we have chosen to play. Being honest about the state of the 'movement' (real or imaginary) shouldnt be seen as doom-mongering, but should surely be embrassed if you want to see that 'mass movement' you talk about. How will you navigate towards that goal if you defend the activity that keeps its numbers sparce? The anarchist movement has not grown in number despite 200 years of activity...why?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2005)

dirtycrustie said:
			
		

> Pickman's model said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## dirtycrustie (Aug 26, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> dirtycrustie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 26, 2005)

dirtycrustie said:
			
		

> Pickman's model said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2005)

dirtycrustie said:
			
		

> Icepicks right here. Why continue to lie to ourselves. I suspect on some levels its to justify the roles we have chosen to play. Being honest about the state of the 'movement' (real or imaginary) shouldnt be seen as doom-mongering, but should surely be embrassed if you want to see that 'mass movement' you talk about. How will you navigate towards that goal if you defend the activity that keeps its numbers sparce? The anarchist movement has not grown in number despite 200 years of activity...why?


being honest about the state of the movement means recognising that it isn't as large as it could be but also that it is nowhere near as fucked as icepick would make it out.

yeh, it's not in the state i'd like it to be in, but it's slowly getting there.


----------



## dirtycrustie (Aug 26, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> dirtycrustie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 26, 2005)

*Next stop oblivion!*




			
				Pickman's model said:
			
		

> yeh, it's not in the state i'd like it to be in, but it's slowly getting there.





Getting where?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2005)

dirtycrustie said:
			
		

> Pickman's model said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## dirtycrustie (Aug 26, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> dirtycrustie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Drunken Miss Ho (Aug 26, 2005)

dirtycrustie said:
			
		

> Pickman's model said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## dirtycrustie (Aug 26, 2005)

Drunken Miss Ho said:
			
		

> dirtycrustie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Drunken Miss Ho (Aug 26, 2005)

I meant in real terms.


----------



## dirtycrustie (Aug 26, 2005)

dirtycrustie said:
			
		

> Drunken Miss Ho said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 26, 2005)

*We are winning, you are losing....*




			
				Pickman's model said:
			
		

> well, there were 1,500 people at the ruc's launch meeting, all of whom were presumably already members or joined shortly after. at the last ruc conference, 2,800 members were represented. in between times, we were told that the ruc were gaining 30 or 300 members a week, some ridiculous number anyway. the numbers simply don't add up, unless many hundreds left the ruc, forced out like flimsier or out of a growing horrified realisation that the ruc were as wanky an organisation as its namesake. although it will be interesting to see just how many people are represented at this year's ruc fiesta, i would be surprised if it were much above 3,000. the campaign to get a million pounds for last year's euro elections fell flat and - again - i feel that the accounts which finally emerge from the ruc's "little castlereagh" in brick lane will show a party in the doldrums rather than a party on the up & up.





My dad could twat your dad dead easy!

Do you think that part of what even other anarchists in the thread have stated is your distorted perspective with regard to the state of anarchism could be that you seem to define anarchism solely on the basis of putting one over on the Trots? 

It isn't real, you know.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Ask yourself something about the tone of your post.  Jesus, talk about defensive. Can't help wondering why.
> 
> It was a reasonable enough question, and one that should concern yourself, as an anarchist, more than most.
> 
> ...


there are a large number of reasons why working class people don't flock to anarchist groups. partly it's because a lot of people have never met any anarchists and also because a lot of people dislike politicks. there is the influence of the popular media to be countered and also the unfamilarity of a lot of anarchists with the working class. of course, many working class people may not feel that anarchism is the solution to their problems. when, on occasion, i have suggested to other members of the anarchist movement that it might be an idea to look at several areas of london which would not be unfriendly to anarchist ideas, the reason nothing's subsequently been done about it is that a lot of anarchists are lazy. so, there are any number of reasons why the wider working class isn't beating a path to the af or cw or sol fed or whateveranarchistgroup door. 

why mention the iwca? why not?

if you had been following the media with the same assiduity with which you bore others into submission, you'd have noticed the stories run last year before the european summit in dublin, and i believe similar stories were printed in the run-up to the g8.

i would have you might have come across the antics of the clowns at the g8 summit, or the playful nature of the mayday action in hackney this year. but maybe you don't follow such things.


----------



## Drunken Miss Ho (Aug 26, 2005)

Ok, going back to the first post - There are many valid criticisms of activism. What we should be looking at is do they work? Do they get us from A to B? Activism is of course very much flawed, but this is not always to do with it being co-opted or recuperated.

It is impossible for us to fully transcend capitalism while that capitalist society still goes on around us, and historically movements which try to do so - hippy communes, "free spaces" etc - have got us nowhere and only created seperatism. Class conflict is inherent in class society. 

In concrete terms, sometimes in struggle we may have to make use of reformist unions, this or that liberal law and so on. The question is not "is this transcending capitalism?" but "Is this going to be effective in achieving our aims?"


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> My dad could twat your dad dead easy!
> 
> Do you think that part of what even other anarchists in the thread have stated is your distorted perspective with regard to the state of anarchism could be that you seem to define anarchism solely on the basis of putting one over on the Trots?
> 
> It isn't real, you know.


did you ever stop to think that my reply to mattkidd12 was perhaps tongue in cheek?


----------



## blamblam (Aug 27, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> is that from yr vantage point at work?


Ha ha that's just great.

You're slagging me off for having a job. I love the anarchist movement.

I won't reply to all of your post pickmans cos it seems like we both have irreconcilably different ideas, but as for this: "the diversity and vibrancy of the movement" - come on. You can't even believe that, surely. 

Not that I'm agreeing with LLETSA by the way, I think his crude idea about how to judge the "success" of "anarchism" is by how many "working class" people talk about one group or another (how well would the IWCA fare by that mark??). For me the only thing that's important is the strength of the class to organise itself in its own interest. That we can defend past gains, and eventually win new ones. I think that the best way for the working class to win concrete improvements to our lives is using anarchist/lib communist ideas - of grassroots, directly democratic organisation, and direct action. So the success of "anarchism" for me isn't whether this national federation or that manages to pass the 50-members mark, whether we win a couple of other clowns or "networkers", but just by our ability to solve our own problems collectively, as a class.



(NB There is obviously a *correlation* between general working class militancy and the size of class struggle anarchist organisations - like Spain, Italy, France, Sweden etc.)


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2005)

icepick said:
			
		

> You're slagging me off for having a job. I love the anarchist movement.


yr vantage point at work, as opposed to yr previous vantage point from a better viewing position in whitechapel.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2005)

icepick said:
			
		

> So the success of "anarchism" for me isn't whether this national federation or that manages to pass the 50-members mark, whether we win a couple of other clowns or "networkers", but just by our ability to solve our own problems collectively, as a class.


  is there either rhyme or reason to that sentence?


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 27, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> is there either rhyme or reason to that sentence?


I think I understood it


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> I think I understood it


could you please explain it for us thickies to whom it makes no sense, whatsoever?


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 27, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> could you please explain it for us thickies to whom it makes no sense, whatsoever?


I thought he was saying that the indicators of the health of the anarcho scene (I don't think you can really accuse it of being a movement) - size of groups, "vibrancy" of demos etc. - isn't really an indication of the success of anarchism as he defines it; "our ability to solve our own problems collectively, as a class".


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> I thought he was saying that the indicators of the health of the anarcho scene (I don't think you can really accuse it of being a movement) - size of groups, "vibrancy" of demos etc. - isn't really an indication of the success of anarchism as he defines it; "our ability to solve our own problems collectively, as a class".


i thought he was saying that as well, at first.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 27, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> i thought he was saying that as well, at first.


At first - so what do you think he's saying now?  And where's the man himself to put us straight?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> At first - so what do you think he's saying now?  And where's the man himself to put us straight?


the main problem i can see is that anarchists are a tiny minority of the working - & even of the middle - class. so how we can somehow solve the problems of the class, presumably for the class, & how that relates to anarchism as we know & love it, seems problematick to say the least.

& where is he? reconsidering?


----------



## montevideo (Aug 27, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Ask yourself something about the tone of your post.  Jesus, talk about defensive. Can't help wondering why.
> 
> It was a reasonable enough question, and one that should concern yourself, as an anarchist, more than most.
> 
> ...




which is fair enough, but the working class people who have heard of the wombles or who have come across us have no problems with us at all, indeed the only people who have problems with us are other anarchists, leftists & other disgruntled politicos. And in the real world they do count for shit. 

If the question is why aren't more working class people involved in anarchist organisations (as opposed to a method of working) i honestly don't know. But i do know anyone here trying to explain what working class people do & think, only do so by resorting to cliche & stereotype. Plus we could extend it to why working class people aren't attracted to radical politics_ per se_, & take that as our starting point.

The options are obvious, we become the cynical half-breeds of malcontents telling everyone _"what we should be doing"_ (without every putting their heads over the parrapet, in whatever political way they see appropriate) or we actually contribute to the ongoing struggle (in whatever way they see apropriate).

My problem isn't with those with a different political opinion or method (heaven forbid), but with those who have no intention of being involved in anything regardless of their political viewpoint.


----------



## Velvetine (Aug 27, 2005)

" Do you believe there is an activity that we can engage in politically that cannot be recuperated back by the totality of the state/capitalism?"

Offing the ruling class. every last one of them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2005)

Velvetine said:
			
		

> " Do you believe there is an activity that we can engage in politically that cannot be recuperated back by the totality of the state/capitalism?"
> 
> Offing the ruling class. every last one of them.


good first post! 

welcome aboard!


----------



## blamblam (Aug 27, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> the main problem i can see is that anarchists are a tiny minority of the working - & even of the middle - class. so how we can somehow solve the problems of the class, presumably for the class, & how that relates to anarchism as we know & love it, seems problematick to say the least.
> 
> & where is he? reconsidering?


Sorry didn't know you were all hanging around for an answer. I have been, er, otherwise engaged 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Anyway Pickman's, I would like to think that you were intelligent enough to understand what I said, as Thora did, and are just saying that in order to be pendantic.

I'm sure you'll already know that I don't think anarchists should solve the problems of the class (most are even incapable of solving their own problems! ), I think that what's important is our class being able to solve problems for itself.

Now for this:


> yr vantage point at work, as opposed to yr previous vantage point from a better viewing position in whitechapel.


Firstly I'm not going to get into the game of trying to insult you about what I perceive your personal political activity to be, cos that's pathetic. But let me get this straight - you slag me off for having a job, cos I can't possibly perceive things about the world from my position at work. Now you try to slag me off for being involved in an anarchist publication/building in Whitechapel - both of which you have also helped out with. I was also working while I worked there as well, btw. So maybe I had 2 vantage points?

Please tell me then what is the "vantage point" from which I can see things about the world the Pickman's - or is it somewhere I'm unlikely to ever be, like in front of your computer screen?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2005)

i would like to think you were intelligent enough to express yrself with clarity.

you've said above that you've essentially severed yr previous close connection with the anarchist movement. yr decision to leave, to remove yrself from the movement, has given you a certain, to my mind negative, slant on anarchism in britain. yr point of view, then, is more than a little biased. 

if you want to pretend i'm slagging you off for either yr involvement with freedom or for yr employment, think that if you will. 

since yr self-imposed departure from the @ movement, you seem to have adopted an agenda perhaps to justify yr exile, perhaps because you are no longer the victim of the passion you used to have. perhaps for some other reasons... i neither know or greatly care. but since you think the anarchist movement is, in yr words, a waste of time, i wouldn't expect to hear anything good or constructive about british anarchism from you.


----------



## revol68 (Aug 27, 2005)

the fact you care about the anarchist movement says everything i need to know. The anarchist movement means nothing, it's a closed self referencial point. At least those of us who have attempted to stand back and reasess the relationship between the "movement" and class take anarchism seriously enough to want it to be an actual organic response from the proletariat, as opposed a movement of marginalised malcontents who run from activity to activity in blind terror that any lose of momentum would leave them a few seconds to grasp the futility of their activism.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 27, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> the fact you care about the anarchist movement says everything i need to know. The anarchist movement means nothing, it's a closed self referencial point. At least those of us who have attempted to stand back and reasess the relationship between the "movement" and class take anarchism seriously enough to want it to be an actual organic response from the proletariat, as opposed a movement of marginalised malcontents who run from activity to activity in blind terror that any lose of momentum would leave them a few seconds to grasp the futility of their activism.


what does that mean?

what have you & yr mates done in this reassessing break you've taken? what new insights has yr reassessment given you? why are you inactive, and have you any plans for any activity in the future, of any description? & why d'you believe that yr inactivity is in some way revolutionary?


----------



## revol68 (Aug 27, 2005)

you dpn't need to be an activist to be active you muppet.


----------



## blamblam (Aug 27, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> i would like to think you were intelligent enough to express yrself with clarity.


Everyone else seemed to understand it, Pickman's.



> you've said above that you've essentially severed yr previous close connection with the anarchist movement. yr decision to leave, to remove yrself from the movement, has given you a certain, to my mind negative, slant on anarchism in britain. yr point of view, then, is more than a little biased.


That's a ridiculous ad hominem. Why do you think I've moved away from the anarchist movement? Cos it's a detached, self-referential subcultural scene.


> if you want to pretend i'm slagging you off for either yr involvement with freedom or for yr employment, think that if you will.


Why don't you just explain what you mean? And if someone who is either a worker, or involved in Freedom bookshop can't have valid opinions on things, I repeat the question - who can?

FWIW I still have the same passion for a different world, and for all of us to haves lives truly worth living, that I did a couple of years ago. Unfortunately I don't think the anarchist scene as it is now is helping us get that, and I think you are fooling yourself about its current state.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 28, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> you dpn't need to be an activist to be active you muppet.


but you appear to be neither.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 28, 2005)

icepick said:
			
		

> That's a ridiculous ad hominem. Why do you think I've moved away from the anarchist movement? Cos it's a detached, self-referential subcultural scene.


yeh? and are you pretending to be objective? what's ad hominem about saying that i don't trust yr analysis as you have - for yr own very good reasons, i'm sure - decided to leave 'the movement'? to my mind yr like an ex-smoker who roundly condemns all smokers and that. i think you've found some slaggy words you like the sound of, & that you'll keeep repeating them like a mantra (as, for example, on this thread) no matter how wanky or wrong they may be.



> _Why don't you just explain what you mean? And if someone who is either a worker, or involved in Freedom bookshop can't have valid opinions on things, I repeat the question - who can?_


yr a worker in the freedom bookshop? that goes against a lot of what i've recently heard. anyone can have a perfectly reasonable opinion on anything, but whether it stands up to criticism or scrutiny, aye, there's the rub. you can have yr opinion, which you really are perfectly entitled to. but you ought to expect people to attack yr opinion, as they do mine, when it appears rather at odds with reality.



> _FWIW I still have the same passion for a different world, and for all of us to haves lives truly worth living, that I did a couple of years ago. Unfortunately I don't think the anarchist scene as it is now is helping us get that, and I think you are fooling yourself about its current state._


are you saying that i am wrong to assert the @ movement's growing? Y/N.


----------



## revol68 (Aug 28, 2005)

In terms of the anarchist movement growing, well you do know the distinction between qualitive and quantitive?


----------



## Drunken Miss Ho (Aug 28, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> but you appear to be neither.



How the fuck would you know? Do you even know him?

You basically seem to be arguing along totally different lines to Icepick and Revol. You are stuck in a dead end movement. Anarcho activism is useless whether it has ten, a thousand or a hundred thousand adherents. You seem to be unable to comprehend that people can be active/passionate/"doing summat" when they see no value in summit protest, stunt protest, counter-culture, radical networks or whatever.

Like you, I can't speak for how active Revol is, but in my personal situation - I turned my back on activism some time ago and I am now busier with organisational activities than ever before - involved in a pay dispute at work, involved in a (very close to success) community issue campaign, secretary of a local libertarian group, active in a trade union and writing occasional articles for Freedom.

What's more this is activity that is far more rewarding than anything I have ever been involved with before, and I'm feeling more empowered than I have done before. I don't want to be a face in the crowd on a dispiriting A-B demo, or risk arrest on some crappy little insurrectionist action - I'm sick of all the bullshit that passes for a movement, be it from Trots, anarchists or radical liberals.


----------



## montevideo (Aug 28, 2005)

Drunken Miss Ho said:
			
		

> How the fuck would you know? Do you even know him?
> 
> You basically seem to be arguing along totally different lines to Icepick and Revol. You are stuck in a dead end movement. Anarcho activism is useless whether it has ten, a thousand or a hundred thousand adherents. You seem to be unable to comprehend that people can be active/passionate/"doing summat" when they see no value in summit protest, stunt protest, counter-culture, radical networks or whatever.
> 
> ...




what's the community issue campaign?


----------



## Drunken Miss Ho (Aug 28, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> what's the community issue campaign?



It involves a certain bus station closure.

No, it's not very glamourous, but it is a concrete issue which there is widespread public anger over, and we also may be winning.


----------



## montevideo (Aug 28, 2005)

Drunken Miss Ho said:
			
		

> It involves a certain bus station closure.
> 
> No, it's not very glamourous, but it is a concrete issue which there is widespread public anger over, and we also may be winning.



in colchester?

(good luck with it anyway).


----------



## Random (Aug 28, 2005)

Drunken Miss Ho said:
			
		

> I turned my back on activism some time ago and I am now busier with organisational activities than ever before - involved in a pay dispute at work, involved in a (very close to success) community issue campaign, secretary of a local libertarian group, active in a trade union and writing occasional articles for Freedom.



you've certainly not turned your back on activism.  It sounds like you're involved with a different kind to Pickmans, but you're still definitely an 'activist', in the sense of having a specialised role.


----------



## Drunken Miss Ho (Aug 28, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> in colchester?



That's the one. I see our fame spreads far and wide.   



> (good luck with it anyway).



Thanks.


----------



## Drunken Miss Ho (Aug 28, 2005)

Random said:
			
		

> you've certainly not turned your back on activism.  It sounds like you're involved with a different kind to Pickmans, but you're still definitely an 'activist', in the sense of having a specialised role.



I am "active", yes, but I am not "doing something" for "somethings" sake, which to my mind is what activISM entails.


----------



## Ryazan (Aug 28, 2005)

What exactly does Pickman's do?


----------



## mk12 (Aug 28, 2005)

Do you mean _apart_ from stalking George Galloway?


----------



## Ryazan (Aug 28, 2005)

I didn't know he did that?

Maybe he has even broken into his home and rummaged through his drawers looking for underwear to sniff.


----------



## Random (Aug 28, 2005)

Drunken Miss Ho said:
			
		

> I am "active", yes, but I am not "doing something" for "somethings" sake, which to my mind is what activISM entails.



You seem to be part of a community/scene where you get respect for 'doing something', and you seem to think that, by 'doing something' you are engaged in useful activity.  

That sounds like all other activism to me.  You just seem to be arguing with other activists about whose activism is better.

Which is a very activIST thing to do   

The worst kind of activism is that which is not recognised -- like Montevideo's 'I'm not in an activist scene'.  We need to be honest about where we're coming from, rather than pretending we've foind some magic political space outside of 'activism'.  Some kinds are simply more healthy than others, while sharing a common set of pitfalls.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 28, 2005)

Drunken Miss Ho said:
			
		

> How the fuck would you know? Do you even know him?


had you read revol68's posts, you would have known whence i got the information upon which i based my conclusions.



> _You basically seem to be arguing along totally different lines to Icepick and Revol._


you really are on the ball today.





> _ You are stuck in a dead end movement._


no, i'm not.





> _ Anarcho activism is useless whether it has ten, a thousand or a hundred thousand adherents. You seem to be unable to comprehend that people can be active/passionate/"doing summat" when they see no value in summit protest, stunt protest, counter-culture, radical networks or whatever._


maybe, but that has absolutely nothing to do with anything i've said. 



> _Like you, I can't speak for how active Revol is, but in my personal situation - I turned my back on activism some time ago and I am now busier with organisational activities than ever before - involved in a pay dispute at work, involved in a (very close to success) community issue campaign, secretary of a local libertarian group, active in a trade union and writing occasional articles for Freedom._


good for you.



> _What's more this is activity that is far more rewarding than anything I have ever been involved with before, and I'm feeling more empowered than I have done before. I don't want to be a face in the crowd on a dispiriting A-B demo, or risk arrest on some crappy little insurrectionist action - I'm sick of all the bullshit that passes for a movement, be it from Trots, anarchists or radical liberals._


i'm very pleased for you. but what has any of that got to do with my posts, to which i thought you were responding?


----------



## Drunken Miss Ho (Aug 28, 2005)

Random said:
			
		

> You seem to be part of a community/scene where you get respect for 'doing something', and you seem to think that, by 'doing something' you are engaged in useful activity.



Really? Am I getting much respect by posting on a forum which seems to be mainly populated by radical liberals and telling them that their summit protests and DSEi blockades are a load of balls?

The problem with the idea of activism (and this goes for everyone from CIRCA to the SWP) is that it tries to manufacture struggles, forming the tiniest of opposition groups to oppose the largest symbolic structures of capitlism, and approaching every genuine struggle as an outsider. It is the idea of being a politically active person raised to an end in itself.


----------



## sihhi (Aug 28, 2005)

Drunken Miss Ho said:
			
		

> Am I getting much respect by posting on a forum which seems to be mainly populated by radical liberals and telling them that their *summit protests and DSEi blockades are a load of balls*?



You've got my respect.  
I've never been to a summit or a Dsei blockade protest either.


----------



## Random (Aug 28, 2005)

No, the scene I'm talking about is the one in Colchester, which does seem to be based on the same kind of mutual support as other activist scenes, and quite right too, that's how activists survive.

Where I disagree with you is the fact that you seem to think you're not an activist just because you don't share all the worst faults of, for example, tokenistic protest activism.  Not all activities within the anarchist scene have the problems you describe, and so your criticisms aren't as useful as you think.

Edit: so instead of being a critique of 'activism' you are actually just taking part in a debate between two different wings of activism, which share many of the same strengths and weaknesses.


----------



## Drunken Miss Ho (Aug 28, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> what has any of that got to do with my posts, to which i thought you were responding?



So, on this thread you haven't

a) Pointed to the growth of anarchism as if that was inherently a good thing
b) Assumed people who have turned their back on the movement are inactive, or lacking "passion" as a result of doing so?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 28, 2005)

Drunken Miss Ho said:
			
		

> So, on this thread you haven't
> 
> a) Pointed to the growth of anarchism as if that was inherently a good thing
> b) Assumed people who have turned their back on the movement are inactive, or lacking "passion" as a result of doing so?


which are you arguing, that or what you were on about in yr previous post?

what do you mean by "the growth of anarchism"?

some people who have left the movement are inactive, some lack passion as a result of doing so, and some are both inactive and without passion, and there are of course others.


----------



## Drunken Miss Ho (Aug 28, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> which are you arguing, that or what you were on about in yr previous post?
> 
> what do you mean by "the growth of anarchism"?
> 
> some people who have left the movement are inactive, some lack passion as a result of doing so, and some are both inactive and without passion, and there are of course others.



Are you being deliberately dense to appear more authentically working class or something?

For the last couple of pages more or less all you've done is either restate the tautology of "You lot seperated yourself from the anarchist movement, therefore you are against it" or just claimed to not understand people's points, rather than actually attempting to defend the anarchist movement you love so much.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 28, 2005)

Drunken Miss Ho said:
			
		

> Are you being deliberately dense to appear more authentically working class or something?


could you please expain  why you associate the working class with stupidity?


----------



## Random (Aug 28, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> could you please expain  why you associate the working class with stupidity?



Wait for her to consult with the Borg group-mind...


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 28, 2005)

Random said:
			
		

> Wait for her to consult with the Borg group-mind...


are you  openly caggist?


----------



## Random (Aug 28, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> openly caggist



PMSL


----------



## montevideo (Aug 28, 2005)

Random said:
			
		

> You seem to be part of a community/scene where you get respect for 'doing something', and you seem to think that, by 'doing something' you are engaged in useful activity.
> 
> That sounds like all other activism to me.  You just seem to be arguing with other activists about whose activism is better.
> 
> ...



the worst kind? Are you suggesting the refusal to step into a self contained category somehow dishonest? Who is this 'we' you talk of?


----------



## sevenstars (Aug 28, 2005)

_The problem with the idea of activism (and this goes for everyone from CIRCA to the SWP) is that it tries to manufacture struggles, forming the tiniest of opposition groups to oppose the largest symbolic structures of capitlism, and approaching every genuine struggle as an outsider. It is the idea of being a politically active person raised to an end in itself.[/QUOTE]_

Thats interesting. My view is that capitalism creates the basis for active opposition to itself on a whole range of seperate and sectional issues. The point of  organisation should be to pull those actively engaged in these struggles together, all the more to increase the solidarity and to develop a political alternative to capitalism itself.


----------



## Drunken Miss Ho (Aug 28, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> could you please expain  why you associate the working class with stupidity?



I don't. I was wondering if maybe your inability to grasp simple premises was some kind of Class War Federation-style prole-fetishising anti-intellectualism.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 29, 2005)

Drunken Miss Ho said:
			
		

> I don't.


oh yes you do! 






			
				Drunken Miss Ho said:
			
		

> Are you being deliberately dense to appear more authentically working class or something?


you clearly believe the working class are "dense" - what other possible meaning could you have?


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 29, 2005)

icepick said:
			
		

> Ha ha that's just great.
> 
> Not that I'm agreeing with LLETSA by the way, I think his crude idea about how to judge the "success" of "anarchism" is by how many "working class" people talk about one group or another (how well would the IWCA fare by that mark??).





Where have you got that from?  If you read my posts again you'll see that I never said anything of the kind.  As I said to Pickman's, I never even mentioned the IWCA; he did.  

That so many Trots and anarchists on here see -unprompted- the need to throw the IWCA into the mix so often is very revealing.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 29, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> did you ever stop to think that my reply to mattkidd12 was perhaps tongue in cheek?





Not really, seeing as how about 50% of what you write seems to be about the SWP and/or Galloway. If you had a mission statement it would be 'Destroy the SWP.'  If indeed you can destroy anything by obsessively posting messages on an internet board about it. 

As pointed out, the whole Trot vs anarchist thing is entirely irrelevant to anybody outside of the tiny organisations concerned.  Again: it isn't real, Pickman's.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 29, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> which is fair enough, but the working class people who have heard of the wombles or who have come across us have no problems with us at all





What every single one of them?


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 29, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> My problem isn't with those with a different political opinion or method (heaven forbid), but with those who have no intention of being involved in anything regardless of their political viewpoint.





So you have a problem with about 98% of the working class then?


----------



## Wilf (Aug 29, 2005)

A belated entry on the numbers thing:

For the last couple of years I would have agreed with the 'anarchism is in decline thesis' - from the experience of declining Maydays, the ability of the trots to sanitise and take back the anti-war movement etc.  Must say though, like Pickmans, i think there is now a bit more of a positive tale to tell.  At the Projectile film festival earlier this year in Newcastle about 150 people attended - and that was the first explicitly anarchist event in the City for years.  Of that, perhaps 30 - 35 travelled and needed accommodation - suggesting 100+ locals were there at some point.  Similarly at the G8 - must have been 30-40 ppl from Newcastle or very closeby in attendance (hmmm.. must stop posting info useful to the OB).

Of couse these folks will be a mixture of scenesters, independednts, occasional anarchists and the merely curious.  And thats maybe the issue - that more and more anarchists are not members of the Federations/bigger groupings.  And thats also where we get into debates about social v lifestyle; clowns v communities etc.  Personally i would like to see this growth (if growth it be) rooted in real class struggle - and possessing an explicit class politics.  HOwever it doesn't follow that if these things are not in place, we should regard these little bits of good news as worthless.  Surely its best to try and make some links between all of this and worksers struggles?


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 29, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> But i do know anyone here trying to explain what working class people do & think, only do so by resorting to cliche & stereotype. Plus we could extend it to why working class people aren't attracted to radical politics_ per se_, & take that as our starting point.





As you're quoting one of my posts, I assume that's directed at me.  But if you read what I've said, I have not tried to do anything of the kind. What I might have done is broadly generalised from what are hardly difficult-to-notice attitudes, particularly if, like me, you associate with almost no politicos at all. 

It seems that many politicos dislike such broad generalistions merely to fool themselves into believing that there is a more widespread acceptance of their ideas than is actually the case. It is connected to the use of political belief as a substitute religion.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 29, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Not really, seeing as how about 50% of what you write seems to be about the SWP and/or Galloway. If you had a mission statement it would be 'Destroy the SWP.'  If indeed you can destroy anything by obsessively posting messages on an internet board about it.
> 
> As pointed out, the whole Trot vs anarchist thing is entirely irrelevant to anybody outside of the tiny organisations concerned.  Again: it isn't real, Pickman's.


50%? you lying little swine.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 29, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Not really, seeing as how about 50% of what you write seems to be about the SWP and/or Galloway. If you had a mission statement it would be 'Destroy the SWP.'  If indeed you can destroy anything by obsessively posting messages on an internet board about it.
> 
> As pointed out, the whole Trot vs anarchist thing is entirely irrelevant to anybody outside of the tiny organisations concerned.  Again: it isn't real, Pickman's.


if you are going to get involved in a numbers game about my posts, please - _please_ - try to be accurate in future. by showing both how obsessed you are with my posts & how estranged from reality you are when it comes to the same you only make yrself look like a fuckwit. 

when you say that the trot v anarchist thing is irrelevant to people outside those organisations yr on firmer ground. but yr not in those organisations and yet you seem to take an unhealthy interest in it. why is that? perhaps it's one rule for you and another rule for everyone else. however, i don't think i've ever posted about how trots v @ists is a vast and fascinating topick for those uninvolved.

yr out of touch and confused, LLETSA.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 29, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> if you are going to get involved in a numbers game about my posts, please - _please_ - try to be accurate in future. by showing both how obsessed you are with my posts & how estranged from reality you are when it comes to the same you only make yrself look like a fuckwit.
> 
> when you say that the trot v anarchist thing is irrelevant to people outside those organisations yr on firmer ground. but yr not in those organisations and yet you seem to take an unhealthy interest in it. why is that? perhaps it's one rule for you and another rule for everyone else. however, i don't think i've ever posted about how trots v @ists is a vast and fascinating topick for those uninvolved.
> 
> yr out of touch and confused, LLETSA.





Nay laddie-I hardly ever read your posts unless you just happen to be in a thread I'm interested in.  This is particularly the case if you are the thread starter, as you can usually tell from the title (and your posting record) that they will be among the least enlightening threads on the boards. But there you go; you wish to over-estimate you own importance (you seem to think all this somehow means something in the real world, for one thing, hence your over-sensitivity to criticism), so that is what you will do.  Good luck. 

Out of touch?  Confused?  Who cares?  But having perused your early contributions to this thread, that really is one of those pot, kettle, black scenarios matie. 

And by the way-I know time is tight when you've got to put the hours in on here every day (are you on piece-work?), but if you must insist on saving time by using abbreviations, you should realise that 'yr' is short for 'your', and not 'you're' or 'you are.'


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 29, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Nay laddie-I hardly ever read your posts unless you just happen to be in a thread I'm interested in.


yr still a lying little swine, with a large dose of (self-confessed) ignorance chucked in for good measure.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 29, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> yr still a lying little swine, with a large dose of (self-confessed) ignorance chucked in for good measure.





Ouch!

As I said, the keywords here: one's, self, seriously, takes, over.


----------



## JoePolitix (Aug 29, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> What every single one of them?



Certainly not the author of this piece anyway...

http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Latest/Wombles.html


----------



## montevideo (Aug 29, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> So you have a problem with about 98% of the working class then?



a problem with polticos. Of which naturally i count you as one.


But while we're on the subject let's take as our starting point why working class people aren't attracted to radical politics _per se_?


----------



## montevideo (Aug 29, 2005)

JoePolitix said:
			
		

> Certainly not the author of this piece anyway...
> 
> http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Latest/Wombles.html



your right there joe. Here's the response...

http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Next/Letters.html


----------



## JoePolitix (Aug 29, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> your right there joe. Here's the response...
> 
> http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Next/Letters.html



I'm happy to nominate myself as a second individual who does have a problem with the WOMBLES. I didn't particulary enjoy being penned in to Oxford Street for hours on Mayday 2001, due in part to the pointless kamikaze-style attacks on police lines etc by elitist formations like as the wombles.

Oh and don't even get me started on the name...


----------



## Drunken Miss Ho (Aug 29, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> oh yes you do! you clearly believe the working class are "dense" - what other possible meaning could you have?



I was pointing to (the likes of) CWF's fetishising of working class _stereotypes_. You know, all that patronising deliberate mis-spelling of words, over-the-top cockneyism and dumbing down you get in London Calling.

Throughout this thread rather than actually come back on arguments you have just claimed other people's posts don't make sense. I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt, and suggesting maybe you were just pulling some "me thicky prole" stunt. But maybe you actually are that stupid.


----------



## montevideo (Aug 29, 2005)

JoePolitix said:
			
		

> I'm happy to nominate myself as a second individual who does have a problem with the WOMBLES. I didn't particulary enjoy being penned in to Oxford Street for hours on Mayday 2001, due in part to the pointless kamikaze-style attacks on police lines etc by elitist formations like as the wombles.
> 
> Oh and don't even get me started on the name...



4 years too late & factually wrong but... i put you down as another politico/leftist/other anarchist shall i...


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 29, 2005)

Drunken Miss Ho said:
			
		

> I was pointing to (the likes of) CWF's fetishising of working class _stereotypes_. You know, all that patronising deliberate mis-spelling of words, over-the-top cockneyism and dumbing down you get in London Calling.





Gawblimey, you one o'them fackin' toffs or what then?


----------



## Ryazan (Aug 29, 2005)

Nah, ah sin er do the Lamberth Walk before now.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 29, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> a problem with polticos. Of which naturally i count you as one.
> 
> 
> But while we're on the subject let's take as our starting point why working class people aren't attracted to radical politics _per se_?





The main reasons are the defeat and ongoing decomposition of the 20th century left, the irrelevance of the lingering ideological fetishes of its remnants, and the fact that nothing has yet come along to replace them.  

In short, there's nowt visible to get involved with, and, given the sacrifices that were made (and committed) by the above, no confidence that the ultimate struggle is a winnable one.


----------



## dirtycrustie (Aug 29, 2005)

Drunken Miss Ho said:
			
		

> Ok, going back to the first post - There are many valid criticisms of activism. What we should be looking at is do they work? Do they get us from A to B? Activism is of course very much flawed, but this is not always to do with it being co-opted or recuperated.
> 
> It is impossible for us to fully transcend capitalism while that capitalist society still goes on around us, and historically movements which try to do so - hippy communes, "free spaces" etc - have got us nowhere and only created seperatism. Class conflict is inherent in class society.
> 
> In concrete terms, sometimes in struggle we may have to make use of reformist unions, this or that liberal law and so on. The question is not "is this transcending capitalism?" but "Is this going to be effective in achieving our aims?"



Im interested in persueing this discussion further especially as I have rejected  movement building through consiousness raising as a model of revolutionary organisation.


----------



## dirtycrustie (Aug 29, 2005)

p.s

slightly confused as to who people are referring to when they mention 'the working class'. The way some of the posts are constructed the reader is left with the impression that the working class are an ethnic group with a unique hegemonic culture. Why this may have been true for communities 100 years ago (when we all worked at the mill and lived in the same street) the same can not be said for today. For example I like revolutionary books, radio 4 and gardening, while my neighbour enjoys white lightening cider, keeping dogs in his car, and playing loud techno. Who is more representative of the class...


----------



## JoePolitix (Aug 29, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> 4 years too late & factually wrong but... i put you down as another politico/leftist/other anarchist shall i...



So anyone who would have been present at London Mayday other than a member of the Wombels then? Sure, put me down as that.

p.s I'm glad to see that Wombels squats have now been fitted with internet access. Whatever next, showers and baths maybe? (sorry couldn't resist that one!   )


----------



## montevideo (Aug 29, 2005)

JoePolitix said:
			
		

> So anyone who would have been present at London Mayday other than a member of the Wombels then? Sure, put me down as that.
> 
> p.s I'm glad to see that Wombels squats have now been fitted with internet access. Whatever next, showers and baths maybe? (sorry couldn't resist that one!   )



you're a politico mate, party hack, cadre, what ever you want to call it. The line is over there. Go follow it. Cluelessly.


----------



## JoePolitix (Aug 29, 2005)

Drunken Miss Ho said:
			
		

> I was pointing to (the likes of) CWF's fetishising of working class _stereotypes_. You know, all that patronising deliberate mis-spelling of words, over-the-top cockneyism and dumbing down you get in London Calling.
> 
> Throughout this thread rather than actually come back on arguments you have just claimed other people's posts don't make sense. I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt, and suggesting maybe you were just pulling some "me thicky prole" stunt. But maybe you actually are that stupid.



What’s so lame (it would be disturbing if anyone actually gave a shit) about CWF literature is the nauseating way it reveals in gory violence. You know the sort of "workin’ class  and ‘ard" Mad Frankie Fraiser road to communism. 

And all that morbid iconography, they must be the only group other than neo-nazis to adopt the skull and crossbones as their official logo. Not big and not clever, and not "working class" neiver.

The most recent example I can think of to demonstrate the way CWF make a virtue out of violence is in a sticker of theirs currently doing the rounds. It says "Make Poverty History – Kill the Rich!" against a backdrop of rows of gravestones. This is the sort of stuff that keeps Pol Pots’ grave warm.


----------



## dirtycrustie (Aug 29, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> a problem with polticos. Of which naturally i count you as one.
> 
> 
> But while we're on the subject let's take as our starting point why working class people aren't attracted to radical politics _per se_?



lets pursue this... personally I think we are privaleged  to able to have the luxory of time to  consider revolutionary ideas..for who of our neighbours has time to contemplate revolutionary ideas? They have bills to pay, kids to feed and drive to school, work, tv, love and everything else in between. Also how are people able to seperate our ideas from those of the other 'experts' leninist/statist/religious who promise to be able to solve their problems  if only they would convert to their ideology?


----------



## dirtycrustie (Aug 29, 2005)

..


----------



## dirtycrustie (Aug 29, 2005)

dirtycrustie said:
			
		

> ..


Most people who come into contact with the anarchist/activist  scene leave quickly. Due in part to the vast majority of groups being dominated by the ego's of one or two individuals who usually set the pace and tone of the groups political activity...when people see through this stich up and recognise that their opininon is as respected as it was back in the SWP they usually fuck off sharpish...rather that than sit in some smokey back street pub opposite an alcoholic sub-leninist bore.


----------



## Ryazan (Aug 29, 2005)

I am a bit iffy about people who post replies to replies to their own posts.


----------



## dirtycrustie (Aug 29, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> I am a bit iffy about people who post replies to replies to their own posts.


yes...sorry about that....often think of something to add just as I hit send...


----------



## Ryazan (Aug 29, 2005)

I was only messing.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 29, 2005)

dirtycrustie said:
			
		

> p.s
> 
> slightly confused as to who people are referring to when they mention 'the working class'. The way some of the posts are constructed the reader is left with the impression that the working class are an ethnic group with a unique hegemonic culture. Why this may have been true for communities 100 years ago (when we all worked at the mill and lived in the same street) the same can not be said for today. For example I like revolutionary books, radio 4 and gardening, while my neighbour enjoys white lightening cider, keeping dogs in his car, and playing loud techno. Who is more representative of the class...





People make too much of the 'who are the working class?' question. Usually it's asked by those who, for whatever reason, want to pretend that there's no working class anymore, or else wishfully think that everybody except actual capitalists are working class. (I'm not saying you are doing this.)

The kind of 'hegemonic working class culture' that you refer to (if it ever existed) began to break up decades before the decline in working class consciousness (meant in the political sense), and can be linked in large part to the growth of the consumer society. That in recent polls a majority of those questioned regarded themselves as working class is one indication that people make too much of the diversity of lifestyles that the working class now contains. 

If an effective working class movement rises again, it will be recognised by those at whom its appeal is directed-but only if it arises from the politically conscious elements of the class itself.


----------



## catch (Aug 29, 2005)

dirtycrustie said:
			
		

> lets pursue this... personally I think we are privaleged  to able to have the luxory of time to  consider revolutionary ideas..for who of our neighbours has time to contemplate revolutionary ideas? They have bills to pay, kids to feed and drive to school, work, tv, love and everything else in between. Also how are people able to seperate our ideas from those of the other 'experts' leninist/statist/religious who promise to be able to solve their problems  if only they would convert to their ideology?



I currently have job, bills etc. yet manage to find time for revolutionary ideas - as did many of the people in considerably worse material situations than us who contributed to previous social revolutions or current uprisings. I don't think that's an excuse. What leisure time we have is quickly taken up by work in the form of consumption or preparing for waged labour, but we still have more of it than most people did when there was far more revolutionary activity.

The problem with many of the posts on this thread is the idea that familiarity with revolutionary ideas correlates to amount of revolutionary activity. Perhaps the latter leads to the former, but the former to the latter I'm not so sure about - or at least only for a very small minority of people like the ones posting on this thread. The longetivity, focus, and success of struggles is likely to be tied in to an understanding of previous struggles -which means a familiarity with history and the history of socialist thought, but that's a different thing.

Over the past year, the actions of workers' around BA/Gate Gourmet comes much higher up my list than the number of people who turned up to the bookfair. The question is how we relate to those disputes, or more importantly how we encourage that kind of solidarity in our own situations, not how good we are at planning book sales. I don't claim to be doing this very effectively (although the past year has been a productive one), but too much of these arguments is about point scoring and not about a serious analysis of the current state of play and ways in which things could develop (I'm as guilty of this as anyone).

DMH, I think random's right. Community activism (or workplace activism) is potentially as much a specialised role as spectacular activism. A tiny percentage of people are involved in this activity any more - despite it not always having been like that. There's just as much potential for 'pressure group' or for that matter substitutionist politics, albeit localised, as there is at national or international levels. It does have the potential to move beyond that though, into the breakdown of specialism and the expansion of methods of working into the class as a whole, which radical liberal activism doesn't.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 29, 2005)

Drunken Miss Ho said:
			
		

> I was pointing to (the likes of) CWF's fetishising of working class _stereotypes_. You know, all that patronising deliberate mis-spelling of words, over-the-top cockneyism and dumbing down you get in London Calling.
> 
> Throughout this thread rather than actually come back on arguments you have just claimed other people's posts don't make sense. I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt, and suggesting maybe you were just pulling some "me thicky prole" stunt. But maybe you actually are that stupid.


none of the words in london calling are deliberately mis-spelt.

any over-the-top cockeyisms are written by our own over-the-top cockney.

you've kept very quiet about this topick, despite it being clear yr fucking *obsessed* with little things in cw publications. have you never considered writing to the london group? or emailing them?

throughout this thread where i've said other people's posts don't make sense, they don't. let's just have a little reminder for the tosser in our midst of the only one i can see...


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 29, 2005)

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3448249&postcount=77

if the success of anarchism is the success of the working class, collectively, solving its problems, then anarchism in this country's in a bit of a poor way. but i must say that icepick's about the only person i've ever encountered whose used that yardstick as a measure of success under current circumstances.


----------



## sihhi (Aug 29, 2005)

DMH, I'm not sure why you think London Calling is anti-intellectual. 
It has reviewed books by Seumas Milne, Prof Clive Bloom, Prof Noam Chomsky etc.


----------



## blamblam (Aug 30, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3448249&postcount=77
> 
> if the success of anarchism is the success of the working class, collectively, solving its problems, then anarchism in this country's in a bit of a poor way. but i must say that icepick's about the only person i've ever encountered whose used that yardstick as a measure of success under current circumstances.


You've never met a single anarchist who thinks that anarchism - a theory and praxis of working-class self-organisation - has anything to do with the strength of the working class, or its ability to organise itself in its own interest?

Well I think that says a lot about the state of your anarchist "movement", unfortunately. 

I might respond to some of your petty snipes + deliberate misunderstandings tomorrow or at some point next week. You trying to get out of the fact you slagged me off for having a job hasn't been forgotten, no matter how you tried to cover it up. Oh well...


----------



## Ryazan (Aug 30, 2005)

He thinks it is cool to be out of work, and then to winge about not being in employment even though he could be if he tried.  All very contrived.  Dead working class.


----------



## blamblam (Aug 30, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> yeh? and are you pretending to be objective? what's ad hominem about saying that i don't trust yr analysis as you have - for yr own very good reasons, i'm sure - decided to leave 'the movement'?


Lol am I pretending to be objective? For a self-styled pedant you don't seem very good at applying your own analysis to yourself.

We are discussing the anarchist movement in Britain. I was involved in it, and decided to move away after a while due to having problems. Therefore I am biased against it, and can't have an objective opinion. Presumably someone else not in the anarchist movement has decided not to be involved - so they must be biased against it too. So who can have an accurate, objective opinion then of anarchism in Britain - just you perhaps?



> yr a worker in the freedom bookshop? that goes against a lot of what i've recently heard.


Why on Earth are you deliberatly misunderstanding me and saying stuff like that?

You know how this conversation has progessed - you said I couldn't have a good view of anarchism in Britain now cos I have a job, and in the past cos I volunteered at Freedom



			
				icepick said:
			
		

> Why don't you just explain what you mean? And if someone who is either a worker, or involved in Freedom bookshop can't have valid opinions on things, I repeat the question - who can?


You know I'm not really involved with Freedom any more, so why bring it up?



> anyone can have a perfectly reasonable opinion on anything, but whether it stands up to criticism or scrutiny, aye, there's the rub. you can have yr opinion, which you really are perfectly entitled to. but you ought to expect people to attack yr opinion, as they do mine, when it appears rather at odds with reality.


You didn't attack my opinion, Pickman's, you just said my opinion wasn't valid, firstly cos I'm a (employed) worker, and secondly cos I used to help out at Freedom, as did you, and thirdly cos I decided to move away from the anarchist scene. So for the umpteenth time - who can have a valid opinion about anything?

And my opinion "at odds with reality"?? From the guy saying the anarchist movement's "vibrant and *diverse*"???


> [/i]are you saying that i am wrong to assert the @ movement's growing? Y/N.



My first point is that I don't care either way. My second is no, not really. I mean just look in the pages of Freedom from 10/15 years back, there are many more groups than there are now, and AFAIK all the anarchist groups that were about then are smaller now (except the AF which started then). If you want to keep fooling yourself then fine.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 30, 2005)

icepick said:
			
		

> Lol am I pretending to be objective? For a self-styled pedant you don't seem very good at applying your own analysis to yourself.


what i am saying, and what is borne out by yr posts, is that yr opinion is perhaps overly coloured by yr own experience in the anarchist movement, and the peculiar circumstances which led you to leave it. not many months ago you were pleased enough with the @ movement to appear on the radio and act as a proponent for anarchism. from then to now you seem to have undergone some considerable changes. in fact, in some ways you seem to have the zeal of the unconvert. fyi, i have never been a "self-styled" pedant - you probably meant to say "self-styled anarchist" or some other tabloid nonsense.




> _We are discussing the anarchist movement in Britain. I was involved in it, and decided to move away after a while due to having problems._


problems with it, from what you've said above.





> _ Therefore I am biased against it, and can't have an objective opinion. Presumably someone else not in the anarchist movement has decided not to be involved - so they must be biased against it too. So who can have an accurate, objective opinion then of anarchism in Britain - just you perhaps?_


no, there are other people too. as i've said above, yr entitled to yr own opinion, but there are some opinions better kept to oneself.



> _Why on Earth are you deliberatly misunderstanding me and saying stuff like that?_


i am not deliberately misunderstanding you. rather it seems to be you deliberately misunderstanding me.



> _You know how this conversation has progessed - you said I couldn't have a good view of anarchism in Britain now cos I have a job, and in the past cos I volunteered at Freedom_


and there's a good example of that. i said that from yr position now, outside the anarchist movement - and having departed from it seeing it as apparently worthless - you plainly don't have a good view of the anarchist movement. you having a job has fuck all to do with it - except that that seems to be yr life now, with anarchism confined to the dustbin of yr mis-spent youth.



> _You know I'm not really involved with Freedom any more, so why bring it up?_


why quote yrself?




> _You didn't attack my opinion, Pickman's, you just said my opinion wasn't valid, firstly cos I'm a (employed) worker, and secondly cos I used to help out at Freedom, as did you, and thirdly cos I decided to move away from the anarchist scene. So for the umpteenth time - who can have a valid opinion about anything?_


i never, for the fucking fifth (or sixth) time said that yr opinion was invalid for being employed. i disagree with it as you have a fucking massive chip on yr shoulder, because you seem determined to paint a distorted picture of the fucking situation and 
to talk the anarchist movement down.


> _And my opinion "at odds with reality"?? From the guy saying the anarchist movement's "vibrant and *diverse*"???_


_why do you deny the fucking obvious fact that whatever else it may be, the british anarchist movement is diverse? if nothing else i would have hoped that yr sojourn at freedom had shown you how wide a range of anarchists there are in this country. obviously not, though. with the broad spectrum of groups and individuals who i'd place within the british anarchist movement producing a fair amount of literature of various sorts & events from the ef! gathering to the talks the london anarchist forum put on, to film nights at venues in east london to the norwich bookfair - not to mention gigs or demos - i'd say the rumours of the british anarchist movement's demise you'd spread are both premature & exaggerated.





My first point is that I don't care either way. My second is no, not really. I mean just look in the pages of Freedom from 10/15 years back, there are many more groups than there are now, and AFAIK all the anarchist groups that were about then are smaller now (except the AF which started then). If you want to keep fooling yourself then fine.

Click to expand...

er...

let's not let the facts get in the way of a good argument, eh? the acf/af is somewhat older than you make out - as it was founded in 1985. & it's much the same size as it was then. 10 to 15 years ago there wasn't the internet, and where people then would have used the pages of freedom, now they're more likely to use indymedia or u75 &c. certainly 15 years ago there were 25% more national anarchist groups - but yr the first person i've heard mourning the demise of the anarchist workers group. 30/35 years ago there were other anarchist groups - but i don't see people crying into their lager with memories of the solidarity group & that. a lot of the groups which have gone have gone because they were local groups and people have moved out the area, and a lot of resources (eg the 121 centre, the unwaged centre) have closed. but a lot of people from all over the country came together for the g8, and although much of the demonstrating & protesting left a lot to be desired, many of the people in scotland were there more to make links and network than they were to protest. i feel that a more positive and better co-ordinated movement can build on that to grow both in strength and in diversity._


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 30, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> He thinks it is cool to be out of work, and then to winge about not being in employment even though he could be if he tried.  All very contrived.  Dead working class.


for the fucking last time, i DID NOT slag off icepick for having a job. if you think i did, show me where i've said anything like "icepick, yr a wanker for having a job."

if i was slagging people off for being in work, i don't think i'd ever have a moment's rest. 

as for whinging for not being in employment, i have had enough of being on the dole - there's all manner of people here who moan about their jobs, i don't see why i shouldn't have the odd carp about being unemployed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 30, 2005)

icepick said:
			
		

> You've never met a single anarchist who thinks that anarchism - a theory and praxis of working-class self-organisation - has anything to do with the strength of the working class, or its ability to organise itself in its own interest?


that's different to what you previously said. in yr earlier post you said - or at least strongly implied - that collective working class action was anarchism, which ain't necessarily so.


----------



## Random (Aug 30, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> the worst kind? Are you suggesting the refusal to step into a self contained category somehow dishonest? Who is this 'we' you talk of?



No, maybe not 'the worst kind', that ws an exaggeration.  I do, however, think that people who's political activity is largely based in a 'scene' need to recognise it -- it's the only way of getting out of this situation.  Otherwise we are behaving dishonestly, whether knowingly or not.


----------



## Top Dog (Aug 30, 2005)

dirtycrustie said:
			
		

> I am  opposed to the specialisation of revolutionary practice in the hands of self-proclaimed activists or militants. As conscious pro-revolutionaries we must attempt to overcome, instead of reinforce, the separation between us and the dispossessed who are not at this moment consciously revolutionary. Most activists see themselves as separate from those whose interests they claim to represent.


But you're doing same the thing that you're critiquing. Yes, it is vital for revololutionary minorities to understand that activism _as a specialism _ reproduces the 'division of labour' that it claims to  seek to undermine. But the larger observation to acknowledge is that _everyone_ is alienated within capital - that is its _essence_. Activ_ism_ is simply one expression among many kinds of alienated social relationships. It is no worse a separation than for instance, not feeling able to talk to your neighbours - something that _even the_ 'dispossesed' might have trouble with. This is not something that can be 100% gotten rid of until the abolition of class society... though we _can_ make attempts at changing elements of things in our own lives. Why not? Thats part of the 'job' needing to be done after all. In terms of your later point about the @ bookfair part of the commodity society - well of course it is. As Drunken Miss Ho says:  



> It is impossible for us to fully transcend capitalism while that capitalist society still goes on around us, and historically movements which try to do so - hippy communes, "free spaces" etc - have got us nowhere and only created seperatism. Class conflict is inherent in class society.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 30, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> why do you deny the fucking obvious _fact_ that whatever else it may be, the british anarchist movement is diverse? if nothing else i would have hoped that yr sojourn at freedom had shown you how wide a range of anarchists there are in this country. obviously not, though. with the broad spectrum of groups and individuals who i'd place within the british anarchist movement producing a fair amount of literature of various sorts & events from the ef! gathering to the talks the london anarchist forum put on, to film nights at venues in east london to the norwich bookfair - not to mention gigs or demos - i'd say the rumours of the british anarchist movement's demise you'd spread are both premature & exaggerated.





Yr (ha!) doing yourself no favours by presenting 'the anarchist movement' in this way.  It smacks of a club or society of like-minded enthusiasts.  More like birdwatchers or a literary society, say, than any kind movement for  change.


----------



## catch (Aug 30, 2005)

That's what it sounds like to me from Pickman' post as well.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 30, 2005)

*The goal is everything!*




			
				catch said:
			
		

> That's what it sounds like to me from Pickman' post as well.





Does it matter, though, as long as 'the anarchist movement' eventually achieves its main objective of having more 'members' than the SWP?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 30, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Yr (ha!) doing yourself no favours by presenting 'the anarchist movement' in this way.  It smacks of a club or society of like-minded enthusiasts.  More like birdwatchers or a literary society, say, than any kind movement for  change.


so, in your view, anarchists should be - what? not putting gigs on, not holding talks about facets of anarchism, not organising film nights, not putting together social occasions? just nose to the grindstone and attract those working class people to a political movement of hard work and no fun?

how the fuck d'you think people'd find that attractive or interesting? you don't just get activists going to these gigs &c, you know...


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 30, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Does it matter, though, as long as 'the anarchist movement' eventually achieves its main objective of having more 'members' than the SWP?


there already more anarchists in the uk than there are members of the swp. i don't know why yr so fixated on the swp; i rather thought you despised that sort of thing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 30, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Does it matter, though, as long as 'the anarchist movement' eventually achieves its main objective of having more 'members' than the SWP?


& what's wrong with it? what's wrong with putting on things people enjoy? next you'll be saying that the pcf shouldn't put on the fete de l'humanite cos it might be fun...


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 30, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> for the fucking last time, i DID NOT slag off icepick for having a job. if you think i did, show me where i've said anything like "icepick, yr a wanker for having a job."
> 
> if i was slagging people off for being in work, i don't think i'd ever have a moment's rest.
> 
> as for whinging for not being in employment, i have had enough of being on the dole - there's all manner of people here who moan about their jobs, i don't see why i shouldn't have the odd carp about being unemployed.



I gotta be honest with you PM it looked like a dig to me too.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 30, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> & what's wrong with it? what's wrong with putting on things people enjoy? next you'll be saying that the pcf shouldn't put on the fete de l'humanite cos it might be fun...





If I was as opposed to fun as you seem to think, then I wouldn't come on here so often.

As so often, you (deliberately?) miss the point.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 30, 2005)

Kid_Eternity said:
			
		

> I gotta be honest with you PM it looked like a dig to me too.


i expect icepick's very grateful for your support.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 30, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> so, in your view, anarchists should be - what? not putting gigs on, not holding talks about facets of anarchism, not organising film nights, not putting together social occasions? just nose to the grindstone and attract those working class people to a political movement of hard work and no fun?
> 
> how the fuck d'you think people'd find that attractive or interesting? you don't just get activists going to these gigs &c, you know...





I'm not against any of these kind of events.  I've even been known to go to a few and, going back a bit, be involved in organising them.  

But the point is that you emphasise them to the exclusion of anything else.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 30, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> If I was as opposed to fun as you seem to think, then I wouldn't come on here so often.
> 
> As so often, you (deliberately?) miss the point.


so what would you have anarchists do?

as to people doing them to the exclusion of everything else, i don't believe that's the case. people do pursue campaigns too, from supporting striking liverpool dockers and food workers to taking on mcdonald's to campaigning on local issues like illegal advertising hoardings or housing issues, as well as national and international campaigns. just because you don't see tens of thousands of people in the streets every week doesn't mean nothing's happening.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 30, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> there already more anarchists in the uk than there are members of the swp.





Aye, if you say so....


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 30, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> so what would you have anarchists do?





Shit in their hands and clap 'em to?

Coming out with a question like that, I think it might be time you did more consulting with your fellow revolutionaries....


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 30, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> i expect icepick's very grateful for your support.



The comment was intended as a act of support, it's just the way your post looked to me when I first read it. Icepicks post about the anarchist movement and his leaving it are interesting though...


----------



## catch (Aug 30, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> I'm not against any of these kind of events.  I've even been known to go to a few and, going back a bit, be involved in organising them.
> 
> But the point is that you emphasise them to the exclusion of anything else.



I've been told off by montevideo for organising (non-anarcho scene) gigs in the past.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 30, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> I've been told off by montevideo for organising (non-anarcho scene) gigs in the past.





Well somebody's got to play the Chekist's role, or the purity of the movement's up shit creek.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 30, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Coming out with a question like that, I think it might be time you did more consulting with your fellow revolutionaries....


if i ask you a question it's to find out what you think more often than not, not because i don't have an idea myself.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 30, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> if i ask you a question it's to find out what you think more often than not, not because i don't have an idea myself.





Fair enough, but I've been led to believe that anarchism's more than just a social scene.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 30, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Fair enough, but I've been led to believe that anarchism's more than just a social scene.


so have i.


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 30, 2005)

*subscribes to thread*
there's an interesting debate in here somewhere - if you could all stop sniping at each other for a moment.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 30, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> *subscribes to thread*
> there's an interesting debate in here somewhere - if you could all stop sniping at each other for a moment.


lead us off then.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 30, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> *subscribes to thread*
> there's an interesting debate in here somewhere - if you could all stop sniping at each other for a moment.



Indeed. Once you get past the snide remarks some of the views and experiences are very interesting.


----------



## dirtycrustie (Aug 30, 2005)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> But you're doing same the thing that you're critiquing. Yes, it is vital for revololutionary minorities to understand that activism _as a specialism _ reproduces the 'division of labour' that it claims to  seek to undermine. But the larger observation to acknowledge is that _everyone_ is alienated within capital - that is its _essence_. Activ_ism_ is simply one expression among many kinds of alienated social relationships. It is no worse a separation than for instance, not feeling able to talk to your neighbours - something that _even the_ 'dispossesed' might have trouble with. This is not something that can be 100% gotten rid of until the abolition of class society... though we _can_ make attempts at changing elements of things in our own lives. Why not? Thats part of the 'job' needing to be done after all. In terms of your later point about the @ bookfair part of the commodity society - well of course it is. As Drunken Miss Ho says:



Im not sure I folllow you arguement.Surely if our models of organisation reproduce the world we oppose, then what chance do we have of abolitioning class society? Im interested in asking this as I do not believe that the 'raising of political/class consiousness' as a recruitment/movement building exercise is important for the first stages of revolution (ie a crisis in capitalism) and that politics itself maybe just another smoke and mirrors distraction working on behalf of capital. For example all politics are expressed within side capital. From social democratic to fascism and Im certain that anarcho-capitalism could also manifest itself. I do not believe capitalism has politics..it is an economic social relationship, it cannot be campaigned against.I also wonder if there is still an outside for us to get to, or if all forms of politics/activism etc are inherintly counter productive at present...


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 30, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> lead us off then.


 well there's already lots of interesting stuff up above. 
my own pet hate is activists chastising themselves about how they haven't connected to 'the working class' enough. They should either be happy with the fact that they are a minority movement and will always be or get the fuck out. wishing for some happy day when you join forces with 'the working class' is the height of idiocy.

as for whether an activist minority is a good thing or not... Myself I couldn't get into it - it all seemed to go nowhere, skating along on the thin ice of inflated rhetoric. But if other people want to do it that's great - I don't have a problem with it. I'm not doing that much at the moment, so I can't criticise people who have the motivation to get off their arses.


----------



## catch (Aug 30, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> They should either be happy with the fact that they are a minority movement and will always be or get the fuck out. wishing for some happy day when you join forces with 'the working class' is the height of idiocy.



What are revolutions then? Although you're correct that plenty of activists remain minority groups during revolutions, lag behind them, are ineffective during them, sometimes lead them up the gardn path etc. etc.


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 30, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> What are revolutions then? Although you're correct that plenty of activists remain minority groups during revolutions, lag behind them, are ineffective during them, sometimes lead them up the gardn path etc. etc.


 yeah but let's talk within the timescale of a single lifetime


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 30, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> What are revolutions then? Although you're correct that plenty of activists remain minority groups during revolutions, lag behind them, are ineffective during them, sometimes lead them up the gardn path etc. etc.


as the bolsheviks famously were in the february revolution.


----------



## catch (Aug 30, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> as the bolsheviks famously were in the february revolution.



Anarchists too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 30, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> Anarchists too.


afaik there's no anarchist equivalent of the famous lenin quote about how the party were to the left of the cc, and the publick were to the left of the party,


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 30, 2005)

yes, a discussion of the minutae of a revolution most people don't give a fuck about is definitely what we needed to make this thread interesting, stimulating and pertinent.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 30, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> yes, a discussion of the minutae of a revolution most people don't give a fuck about is definitely what we needed to make this thread interesting, stimulating and pertinent.


you clearly haven't followed the vitriolick threads about kronstadt. nor the immense literature available on the russian revolution.

just because yr not interested in something doesn't mean the rest of the world shares yr view.


----------



## catch (Aug 30, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> yeah but let's talk within the timescale of a single lifetime



It's likely I'll die between 2040 and 2060. In that time we could potentially see the end of US economic and military hegemony with the rise of China and India, massive climate change, oil reserve depletion to levels way below current consumption, or any number of other world-changing events. Capitalism may be able to adapt to them, or it may not (one way or the other)

Previous "single lifetimes"  included (say) Paris 1871, Russia 1905, WW1, Russia 1917, Germany 1918-1922, Spain '36 and WW2 - plus all the event I didn't list during that period. I doubt in 1865 people would have foreseen all that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 30, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> It's likely I'll die between 2040 and 2060. In that time we could potentially see the end of US economic and military hegemony with the rise of China and India, massive climate change, oil reserve depletion to levels way below current consumption, or any number of other world-changing events. Capitalism may be able to adapt to them, or it may not (one way or the other)
> 
> Previous "single lifetimes"  included (say) Paris 1871, Russia 1905, WW1, Russia 1917, Germany 1918-1922, Spain '36 and WW2 - plus all the event I didn't list during that period. I doubt in 1865 people would have foreseen all that.


or 1789 & 1848


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 30, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> It's likely I'll die between 2040 and 2060. In that time we could potentially see the end of US economic and military hegemony with the rise of China and India, massive climate change, oil reserve depletion to levels way below current consumption, or any number of other world-changing events. Capitalism may be able to adapt to them, or it may not (one way or the other)
> 
> Previous "single lifetimes"  included (say) Paris 1871, Russia 1905, WW1, Russia 1917, Germany 1918-1922, Spain '36 and WW2 - plus all the event I didn't list during that period. I doubt in 1865 people would have foreseen all that.


 since this stuff is inherently unpredictable there's little point in organising around it when it's not even in sight, I would think.

no wonder the 'anarchist movement' isn't massive if it's premised on a hypothetical event at some unknown future date, cause unknown.


----------



## montevideo (Aug 30, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> I'm not doing that much at the moment, so I can't criticise people who have the motivation to get off their arses.



radical liberalist!!! We're analysing & critiquing. Praxis comes er, when does praxis come into it? Lads...lads???


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 30, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> you clearly haven't followed the vitriolick threads about kronstadt. nor the immense literature available on the russian revolution.
> 
> just because yr not interested in something doesn't mean the rest of the world shares yr view.


 i meant the rest of the world in general, not urban75 

i meant the working class, if you will 

i mean, I'm working class - do I look like i care? 
<turns to guy at next desk>
Are you working class? 
Yup
Do you care?
Nope.



Well I guess the discussion is not going to continue. I tried, I really did.


----------



## Top Dog (Aug 30, 2005)

dirtycrustie said:
			
		

> Im not sure I folllow you arguement.Surely if our models of organisation reproduce the world we oppose, then what chance do we have of abolitioning class society? Im interested in asking this as I do not believe that the 'raising of political/class consiousness' as a recruitment/movement building exercise is important for the first stages of revolution (ie a crisis in capitalism) and that politics itself maybe just another smoke and mirrors distraction working on behalf of capital.


Well the problem begins with the 'we' in your conception. You seem to be critiquing 'activism' as an alienated social relationship. Yet you refer back to how 'we' (as a seperate entity from the working class proper [sic]) reproduce capitalist models of organising. The initial task of negating alienation is to rid yourself of the notion of a 'them' and an 'us' in the first place. 




			
				dirtycrustie said:
			
		

> I do not believe capitalism has politics..it is an economic social relationship


well the economic outcomes are political _surely_? It is political in that whatever the 'type' of political model that is chosen or imposed, it is premised entirely within the realm of bourgeois ideology. Revolution on the other hand requires the rejection of bourgeois ideology in favour of its replacement by new kinds of relationships. Communist relationships. But it seems you're most interested in talking of how to get from the one to the other.

But i am interested to hear why you reject dialectics as a tool for use in capital's negation


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 30, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> radical liberalist!!! We're analysing & critiquing. Praxis comes er, when does praxis come into it? Lads...lads???


 hehe, I really *am* a radical liberal you know.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 30, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> since this stuff is inherently unpredictable there's little point in organising around it when it's not even in sight, I would think.
> 
> no wonder the 'anarchist movement' isn't massive if it's premised on a hypothetical event at some unknown future date, cause unknown.


so yr saying that everyone should sit back and take all the shit they're given without doing anything about it?

i would have hoped that with yr exciting new job you'd have been interested enough to see some of what anarchists - and even marx - have written about work. after all, for pretty much everyone in society work is the central experience of their lives, the single greatest waking activity they pursue.

but would you rather that at this nebulous point in the unknown future that people take a gamble and it all turns out for the best?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 30, 2005)

http://www.zpub.com/notes/black-work.html


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 30, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> i meant the rest of the world in general, not urban75
> 
> i meant the working class, if you will
> 
> ...


yeh? in any sort of revolutionary situation you'll likely develop a deep interest in previous revolutions... why leave it till the last  minute?


----------



## blamblam (Aug 30, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> what i am saying, and what is borne out by yr posts, is that yr opinion is perhaps overly coloured by yr own experience in the anarchist movement,


So now you say my opinion doesn’t come from my “vantage point at work”, or “in whitechapel” but from my actual involvement with the movement, correct?



> and the peculiar circumstances which led you to leave it.



Peculiar?? Have you not noticed the massive turnover of anarchists + activists each year? Why is it you think they all go? A lot because they put a helluva lot of energy and their life into this thing called “the movement” and it just sucks their activity away into this self-perpetuating subculture whilst not improving the lives and conditions of those people involved in it – which is after all what anarchism is all about.



> not many months ago you were pleased enough with the @ movement to appear on the radio and act as a proponent for anarchism.


Not for the movement, the idea. On that radio show I didn’t once recommend people to get involved in the “movement”, or to “network”, or set up any kind of “space”, autonomous or not. 



> from then to now you seem to have undergone some considerable changes. in fact, in some ways you seem to have the zeal of the unconvert.


Nah as I said I lost faith in the movement a while ago. I mean I’d often have people I knew or work with say stuff like they like the ideas and everything so how do they get involved, but I would never recommend them go to any meeting or group or anything, because I knew they would just find it weird and disconnected to everyday life. 



> fyi, i have never been a "self-styled" pedant - you probably meant to say "self-styled anarchist" or some other tabloid nonsense.


Are you saying you don’t play up your role as a pedant here? Come on – you spell loads of words with a “k” on the end for no reason. Other than maybe anarchists just love “k”?





> problems with it, from what you've said above.no, there are other people too. as i've said above, yr entitled to yr own opinion, but there are some opinions better kept to oneself.


Lol right so if I disagree with you I should just keep quiet then!



> i am not deliberately misunderstanding you. rather it seems to be you deliberately misunderstanding me.


What have I deliberately misunderstood? Everyone else seemed to interpret your statements in the same way as me. My statements you have misunderstood it seems everyone else did understand.



> and there's a good example of that. i said that from yr position now, outside the anarchist movement - and having departed from it seeing it as apparently worthless - you plainly don't have a good view of the anarchist movement.


No – I didn’t have a good view of the anarchist movement, *therefore* I left it. How is my opinion any more “biased” or less “objective” than yours?


> you having a job has fuck all to do with it - except that that seems to be yr life now, with anarchism confined to the dustbin of yr mis-spent youth.


Firstly, if crappy admin was my life, I’d kill myself! I work so I can buy nice clothes, pay rent, and do fun stuff. You said my opinion on anarchism and the working class from my “vantage point at work” was invalid. You still haven’t explained this. Especially as I’ve been working for nearly 6 years and it’s never been an issue before.



> why quote yrself?


To show how you wilfully distorted my words, trying to make out like I said I was a worker at Freedom!



> i never, for the fucking fifth (or sixth) time said that yr opinion was invalid for being employed. i disagree with it as you have a fucking massive chip on yr shoulder, because you seem determined to paint a distorted picture of the fucking situation and
> to talk the anarchist movement down.


So instead of saying “I disagree” did you say “is that from yr vantage point at work?”



> why do you deny the fucking obvious _fact_ that whatever else it may be, the british anarchist movement is diverse?


A fact that it’s diverse? What because there are 50 different types of Mohawk in it? Come on if the anarcho scene was a public sector body there’d be some serious Equal Opps investigation into it. I don’t even have a problem with that as such, I don’t believe in tokenism, but for you to say as *fact* it’s diverse just makes me wonder how deep your head is in the sand.



> if nothing else i would have hoped that yr sojourn at freedom had shown you how wide a range of anarchists there are in this country. obviously not, though. with the broad spectrum of groups and individuals who i'd place within the british anarchist movement producing a fair amount of literature of various sorts & events from the ef! gathering to the talks the london anarchist forum put on, to film nights at venues in east london to the norwich bookfair - not to mention gigs or demos - i'd say the rumours of the british anarchist movement's demise you'd spread are both premature & exaggerated.


My granny’s bowling club puts on lots of “events” – so what? I think this is why we keep disagreeing Pickman’s, I think you are seeing “anarchism” as a little (sub)cultural scene that puts on “events” whereas for me it’s the embryonic currents of co-operation + mutual aid running through the working class. Maybe there is no common ground here.



> let's not let the facts get in the way of a good argument, eh? the acf/af is somewhat older than you make out - as it was founded in 1985.


Wow I was 5 years out. Sorry. My whole argument must be invalid then.



> & it's much the same size as it was then. 10 to 15 years ago there wasn't the internet, and where people then would have used the pages of freedom, now they're more likely to use indymedia or u75 &c. certainly 15 years ago there were 25% more national anarchist groups - but yr the first person i've heard mourning the demise of the anarchist workers group. 30/35 years ago there were other anarchist groups - but i don't see people crying into their lager with memories of the solidarity group & that. a lot of the groups which have gone have gone because they were local groups and people have moved out the area, and a lot of resources (eg the 121 centre, the unwaged centre) have closed. but a lot of people from all over the country came together for the g8, and although much of the demonstrating & protesting left a lot to be desired, many of the people in scotland were there more to make links and network than they were to protest. i feel that a more positive and better co-ordinated movement can build on that to grow both in strength and in diversity.


Pickmans that what anarchists say after every event that they organise, and then various people come along, to consume their bit of radical action culture, then go home, and maybe come out to another one a year or two later. … And? Despite your optimism even above you seem to admit that it is shrinking too. 

I’m not trying to slag anarchism off – I do believe in a stateless, co-operative world, but I don’t think being in denial about the sad sad sad state of the non-movement is helping anyone.


----------



## catch (Aug 30, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> since this stuff is inherently unpredictable there's little point in organising around it when it's not even in sight, I would think.



So there was no point in revolutionaries organising before any of those previous revolutions then? There's some activity which provides better conditions in the here and now, and IMO that's what's important. If it also leads to wider events later on then all well and good. I don't have a view of a libertarian communist society as something far off that can only happen after a massive cathartic events, it's a tendency within existing society that can be encouraged (and will hopefully help humanity to survive massive events which may or may not happen later on).


----------



## Ryazan (Aug 30, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> you clearly haven't followed the vitriolick threads about kronstadt. nor the immense literature available on the russian revolution.
> 
> just because yr not interested in something doesn't mean the rest of the world shares yr view.



I don't think he was going on about the people who frequent U75 but people in general, the public, the working class.  The only stimulating talk about the Russian revolution at work was with a bloke who went on arguing and arguing about why Kerensky tried to fuck over Kornilov and then to ruin the reputation of the Bolsheviks.

In hindsight I should have stuck to reading what Rachel Steven's eats for breakfast in the Star.  The lads seemed to be having a more enjoyable evening in their breaktimes with the footy.


----------



## Random (Aug 30, 2005)

icepick said:
			
		

> Come on if the anarcho scene was a public sector body there’d be some serious Equal Opps investigation into it.



ROFL   :mrt:


----------



## Ryazan (Aug 30, 2005)




----------



## winjer (Aug 30, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> The main reasons are the defeat and ongoing decomposition of the 20th century left, the irrelevance of the lingering ideological fetishes of its remnants



Presumably this would include the irrelevance of people who are concerned whether working class people have heard of the Wombles?



> In short, there's nowt visible to get involved with, and, given the sacrifices that were made (and committed) by the above, no confidence that the ultimate struggle is a winnable one.


The utopian concept of an "ultimate struggle" which sees revolution as some kind of singularity is a bourgeois conceit, any true revolutionary recognises that the journey _is_ the destination.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 30, 2005)

winjer said:
			
		

> Presumably this would include the irrelevance of people who are concerned whether working class people have heard of the Wombles?





Course it does.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 30, 2005)

winjer said:
			
		

> The utopian concept of an "ultimate struggle" which sees revolution as some kind of singularity is a bourgeois conceit, any true revolutionary recognises that the journey _is_ the destination.





Oh.  That's all right then.


----------



## jonH (Aug 31, 2005)

Well done Dirty Crusty, this is an interesting thread. Having read all that has been said it seems no one sees the importance of free food distribution in the struggle against capitalism and its sidekick christianity. If activists didn't feel ultimately drawn towards the labour market or some form of capitalist charity in order to fill their bellies a lot of positive work could be done. Communal workshops and agricultural projects could be set up, this would be both resistance and activism. Creating a non capitalist safety net would be the most radical thing our generation could do and it doesn't take any organisation just a bit widespread of chopping!


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 31, 2005)

dirtycrustie said:
			
		

> Despite the growing empirical evidence of a human culture that seems to have accepted a reality of death camps, starvation, climatic change, mass extinction and a growing gap between rich and poor as a certainty, many of us continue to struggle on against this. Yet I still find it baffling that many who believe capitalism, the social relationship that engenders all of the above, can be undone via activism.
> 
> This implies that a continuing onslaught of increasingly bizarre and self-referential stunts will impart revolutionary consciousness onto those spectating, until a watermark is reached and the flood of proletarian anger is unleashed.
> 
> ...



i love you dirty you are a the monsieur dupont of U75


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 31, 2005)

*death to activism*

The totality of capatalism can accommodate any form of activity and resistance. It can make it a lifestyle to be sold, in its never endeding web of consumption, punk, new age, crusties are all examples of this buy into radicalism consumeer lifestyle. The other option is to be marganilised by the society you want to change through exploring restrictive and alienating lifestyle choices. 

Squatting etc allows people to live alternatives to capatalism but serves to create a barrier to activity that could shape political actions as does shoplifting (yomango). If you believe in isolated groups of eco warriors and class struggle munters living in a shed then i support you. But in reality we are a freak side show for the locals to laugh at. In a time of economic crisis squatting can become radical as people sense of radical activity becomes heightened as they need to claim back the basic resources that are needed to live.

We need these activities as they create disobedience and rejection of slavery, consumption and obedience. They are only a minor tool and should be used to further insurrection. The squat, shoplift, rejection of work should not be fetishised and made a holy grail, its a means to an end and the end is class war and social revolution. 

The children of the middle calss who live in co-ops and espouse 'wadicalism' and hinder insurrectionary violence through vegan pacifism should be moved aside its time to reclaim the anger from the lifestyle black hooded tops and wallowing clowns of circa.

The political activity we are involved in as activists is a charade, shambolic and utterly uninspiring. Dancing in tescos, clowns frolicking in edinburgh, chasing the riot donkey for 10 seconds of bliss and insurrection. The only way to remove us from the rut is to engage in acts of serious and twisted political violence towards the property of the establishment and ruling class. 

The only option is to bring the war home!


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 31, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> The totality of capatalism can accommodate any form of activity and resistance. It can make it a lifestyle to be sold, in its never endeding web of consumption, punk, new age, crusties are all examples of this buy into radicalism consumeer lifestyle. The other option is to be marganilised by the society you want to change through exploring restrictive and alienating lifestyle choices.
> 
> Squatting etc allows people to live alternatives to capatalism but serves to create a barrier to activity that could shape political actions as does shoplifting (yomango). If you believe in isolated groups of eco warriors and class struggle munters living in a shed then i support you. But in reality we are a freak side show for the locals to laugh at. In a time of economic crisis squatting can become radical as people sense of radical activity becomes heightened as they need to claim back the basic resources that are needed to live.
> 
> ...


 

Hope you practising what you preaching boy!


----------



## winjer (Aug 31, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> The children of the middle calss who live in co-ops and espouse 'wadicalism' and hinder insurrectionary violence through vegan pacifism should be moved aside its time to reclaim the anger from the lifestyle black hooded tops and wallowing clowns of circa.


What's a 'wallowing clown'? Are you assuming, based on nothing, that everyone involved with CIRCA is a middle-class-pacifist not engaged in any other form of social struggle?



> The only way to remove us from the rut is to engage in acts of serious and twisted political violence towards the property of the establishment and ruling class. The only option is to bring the war home!


If that's your position, why do you appear to spend considerably more time berating activists than you spend engaging in serious political violence? Are you just a lifestyle nihilist?


----------



## Top Dog (Aug 31, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> The only option is to bring the war home!


go on then... how is the war brought home? You seem to know very clearly how NOT to do it after all...

It could also be argued that "insurrectionary violence" is also the preserve of young militant boys wet dreams. Insurrection, to me at least, suggests, not class violence (ie. mass) but a minority sport (for experts). So dont give me the "we need to de-marginalise ourselves" shtick when you are essentially advocating the same thing - just using different verbiage.


----------



## Top Dog (Aug 31, 2005)

winjer said:
			
		

> Are you just a lifestyle nihilist?


----------



## treelover (Aug 31, 2005)

speaking of lifestylism, scenes ,. clowns, etc, anyone heard of this book?, its a virulent but sharply written attack on adbusters, hippie culture, and other easy targets but widens its scope to  include the whole globalised counter culture.


The Rebel Sell

'Guaranteed to incense both the followers of Naomi Klein's No Logo, as well as their right-wing counterparts, The Rebel Sell argues that decades of countercultural rebellion have not only been unhelpful, but counterproductive. Heath and Potter offer a startling blend of pop culture and political manifesto as they consider the birth of the rebel consumer, the enforcement of norms within the counterculture, the need to untangle questions of social justice from the countercultural critique, and what it will really take to turn consumers into citizens.'




http://www.harpercanada.com/rs/excerpt.asp


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 31, 2005)

winjer said:
			
		

> What's a 'wallowing clown'? Are you assuming, based on nothing, that everyone involved with CIRCA is a middle-class-pacifist not engaged in any other form of social struggle?
> 
> If that's your position, why do you appear to spend considerably more time berating activists than you spend engaging in serious political violence? Are you just a lifestyle nihilist?



I berate activists 9-5 as fits in with my job!

Most of the people i have met in CIRCA are middle class vegan pacifists, sorry to generalise but its my general experience. I dont imagine that Durrutti, Sabate or Bonnot got a grant from the arts council, they are the heroes not fools in make up.

I dont believe in any ideolgy so hwo could i have a nihilist lifestyle.

I have given up smoking and dont drink coffee any more so i cant be a life style nihilist.

Do my political activities support an anarchist nihilist approcah i would say yes, i practice, mutual aid, voluntary cooperation and bow to no authority as well as more confrontational approach to lets say summitt protests at the G8.


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 31, 2005)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> go on then... how is the war brought home? You seem to know very clearly how NOT to do it after all...
> 
> It could also be argued that "insurrectionary violence" is also the preserve of young militant boys wet dreams. Insurrection, to me at least, suggests, not class violence (ie. mass) but a minority sport (for experts). So dont give me the "we need to de-marginalise ourselves" shtick when you are essentially advocating the same thing - just using different verbiage.



What about the bradford, huddersfield,chapeltown, hyde park riots or any moment of spontaneous anger is this a wet dream. These are a few i can name in a life time in my area!

Thats the point i  think activism is pointless as we are making no headway, samba, clowns, dancing in tescos whats it all about. Black block chasing the riot donkey i support it but its utterly pointless.

Im with dirty crustie, resistance has been channelled into lifestyle and consumed by the totality of capital.

I dont know what to do but will continue working in small scale affinity groups based on friendship on mutual aid. I dont want to go to prison for an ideology but would do so for a friend.


----------



## Top Dog (Aug 31, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> What about the bradford, huddersfield,chapeltown, hyde park riots or any moment of spontaneous anger is this a wet dream. These are a few i can name in a life time in my area!


do you think the violence of the affinity group is the same as that of a community?

Isnt it the case that you see the problem principally on the level of tactics. The problem is clowns, pacifism, the use of humour et al, whereas the answer lies in militant or more 'direct' tactics?


----------



## sihhi (Aug 31, 2005)

Dirtycrustie said:
			
		

> Despite the *growing empirical evidence of a human culture that seems to have accepted a reality of death camps, starvation, climatic change, mass extinction and a growing gap between rich and poor as a certainty*, many of us continue to struggle on against this



Where is the "emprical evidence" for this particular "human culture"?


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 31, 2005)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> do you think the violence of the affinity group is the same as that of a community?
> 
> Isnt it the case that you see the problem principally on the level of tactics. The problem is clowns, pacifism, the use of humour et al, whereas the answer lies in militant or more 'direct' tactics?




The community is made up of small scale affinity units family & friends, so in some cases yes!

direct tactics is the only way forward


----------



## Top Dog (Aug 31, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> The community is made up of small scale affinity units family & friends, so in some cases yes!
> 
> direct tactics is the only way forward


 but the question was asking if you see the problem principally as one of tactics?


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 31, 2005)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> but the question was asking if you see the problem principally as one of tactics?



Tactics is one example, redundant ideology another, such as electoralism, reformism, NGO's etc, protesting at symbols and creating a network against a symbol rather than a network of resistance to the mundane and oppressive reality of everyday life.


----------



## Top Dog (Aug 31, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> Tactics is one example, redundant ideology another, such as electoralism, reformism, NGO's etc, protesting at symbols and creating a network against a symbol rather than a network of resistance to the mundane and oppressive reality of everyday life.


bourgeois ideology is one such thing that cannot hope to be transcended until the revolutionary process is underway - a bit chicken and egg perhaps - but no successful communist revolution can hope to fracture society until it does...

But im still not clear... you make the point that much of what passes for tactics (within political action) are failing badly and even counter-productive, yes?

So it follows that there must be more successful ways to bring forward radical social change. Is that what youre suggesting, im just trying to be clear?


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 31, 2005)

I dont have a map of what is successful or not this is the problem everyone is looking for a messiah or a correct ideology


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 31, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> I dont have a map of what is successful or not this is the problem everyone is looking for a messiah or a correct ideology






There are none so blind as those who cannot see, Herbie.


----------



## Top Dog (Aug 31, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> I dont have a map of what is successful or not this is the problem everyone is looking for a messiah or a correct ideology


no this _isnt_ the problem here... the problem as i see it, is that you're looking for solutions based on the level of tactics... it's the idea that "if only we did things in _this_ way or _that_, if only we produced the right kind of prop, or engaged in particular kinds of activities" then a social movement might be born. 

See, you seem to be critiquing activism, but then reproducing this feeling of seperateness in how you see your relationship to those around you. And if you are only interested in doing things with your mates, then that is just as ghetto as that which you're having a pop at


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 31, 2005)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> no this _isnt_ the problem here... the problem as i see it, is that you're looking for solutions based on the level of tactics... it's the idea that "if only we did things in _this_ way or _that_, if only we produced the right kind of prop, or engaged in particular kinds of activities" then a social movement might be born.
> 
> See, you seem to be critiquing activism, but then reproducing this feeling of seperateness in how you see your relationship to those around you. And if you are only interested in doing things with your mates, then that is just as ghetto as that which you're having a pop at




im trying to explain that the only way to overthrow capatalism will be through extreme violence and destruction, not clowns or samba. 

You are mistaking tactics with actully wanting a socail revolution.  

I have never said if we do things this way or that way we will be better. I am pointing out that only destruction of the totallity of capatalism will do.
The fact that i work in an affinity group is pointless and irrellevant. These are motions we all go through to bridge our own sanity and appease our social consciences. I mostly involve myself in actions for the 'buzz' risk taking element more than the fact that i actually think my actions will result in a society based on the principles of anarchy.


----------



## Top Dog (Aug 31, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> im trying to explain that the only way to overthrow capatalism will be through extreme violence and destruction, not clowns or samba.
> 
> You are mistaking tactics with actully wanting a socail revolution.
> 
> I am short in answers as im in the middle of work


me too.

So you're saying that "extreme violence and destruction" are the ends you desire rather than the means


----------



## Top Dog (Aug 31, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> im trying to explain that the only way to overthrow capatalism will be through extreme violence and destruction, not clowns or samba.
> 
> You are mistaking tactics with actully wanting a socail revolution.
> 
> I am short in answers as im in the middle of work


And another thing...

violence _against who_? Destruction _against what_? cant blow up a social relationship remember


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 31, 2005)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> me too.
> 
> So you're saying that "extreme violence and destruction" are the ends you desire rather than the means



Extreme violence towards and the destruction of current society is what i want. To achieve this does not mean i have to bomb the world. This could be attained through economic and industrial collpase that would create social upheaval and lead to a re structuring of society. 

he end justifioes the means so to achiebve the oblivion of capaital i am willing to go preet far. Despite the stupid kill everyone bollocks....

Violence can take many forms, and it can be positive. This is area of interest to me the dialectics of negativity.


----------



## Top Dog (Aug 31, 2005)

Just saw your edit...






			
				Herbert Read said:
			
		

> The fact that i work in an affinity group is pointless and irrellevant. These are motions we all go through to bridge our own sanity and appease our social consciences. I mostly involve myself in actions for the 'buzz' risk taking element more than the fact that i actually think my actions will result in a society based on the principles of anarchy.


Fair enough. But if thats the case, and its true that the kinds of activity you do are "motions we all go through to bridge our own sanity and appease our social consciences" then is there anything wrong in dressing as a clown if they also understand that their actions wont "result in a society based on the principles of anarchy."? what is _substantially_ different?


----------



## Top Dog (Aug 31, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> he end justifioes the means so to achiebve the oblivion of capaital i am willing to go preet far.


forget whether ends _justify_ means... do you think that means _shape_ ends


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 31, 2005)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> Just saw your edit...Fair enough. But if thats the case, and its true that the kinds of activity you do are "motions we all go through to bridge our own sanity and appease our social consciences" then is there anything wrong in dressing as a clown if they also understand that their actions wont "result in a society based on the principles of anarchy."? what is _substantially_ different?



Firstly i am not making a mockery of class struggle and resistance by turning it into a theatrical art form of nobbery. My own personal charade stems from a deep down feeling that only direct action can change any political process/ruling ideology. Because i feel i am going through the motions does not make the action any less important it is just a reciognition of futility. By having clowns present makes any action a joke, not to be taken seriously, a stunt and a spectacle. Do you really think any liberation movement would have got far with crappy clowns at the fore front.

Whats up TD are you a clown or summat!

The actions i am involved in do not present the only alternative as bunch of samba obsessed clowns.


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 31, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> There are none so blind as those who cannot see, Herbie.



pathetic LLETSA but consistently pathetic


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 31, 2005)

*Herbie struggles to find his level*




			
				Herbert Read said:
			
		

> pathetic LLETSA but consistently pathetic





As Premier League managers often say about the youngsters their clubs have to let go from time to time: 'Whatever else he lacks, the lad's got bags of enthusiasm....'


----------



## Top Dog (Aug 31, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> Whats up TD are you a clown or summat!


er...... no 




			
				Herbert Read said:
			
		

> My own personal charade stems from a deep down feeling that only direct action can change any political process/ruling ideology. Because i feel i am going through the motions does not make the action any less important it is just a reciognition of futility.


Well you sound confused to me...  fair enough - critique activ_ism_ either in its totality as an alienated form or, specifically, on a tactical level. There's reams and reams of critiques of activism and militantism out there... Dont know if you've read _society of the spectacle _ and what you think of it... you've just accepted that _your_ activism fulfils a certain social need - and is perhaps an accommodation to the world. Thats fine. You accept it has its limitations. So why do you then become protective of _your_ form of action as superior to other forms? You seem to be trying to prescribe the limitations between what is an _acceptable_ revolutionary practice and an _unacceptable_ activism. This is just the sort of problem for the militant activist: the need to reproduce everything in its mirror image...

You say that:






			
				Herbert Read said:
			
		

> By having clowns present makes any action a joke, not to be taken seriously, a stunt and a spectacle. Do you really think any liberation movement would have got far with crappy clowns at the fore front.


so the problem is that they dont take themselves seriously enough?!  

Any social movement would be comprised of many many kinds of people. And not everyone will be smashing things up. Does that make those that do not smash things up reformists? middle class? counter revolutionary?


----------



## blamblam (Aug 31, 2005)

Jesus Herbert Read aren't you in the AF?  

Do you not find it ironic you slag off activists, then go off on a massive activist-ist rant, just saying activists should be more violent?

Firstly that would be totally pointless - it's not a new tactic. Propaganda by deed was a pile of shite in the 1800s and it still is now. Secondly you don't even believe it yourself, or you'd do it instead of posting on the net, where The Man will read it. Unless you think now urban's registered users only The Man can't see the threads...

Pickmans - any responses from you?


----------



## Herbert Read (Sep 1, 2005)

icepick said:
			
		

> Jesus Herbert Read aren't you in the AF?
> 
> Do you not find it ironic you slag off activists, then go off on a massive activist-ist rant, just saying activists should be more violent?
> 
> ...



I am in the AF. Does this mean i have to swear a blind oath to defend all act of autonomist/anarchist/independent activity, i dont think so.

No i dont findf it ironic. (do we have to toe an activist line now?)

I can not believe you even compare propganda of the deed to clowns making art and recieving grants from the arts council. 'how wadical'. This is my point i dont think anything particulary works but find my self going through the motions of political activity to fufil a need to take direct action rather than acually believing it makes a serious difference to the society we live in.

My proclamations of violence are tongue in cheek as i have not met any group of activists who could or would seriously carry this out. 
This is my point we as a group of people are delusional we are intrinsic to the spectacle of capatalism. We need capatalism, to dance in tescos's, superglue are heads to roads to stop the eight most powerful men from doing what having coffee, purely symbolic and shambolic. We are confined by the pantomine of our own political activity. I am not advocating a way forward but instead lash out at activists who are self righteous and self assured as they further us on the path to political no where!


----------



## Top Dog (Sep 1, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> I can not believe you even compare propganda of the deed to clowns making art and recieving grants from the arts council. 'how wadical'.


i think icepick was comparing propaganda of the deed to _your own_ proclamations to arms, not the clowns 



			
				Herbert Read said:
			
		

> This is my point i dont think anything particulary works but find my self going through the motions of political activity to fufil a need to take direct action rather than acually believing it makes a serious difference to the society we live in.


youve already said this. But then you go on to privilege _your own _ (self declared) 'meaningless' activity above _others' _ 'meaningless' activity. But you're still not making a convincing argument _for why_ people should take your actions any more seriously than the clown army 



			
				Herbert Read said:
			
		

> I am not advocating a way forward but instead lash out at activists who are self righteous and self assured as they further us on the path to political no where!


but you've stated that your own activity is tantamount to being pointless (not my opinion, but your own!) So according to your own line of argument, that makes *you* just as much part of the problem as those you berate


----------



## Herbert Read (Sep 1, 2005)

Excatly you have got it in one, if you think you know of any activity or way forward please enlighten me!

By all means carry on with the pantomine but do it under no illusion that you are constructing a vast network of resistance.

Im merely an honest person who is critical of activity.

My point is destruction of society and its totality is the only way forward.
the vast majority of current acrivity is menaingless and serves to appease our political conscience. Most activists probably including myself 
(but not at all times such is life) lack the courage of there convictions and seem happy to alienate,distance, dance and patronise those they seek to change society with.


----------



## Top Dog (Sep 1, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> excatly you have got it in one, if you think you know of any activity or way forward please enlighten me!


so, in a nutshell (and its taken quite a few pages to reach this conclusion)... you're saying you're as bad as the clowns?   its just that they're funded and you're not. Is that it?


----------



## Herbert Read (Sep 1, 2005)

Im worse than the clowns at least they believe in something poistive, even if it is there own ego and ridicule.

Im a anarchist nihilist without coffee and fags.


----------



## Herbert Read (Sep 1, 2005)

Can any one tell me any tangible and positive outcomes of the british anarchist/autonmist movement that have had an impact on society....

If you can really provide working examples it may brighten me up.


----------



## Top Dog (Sep 1, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> My point is destruction of society and its totality is the only way forward.
> the vast majority of current acrivity is menaingless and serves to appease our political conscience. Most activists probably including myself
> (but not at all times such is life) lack the courage of there convictions and seem happy to alienate,distance, dance and patronise those they seek to change society with.


the lessons of violence carried out by minorities, from propoganda of the deed right through to the red brigades would suggest that this kind of vanguardism cuts you adrift from your potential base of support and in fact strengthens the state; which then crushes any opposition it perceives it has


----------



## Herbert Read (Sep 1, 2005)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> the lessons of violence carried out by minorities, from propoganda of the deed right through to the red brigades would suggest that this kind of vanguardism cuts you adrift from your potential base of support and in fact strengthens the state; which then crushes any opposition it perceives it has



The autonimist/libertarian/anarchist movement in britain is allready cut of from society?

I like to think not but we are pretty abstract.. take precarity for example!

So we should become mass movement builders then TD?


----------



## Herbert Read (Sep 1, 2005)

would we not have to destroy our current structures in a revolutionary situation as they would be inadequate!


----------



## Top Dog (Sep 1, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> The autonimist/libertarian/anarchist movement in britain is allready cut of from society?


its true, but it would be an extraordinary thing to try to explain away this fact solely on the basis that we are simply doing the wrong kinds of action




			
				Herbert Read said:
			
		

> So we should become mass movement builders then TD?


That, again, is activist speak herbert... social movements will compose themselves, not by activists agitating them into activity, but arising out of a set of material realities. This isnt to suggest that political minorites have no part to play within the development and maturity of these movements, just that they cant create them from a blank piece of paper. Its about feeding into an already existing self activity


----------



## Herbert Read (Sep 1, 2005)

exactly but you allude to movement building as all else is discredited


----------



## Top Dog (Sep 1, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> would we not have to destroy our current structures in a revolutionary situation as they would be inadequate!


first tell me who the 'we' is... and then think about what goes in place of such _structures_. Capitalism isnt a 'thing', there are many coercive elements to the state for sure, but once 'hearts and minds' have been 'won' over to the possibility of social change from the ground up, there is little by that point that the state can do reimpose its legitimacy or discipline. Apart from anihilation i guess!   

But even then, you might find that many people charged with suppressing these movements hedge their bets when they see such overwhelming and inevitable changes taking place before them.


----------



## Top Dog (Sep 1, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> exactly but you allude to movement building as all else is discredited


where have i done that?


----------



## Herbert Read (Sep 1, 2005)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> the lessons of violence carried out by minorities, from propoganda of the deed right through to the red brigades would suggest that this kind of vanguardism cuts you adrift from your potential base of support and in fact strengthens the state; which then crushes any opposition it perceives it has



small sacle violence bad, my assumption is mass movement the way forward

if im incorrect apologies


----------



## Herbert Read (Sep 1, 2005)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> But even then, you might find that many people charged with suppressing these movements hedge their bets when they see such overwhelming and inevitable changes taking place before them.



mass movement?


----------



## Top Dog (Sep 1, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> small sacle violence bad, my assumption is mass movement the way forward
> 
> if im incorrect apologies


social change involves mass participartion, yes. You seem to be asking a supplementary question... that of movement _*building*_ ie. how you _create_ a movement out of nothing. I dont think movements _do_ get created out of nothing, they emerge out of real, existing concrete conditions. Material conditions   Activists are subject to the waxing and waning of these things just like any other section in society


----------



## Herbert Read (Sep 1, 2005)

Your on the way to club Nihilism   old bean. Ill send you the members card and remember the first drink is free


----------



## Top Dog (Sep 1, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> Your on the way to club Nihilism   old bean. Ill send you the members card and remember the first drink is free


hmmm, you better make sure the fag machine is working then and the coffee machine hasnt been destroyed before i get there


----------



## Herbert Read (Sep 1, 2005)

Seriously so do i  and i dont think we have the conditions for mass struggle or social change, hence activity is pointless apart from therapeutic activity, appaesing political conscience and  having a top buzz.

Anything else ie Dissent, rented social centres from a mystery donor   is an attempt to create a movement that does not exist.

One exception is prisoner solidarity awareness and support should always be done.


----------



## Top Dog (Sep 1, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> Seriously so do i  and i dont think we have the conditions for mass struggle or social change, hence activity is pointless apart from therapeutic activity, appaesing political conscience and  having a top buzz.
> 
> Anything else ie Dissent, rented social centres from a mystery donor   is an attempt to create a movement that does not exist.
> 
> One exception is prisoner solidarity awareness and support should always be done.


its important to recognise the difference between a political movement and a social movement. The former will always have a residual presence, only contracting or expanding depending on the balance of forces; the social movement on the other hand can often emerge very quickly and it may or may not have a connection to the political movement. 

The task of any social movement is to go beyond the attempts by any political 'class' to effectively strangle its activity into futile spectacle and alienated forms of protest... the situ critique of the militant is very good on identiying that 'revolutionaries' are often the most conservative forces against social change, because it threatens their privileged role


----------



## Herbert Read (Sep 1, 2005)

exactly  

Kill all activists, see it all comes back to getting rid of the pesky fuckers you first then me


----------



## LLETSA (Sep 1, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> My point is destruction of society and its totality is the only way forward.





A bit like Somalia, say?

Plenty of nihilism about there.


----------



## Raw SslaC (Sep 1, 2005)

Some interesting stuff here. Though I liked to ask where you consider yourself at this point TD, in a political movement or social movement? Just because I think you were arguing that "activist" would fit in the political movement by default because what is termed as "activist" (in the negative context) is someone who relates to life (therefore struggle) from the outside. Similar to "lifestylism" which concieves the relation to politics in the same way as relation to fashion, music scenes and other "ways of life" under capitalism.

There has been a constant critique from the so-called "outside" of activism, on activism and it's barrier to facilitating/circulating social struggles. I think people delude themselves alot of times by denouncing "activism" where is most cases people "outside" of activism will consider them activists. For example, anyone involved in political groups, having political ideas or going on demonstrations are considered in the eyes of society as activists and therefore seperated from "ordinary people". This can't been avoided in my opinion as it is a construct of a very alieanted society, people feel that they can't express their ideas and therefore can only feel comfortable and safe surrounded by people who have similar ideas. This in part can be considered a progressive step, that people meet and engage with others who have a particular perspective on the world so as to organise some sort of resistance movement. Though it can also create a negative reaction, making politics specialised, an identity which supersedes our surroundings and reinforces the alienation between the political and social.

I have read you (TD) saying that it was a breath of fresh air when you first got involved in meeting and associating yourself with people with similar political ideas and that it was a attempt to not be imposed with a identity (hogenous working class, male, that had to think in a certain way). You've also questioned some peoples perceptions on what they mean by "ordinary people" in the context of political action i.e. somehow we start being politicos and not "ordinary people" when we get into politics. This is very important for me because I feel overr the years there has been a tendency by some people involved to re-inforce this division (and thereby reinforce the alienation capitalism produces).

I therefore, in the negative context (the context we are talking about) define Activism, as a lifestyle, reproducing either a specialised role or a role which relates politics as an object from the outside, in which the division between the political and social are reinforced and are inherent in it's reproduction.

To me this clarifies alot on who might fit in that description, I think a fair few academics might also fit in to this definition. 

Some thoughts from sunny greece.

Raw

p.s. we gave the cops a good beating in Xanthi at the No Borders Action


----------



## Top Dog (Sep 1, 2005)

Raw SslaC said:
			
		

> Some interesting stuff here. Though I liked to ask where you consider yourself at this point TD, in a political movement or social movement? Just because I think you were arguing that "activist" would fit in the political movement by default because what is termed as "activist" (in the negative context) is someone who relates to life (therefore struggle) from the outside.


i fit within a political movement. I think all of us in the P&P forum sit squarely within a political movement. That is simply a reflection that we hold to an alternative vision of a world 'turned upside down' in a period where such 'ideas' _are_ marginal. We maintain this vision on an ideological level. I would suggest that there is no current social movement to speak of (in the uk). But also i should be careful not to draw the divisions too markedly (between a political mov. v soc. mov) as there is no single clear line that would distinguish the two as opposed, because they are not _necessarilly_ opposed (tho they can be)... i imagine a social movement's energy more like the ripples that circulate outwards from where a rock gets thrown (    ) in the water disturbing the calm... the effects radiate outwards and extend beyond the initial impact...   






			
				Raw SslaC said:
			
		

> There has been a constant critique from the so-called "outside" of activism, on activism and it's barrier to facilitating/circulating social struggles. I think people delude themselves alot of times by denouncing "activism" where is most cases people "outside" of activism will consider them activists. For example, anyone involved in political groups, having political ideas or going on demonstrations are considered in the eyes of society as activists and therefore seperated from "ordinary people".


i think im following you... i agree but for my part would find it difficult trying to convince myself let alone anyone else that i _wasnt_ an activist. That people take part in activity isnt the problem, far from it. Its that doing it gets treated like doing a job - ie. we reproduce a 'division of labour': the foundation of class society - in how we treat the task of doing things that have political consequences.


----------



## dirtycrustie (Sep 1, 2005)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> Well the problem begins with the 'we' in your conception. You seem to be critiquing 'activism' as an alienated social relationship. Yet you refer back to how 'we' (as a seperate entity from the working class proper [sic]) reproduce capitalist models of organising. The initial task of negating alienation is to rid yourself of the notion of a 'them' and an 'us' in the first place.
> 
> well the economic outcomes are political _surely_? It is political in that whatever the 'type' of political model that is chosen or imposed, it is premised entirely within the realm of bourgeois ideology. Revolution on the other hand requires the rejection of bourgeois ideology in favour of its replacement by new kinds of relationships. Communist relationships. But it seems you're most interested in talking of how to get from the one to the other.
> 
> But i am interested to hear why you reject dialectics as a tool for use in capital's negation


I am interested in the rejection of historical dialectics for a variety of reasons, 
I believe this concept should be explored further by those inside the pro-revolutionary anti-capitalist milieu that questions the possibility (and desirability) of the workers state or Dual power as the only precursors to the demise of capitalism. 


This is particularly true in the case of anarchists, who reject the necessity of this State (or  
Any State) as a means to achieving the ‘highest stage’ of free communism. 

 This belief has led other radical identities to accuse Anarchism and its proponents of vanguardism and has left Anarchists vulnerable to attacks from all quarters (Statist and would be statist alike). 

This has also opened up a great confusion of ideas with practice inside the Anarchist milieu. 
With many actively aping the methodologies of the left. Unlike the Marxists who have an excuse for this behaviour (their belief in the future workers state), Anarchists have none.  This activity towards recruitment (consciousness raising) I believe is a recognition of the lack of numbers Anarchists have that would be required to implement change.

 Many friends seem active in the same recruitment drives for a ‘revolutionary future’ as their left opposites. This display is informed by the very beliefs from which Anarchism sort to separate it from, namely *the faith in a succession of events done correctly that will end in revolution. * This is commonly referred to as the ‘progressive stages to communism’.

This idea (defined originally by Engel’s) informs the activity of the majority of what passes these days for anti-capitalist politics.  ‘The stages to communism’ place the whole of history, the past, present and future into a chrononlogy. This chronology is divided into a series of progressive stages, like runs upon a ladder that will eventually lead us to a heaven on Earth. First we move from savagery to Barbarism, then from Capitalism to Socialism and finally we arrive at the top of the ladder marked stateless communism.

Anarchism’s rejection of the authority of all States should ground its activity to the present. Not only the Bourgeois State but also the Workers State is its anathema. The Anarchists revolution is therefore not an abstract event belonging to a mythological future, where politically conscious numbers of proletarians or material conditions dictate the revolutions coming of age, but it is a process made here in the now, for the State is with us. Yet where is this understanding expressed?


Anarchist political activity at the workplace has revolved around the establishment of free unions and wildcat strikes that seek to over throw and seize the means of production from the bourgeois, or alternatively offer dual power structures that are under workers control.

Yet this seems like more confusion. In this activity there is no noticeable difference between the anarchists and the countless other radical identities that litter the ideological supermarket with dreams of better tomorrows. Anarchist activity in the workplace suffers the same problems of recuperation that I would level at those who seek to create the Workers State. It does not escape prolitarianisation, that is the internalisation of work. This is due to it inability to escape historical dialectics or to acknowledge their existence and try to navigate around them. 

Historical Dialectics runs something like this. The character of the ruling class defines the character of its opposition. The opposition must of necessity engage with reality as described by the ruling class and the subsequent modifications to power of the ruling class and reality are therefore wholly determined by the original character of the ruling class. Inside workplace organising historical dialectics manifests itself as the politics of constraint and management. 

Political campaigning has become the bane of Anarchist activity. Why do I say this? Because in the confusion I feel that they have lost hope and sight of our common goal. We protest capitalism. We dance in streets. Why? Capitalism has no politics of which we can speak. Capitalism is an economic relationship, it cannot be campaigned against, and it is not listening, for it has no ears to hear. But what do I mean when I say it has no politics, this makes no sense, especially if you have felt the policeman’s Billy club connect with your skull. 

Perhaps it would be clearer to say that capitalism has all politics; Social democracy, fascism and Liberalism have all been expressed inside it, and I am sure that anarcho-capitalism could be presented too if such a need arose.

Could it be that politics may be just another diversion of capitalism? Another mode of constraint? Another thing to be consumed from the market place? Another activity for anarchists to engage in?


----------



## Herbert Read (Sep 2, 2005)

That shut them up, so its the end of politics for all


----------



## Top Dog (Sep 2, 2005)

dirtycrustie said:
			
		

> I am interested in the rejection of historical dialectics for a variety of reasons,
> I believe this concept should be explored further by those inside the pro-revolutionary anti-capitalist milieu that questions the possibility (and desirability) of the workers state or Dual power as the only precursors to the demise of capitalism.


dirtycrustie, one of us is a little confused with your choice of terminology and im not sure which one...

are you referring to historical _materialism_ as the thing that you disagree with? it might be me but i havent heard of historical _dialectics_ in the ways you refer to... 

To me, the central point in your post seems to be to debunk the idea of 'economic determinism', but to use P&P's favourite noun this is a straw man argument to which you will find no one disagreeing with you - not even the trots!

I dont understand how this relates to your OP or points that have emerged since though

Sorry - the second part of your post i just didnt understand...


----------



## Herbert Read (Sep 2, 2005)

Why not, 

capatalism and its totality can accommodate all politics

Activism is a charade and a pantomine of the socially incurable...simple yet beautiful


----------



## dirtycrustie (Sep 2, 2005)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> dirtycrustie, one of us is a little confused with your choice of terminology and im not sure which one...
> 
> are you referring to historical _materialism_ as the thing that you disagree with? it might be me but i havent heard of historical _dialectics_ in the ways you refer to...
> 
> ...



By historical dialectics I mean that which emcompasses _dialectics _ in the marxist tradition.ie- _relational dialectics_- the movement of history, and _epistemological dialectics_- a set of laws or principles, governing some sector or the whole of reality -_ontological dialectics_.

While economic determinism is in my arguement, I feel you have missed the point. Thats probabley more to do with my inability to express myself fluently in these formats.  While 'economic determinism' has been touched upon in my posts, this is not the point of my musings..merely I wish to open a debate regarding our methods of achieving our goals.Free comunism.


----------



## Top Dog (Sep 2, 2005)

dirtycrustie said:
			
		

> By historical dialectics I mean that which emcompasses _dialectics _ in the marxist tradition.ie- _relational dialectics_- the movement of history, and _epistemological dialectics_- a set of laws or principles, governing some sector or the whole of reality -_ontological dialectics_.
> 
> While economic determinism is in my arguement, I feel you have missed the point. Thats probabley more to do with my inability to express myself fluently in these formats. While 'economic determinism' has been touched upon in my posts, this is not the point of my musings..merely I wish to open a debate regarding our methods of achieving our goals.Free comunism.


crikey...   

This is getting way off topic, but briefly, this seems to be a terminology thing. Im more familiar with terms like historical _materialism_ or _dialectical_ materialism, which im assuming you're also referring to with 'relational dialectics'. However, while Marx wrote much about the materialist conception of history in, say, the German Ideology, its important to be clear on what dialectics _is_ and what it _isnt_... as Engels and then Kautsky are more closely associated with the above terms (his-mat & dia-mat) than Marx ever was.

Q: do you reject materialism as means of understanding of how we conceive of the world around us?


----------



## sihhi (Sep 2, 2005)

Raw SslaC said:
			
		

> Some thoughts from sunny greece.
> 
> p.s. we gave the cops a good beating in Xanthi at the No Borders Action



Are you calling for no borders/open borders in Xanthi Greece? 

Aren't working class people in Northern Greece opposed to the influx of Albanian (aswell as Romanian, Bulgarian, Ukrainian) cheap labour.

Genuine question BTW.

Because it's definitely the case in Edirne Turkey.


----------



## dirtycrustie (Sep 2, 2005)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> crikey...
> 
> This is getting way off topic, but briefly, this seems to be a terminology thing. Im more familiar with terms like historical _materialism_ or _dialectical_ materialism, which im assuming you're also referring to with 'relational dialectics'. However, while Marx wrote much about the materialist conception of history in, say, the German Ideology, its important to be clear on what dialectics _is_ and what it _isnt_... as Engels and then Kautsky are more closely associated with the above terms (his-mat & dia-mat) than Marx ever was.
> 
> Q: do you reject materialism as means of understanding of how we conceive of the world around us?



No. This is a  position from which I concieve the world and my relationship to reality, what I do reject in dialectics is dialectical oppositon, objectively, no kind of opposition at all.
Here we enter the murky waters of an anti-dialectical politics....


----------



## Top Dog (Sep 3, 2005)

dirtycrustie said:
			
		

> Here we enter the murky waters of an anti-dialectical politics....


what exactly is anti-dialectical politics if its not idealist?

And this time explain in plain english please...


----------



## Gumbert (Sep 4, 2005)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> what exactly is anti-dialectical politics if its not idealist?
> 
> And this time explain in plain english please...



then it gets into dialectic territory  

it is interesting to see the theorectical fallout of narch against anarch..

specially when theres no "trots" about....  

herb that pint still awaits..


----------



## Raw SslaC (Sep 4, 2005)

sihhi said:
			
		

> Are you calling for no borders/open borders in Xanthi Greece?
> 
> Aren't working class people in Northern Greece opposed to the influx of Albanian (aswell as Romanian, Bulgarian, Ukrainian) cheap labour.
> 
> ...



We were calling for "NO BORDERS", borders are there for the management and division of working class people and are solely a tool for statists, nationalists, bosses and fascists to mantain "national identities" and dominance in society. There abolition was the main slogan for the action.


----------

