# Why anarchism as a method of action doesn't work.



## TremulousTetra (Jan 28, 2012)

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/three-held-bank-occupied-020709883.html

When you look at these comrades, you can have nothing but admiration for the selfless and frankly heroic acts of these individuals. For their bravery and commitment to the cause you can do nothing but salute them.

In my opinion this kind of activity is fine, if it is part of a mass movement who can make the state think twice about taking socks actions against individuals [ie those trade unionists the 1970s who were released from prison on spurious grounds when it became evident there would be mass strikes if they remained in prison.]  But in the real world nobody can sustain this kind of activity. Who can afford to be constantly arrested, fined, and imprisoned?

So while I salute these people, I also find this methodology a profligate waste of fine activists.


----------



## elfman (Jan 28, 2012)

Yeh I agree. I think there are a lot of people, especially when they are younger, are very impatient and want things to happen NOW. They are usually good people and have their heart in the right place but their passion and motivation needs channeling. I think they are seen by most working class people as just 'activists' that are operating in a alien sphere.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 28, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/three-held-bank-occupied-020709883.html
> 
> When you look at these comrades, you can have nothing but admiration for the selfless and frankly heroic acts of these individuals. For their bravery and commitment to the cause you can do nothing but salute them.
> 
> ...


but where does it say they were anarchists? you made that bit up, rmp3.

thread fail - again


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 28, 2012)

Interesting that the OP views activists semi-instrumentally, as a resource, rather than as individuals free to determine how they act within society


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 28, 2012)

Of course the myriad sects of the Leninist left have never been politically irrelevant glee clubs whose members burn themselves out engaging in irrelevant ineffective activism.  Whereas no anarchists have ever been contributed to effective mass actions on the basis of class struggle.  Fact!

One of the strengths of many 'Anarchists'* over the sort of politics you represent is their ability to apply this sort of critique to their own practice in periods when I can only imagine the likes of you indulging in self congratulatory, delusional rhetoric.

Take this text published in the wake of June the 18th, one of the high water marks of 'Anarchist' activism in recent decades:

http://www.eco-action.org/dod/no9/activism.htm

*  The inverted commas are an attempt to acknowledge that a lot of class struggle Anarchists have been critical of the sort of activism you are trying to critique for a long time.  Also a lot of people who think that the activist scene shouldn't be completely dismissed as irrelevant and might be worth some (critical) engagement don't necessarily think of themselves as Anarchists or use theoretical tools from an Anarchist tradition to make sense of their politics.


----------



## JimW (Jan 28, 2012)

Shame no anarchist ever suggested any other course of action over the past century or so bar squatting the odd empty bank. Kropotkin's "The Conquest of Bread-heads" has a lot to answer for.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 28, 2012)

I always got the impression that anarchism was a social scene rather than a method of action.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 28, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/three-held-bank-occupied-020709883.html
> 
> When you look at these comrades, you can have nothing but admiration for the selfless and frankly heroic acts of these individuals. For their bravery and commitment to the cause you can do nothing but salute them.
> 
> ...


Where did you learn they were anarchists?


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 28, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/three-held-bank-occupied-020709883.html
> 
> When you look at these comrades, you can have nothing but admiration for the selfless and frankly heroic acts of these individuals. For their bravery and commitment to the cause you can do nothing but salute them.
> 
> ...


 
Just remind me again, you're a member of the SWP aren't you?


----------



## Riklet (Jan 28, 2012)

Send the NKVD in to sort 'em out, OP.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 28, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> Where did you learn they were anarchists?


Well they where protesting but not trying to sell papers.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 28, 2012)

emanymton said:


> Well they where protesting but not try to sell papers.


True; selling papers is the only way a mass movement can make the state think twice about taking socks actions against individuals.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 28, 2012)

there is also a magazine and a quarterly journal (have you considered a full spectrum subscription?)


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jan 28, 2012)

What is a 'sock action'? I have an image of a long sock with a snooker ball in it used as a weapon.


----------



## shagnasty (Jan 28, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> What is a 'sock action'? I have an image of a long sock with a snooker ball in it used as a weapon.


You mean like ray winstone in scum


----------



## manny-p (Jan 28, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/three-held-bank-occupied-020709883.html
> 
> When you look at these comrades, you can have nothing but admiration for the selfless and frankly heroic acts of these individuals. For their bravery and commitment to the cause you can do nothing but salute them.
> 
> ...



How is this anarchism?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2012)

pool ball


----------



## manny-p (Jan 28, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> I always got the impression that anarchism was a social scene rather than a method of action.



If you want to see what true anarchism in action is- look at aragon and to a lesser extent catalunia during the spanish civil. Libertarian Communism is what they called it, thats anarchism as a method of action.


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 29, 2012)

manny-p said:


> If you want to see what true anarchism in action is- look at aragon and to a lesser extent catalunia during the spanish civil. Libertarian Communism is what they called it, thats anarchism as a method of action.


 
Not sure that we can learn a lot from what happened in a largely rural economy with one of the lowest GDPs in the industrialised world nearly 80 years ago.


----------



## elfman (Jan 29, 2012)

elfman said:


> Yeh I agree. I think there are a lot of people, especially when they are younger, are very impatient and want things to happen NOW. They are usually good people and have their heart in the right place but their passion and motivation needs channeling. I think they are seen by most working class people as just 'activists' that are operating in a alien sphere.



btw, I was agreeing about just the individuals. The title of this thread is a load of bollox


----------



## malatesta32 (Jan 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> pool ball



doesnt he say 'carry on' after bludgeoning phils daniels?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2012)

Could a passing mod change the thread title to something meaningful like "another humiliation for rmp3"?


----------



## Athos (Jan 29, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/three-held-bank-occupied-020709883.html
> 
> When you look at these comrades, you can have nothing but admiration for the selfless and frankly heroic acts of these individuals. For their bravery and commitment to the cause you can do nothing but salute them.
> 
> ...



How would you rather see those resources deployed?

Do you think there's any place for a diversity of tactics i.e. a multi-faceted approach?

And, in any event, how do you know these people are anarchists?


----------



## manny-p (Jan 29, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Not sure that we can learn a lot from what happened in a largely rural economy with one of the lowest GDPs in the industrialised world nearly 80 years ago.


So we can learn something from it.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 29, 2012)

This looks promising


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> This looks promising


It would be more promising if people stopped repeating a point I made round post 3


----------



## Athos (Jan 29, 2012)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> It would be more promising if people stopped repeating a point I made round post 3



Or if one person responded to that point.


----------



## manny-p (Jan 29, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> It would be more promising if people stopped repeating a point I made round post 3


It would be more promising if ResistanceMP3 answered your point.


----------



## manny-p (Jan 29, 2012)

Athos said:


> Or if one person responded to that point.


You beat me to it.


----------



## Athos (Jan 29, 2012)

manny-p said:
			
		

> So we can learn something from it.



If you really want to bait him, throw in some references to the Makhnovischina and maybe even Kronstadt.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2012)

manny-p said:


> It would be more promising if ResistanceMP3 answered your point.


He's a shitferbrains twat with the political nous of an aphasic slug. But even he realises he's on a loser here


----------



## danny la rouge (Jan 29, 2012)

manny-p said:


> It would be more promising if ResistanceMP3 answered your point.


He's not going to do that.

He may post a link to an audio clip of Chomsky, though, to show he knows what libertarian communists are.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 29, 2012)

danny la rouge said:


> He's not going to do that.
> 
> He may post a link to an audio clip of Chomsky, though, to show he knows what libertarian communists are.



Or he might link to this: http://www.isj.org.uk/?id=616 lol


----------



## manny-p (Jan 29, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Or he might link to this: http://www.isj.org.uk/?id=616 lol


Ahh one of them!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 29, 2012)

sell the party, build the paper


----------



## manny-p (Jan 29, 2012)

Athos said:


> If you really want to bait him, throw in some references to the Makhnovischina and maybe even Kronstadt.


No cos he might say the Makhnovischina were anti semites and that the Kronstadt sailors were traitor counter revolutionaries that 'regretably' had to be crushed in order for the revolution to stay on course!


----------



## manny-p (Jan 29, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> sell the party, build the paper


tried and tested


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 29, 2012)

manny-p said:


> No cos he might say the Makhnovischina were anti semites and that the Kronstadt sailors were traitor counter revolutionaries that 'regretably' had to be crushed in order for the revolution to stay on course!



Quite right comrade, quite right.

To nick frogwoman's avatar, I love Kronstadt


----------



## Athos (Jan 29, 2012)

manny-p said:


> No cos he might say the Makhnovischina were anti semites and that the Kronstadt sailors were traitor counter revolutionaries that 'regretably' had to be crushed in order for the revolution to stay on course!



Wow!  It's almost as if we've been here before.


----------



## manny-p (Jan 29, 2012)

Athos said:


> Wow! It's almost as if we've been here before.


History keeps repeating itself comrade.


----------



## Athos (Jan 29, 2012)

manny-p said:


> History keeps repeating itself comrade.



So does Rmp3.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 29, 2012)

manny-p said:


> History keeps repeating itself comrade.



Are you sure you don't mean "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce"?

I'll let this one pass, comrade, but if you don't improve it will be the re-education camp for you. Marxism is a science, not a game to be taken lightly.


----------



## manny-p (Jan 29, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Are you sure you don't mean "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce"?
> 
> I'll let this one pass, comrade, but if you don't improve it will be the re-education camp for you. Marxism is a science, not a game to be taken lightly.


Please excuse my laziness comrade. I will gladly go to the re-education camp if need be. The party knows best!


----------



## Athos (Jan 29, 2012)

Keep to the script; it goes like this:

Limited admiration of some aspects of anarchism.  This is to avoid being labeled as divisive, despite the sentiment which immediately follows: a condemnation of some aspect of anarchism.  Often, it will be misdirected: not referring to anarchism at all, but to something he's chosen to label that way - a stick to beat anarchism with.

Some posters will respond mockingly.  Others will advise against engaging with this nonsense.

He will either repeat himself _ad nauseum_, or go entirely silent.

Meantime, someone else will demand historical examples of anarchism 'working'.  Any that are provided will be disparaged for being too old.  (Missing the point that simply because something isn't happening now, it can't happen in the future.)

Any questions about the ongoing successes of Leninism will be ignored.

It all descends into an anti-SWP bunfight, peppered with hilarious digs about anarchism being a 'scene' or a 'lifestyle'.

And so it goes round again.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 29, 2012)

Annakisseds lol


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 29, 2012)

You forgot 'sly quips about cannabis and/or cider'


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 29, 2012)

Where's that pic of the skinny middle class anarcho that ernestolynch loves so much? That needs an airing on this thread.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 29, 2012)

This'll have to do:


----------



## Athos (Jan 29, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:
			
		

> Where's that pic of the skinny middle class anarcho that ernestolynch loves so much? That needs an airing on this thread.



It's threads like this which make me miss Ern.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 29, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Where's that pic of the skinny middle class anarcho that ernestolynch loves so much? That needs an airing on this thread.


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 29, 2012)

alerts said:
			
		

> *ResistanceMP3 liked your post in the thread Why anarchism as a method of action doesn't work..*


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 29, 2012)

eoin_k said:


> Of course the myriad sects of the Leninist left have never been politically irrelevant glee clubs whose members burn themselves out engaging in irrelevant ineffective activism. Whereas no anarchists have ever been contributed to effective mass actions on the basis of class struggle. Fact!
> 
> One of the strengths of many 'Anarchists'* over the sort of politics you represent is their ability to apply this sort of critique to their own practice in periods when I can only imagine the likes of you indulging in self congratulatory, delusional rhetoric.
> 
> ...


Thanks, good post imo.

"Of course the myriad sects of the Leninist left have never been politically irrelevant glee clubs whose members burn themselves out engaging in irrelevant ineffective activism. Whereas no anarchists have ever been contributed to effective mass actions on the basis of class struggle. Fact!" Your irony is not lost on me, but is also not something I'm really interested in at this moment. I accept to some degree your accusations about  Leninist sects, but it is not the specific point I am interested in.

Secondly, I'm not dictating, as some people have inferred, what activists should or should not do. That's their choice if they want to go to prison etc. I'm just asking, pointing out, that the tactics are a profligate waste of fine revolutionary comrades. Something upon which you and I, and the link you have provided, seemed to agree upon.

I cannot speak for other Leninist groups, but I am indeed glad to see that anarchists do critique this wastefull methodology, as do the SWP.

"Take this text published in the wake of June the 18th, one of the high water marks of 'Anarchist' activism in recent decades:

http://www.eco-action.org/dod/no9/activism.htm

* The inverted commas are an attempt to acknowledge that a lot of class struggle Anarchists have been critical of the sort of activism you are trying to critique for a long time. Also a lot of people who think that the activist scene shouldn't be completely dismissed as irrelevant and might be worth some (critical) engagement don't necessarily think of themselves as Anarchists or use theoretical tools from an Anarchist tradition to make sense of their politics."

And I totally accept this flawed methodology is not confined to anarchism. The Easter uprising where great revolutionaries paid with their lives for such a folly was equally criticised by the SWP. But it does seem the concentration on the individual rather than the primacy of the collective action, which is so endemic in the anarchist philosophy, does lead to more individual acts on behalf of the class, rather than collective acts with the class.

I Remember a discussion with Athos [I think it was Athos] about Seattle, where he seemed far more concerned about the right of anarchists to ignore the democratic will of the majority, rather than the effectiveness and the cost to the movement as a whole. Even comments in this thread by other people give primacy to the individual, rather than the collective. I have no problem whatsoever with individuals doing what they want, and ignoring the majority, if it is not stupidly offering up to the state as some kind of sacrifice, cannon fodder, comrades who are so desperately needed in the fight for progressive politics. And even then, it is their choice. I am just suggesting two things, 1. This is a waste. 2. Concentration on the individual makes this more prevalent amongst anarchists.

I don't think anarchists can deny the anarchists place more emphasis on the individual and the SWP place more emphasis on the collective, can they?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 29, 2012)

eoin_k said:


>


LOL, see above.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Interesting that the OP views activists semi-instrumentally, as a resource, rather than as individuals free to determine how they act within society


Thanks.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 29, 2012)

> e he seemed far more concerned about the right of anarchists to ignore the democratic will of the majority, rather than the effectiveness and the cost to the movement as a whole. Even comments in this thread by other people give primacy to the individual, rather than the collective



the greek stalinists were using this line to give the anarchists a hard time recently. Lots of accusations and counter accusations of touthood and beating up workers etc etc


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2012)

3 people have been arrested for trespass for fucks sake - they've not been executed by firing squad. That's it, trespass - 'profligate waste of fine revolutionary comrades' indeed


----------



## Athos (Jan 29, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I Remember a discussion with Athos [I think it was Athos] about Seattle, where he seemed far more concerned about the right of anarchists to ignore the democratic will of the majority, rather than the effectiveness and the cost to the movement as a whole.



What is the 'movement as a whole'?  If it isn't a movement towards freedom, it's nothing.  And coercion of comrades is anathema to that freedom.  This 'democratic will of the majority' is nothing more than mob rule when it is used to trample others' freedoms.  My point was that there's room for a diversity of tactics.  But, sadly, some within 'the left' don't like that, because they prefer to control the whole show.



ResistanceMP3 said:


> I don't think anarchists can deny the anarchists place more emphasis on the individual and the SWP place more emphasis on the collective, can they?



I can deny it.  Anarchists place more emphasis on freedom; the SWP places more emphasis in the working class doing what it's told.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I Remember a discussion with Athos [I think it was Athos] about Seattle, where he seemed far more concerned about the right of anarchists to ignore the democratic will of the majority, rather than the effectiveness and the cost to the movement as a whole.



I do hope Athos digs up that particular thread, even if only to expose how you're misrepresenting him. 



> Even comments in this thread by other people give primacy to the individual, rather than the collective.



From what is a collective constituted?
From individuals, of course. At best from individuals with broadly-similar aims, at worst, from forcing people to come together behind a particular philosophy.
Anarchisms often choose to focus on the former, rather than seek imposition of the latter.



> I have no problem whatsoever with individuals doing what they want, and ignoring the majority, if it is not stupidly offering up to the state as some kind of sacrifice, cannon fodder, comrades who are so desperately needed in the fight for progressive politics. And even then, it is their choice. I am just suggesting two things, 1. This is a waste. 2. Concentration on the individual makes this more prevalent amongst anarchists.



And here again we have the instrumental view of activists as tools to be used to fight a cause. Whose cause, I wonder?



> I don't think anarchists can deny the anarchists place more emphasis on the individual and the SWP place more emphasis on the collective, can they?



Wow, I didn't see that one coming! The SWP's cause!! Of course!!


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 29, 2012)

*
*​


Athos said:


> What is the 'movement as a whole'? If it isn't a movement towards freedom, it's nothing. And coercion of comrades is anathema to that freedom. This 'democratic will of the majority' is nothing more than mob rule when it is used to trample others' freedoms. My point was that there's room for a diversity of tactics. But, sadly, some within 'the left' don't like that, because they prefer to control the whole show.
> 
> 
> > LOL, you're not talking to me, you're talking at a fictitious character, that exists in a fictitious SWP.
> ...


You havn't though.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 29, 2012)

if we disregard the bullish about Marxism, quite an interesting article.
*David Graeber is a *​*Reader in Social Anthropology*​* at Goldsmiths, University of London. *​*"the occupier movement is a genuine attempt to create  the institutions of a new society in the shell of the old"*​http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/11/489316.html


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2012)

Athos said:


> What is the 'movement as a whole'?



That's the vexed question, isn't it? RMP3 obviously sees a monolithic "movement" ripe to be guided. Me, personally I see a lot of disparate threads of protest that occasionally coalesce into a series of movements behind particular causes or ideals.



> If it isn't a movement towards freedom, it's nothing. And coercion of comrades is anathema to that freedom.



Surely, if comrades don't do what they're told, then they're not comrades any more, and can be given a show trial and summary execution? 



> This 'democratic will of the majority' is nothing more than mob rule when it is used to trample others' freedoms. My point was that there's room for a diversity of tactics. But, sadly, some within 'the left' don't like that, because they prefer to control the whole show.



And why wouldn't they? "Controlling the whole show is the only way they're ever going to propagate their ideas on a large scale, 'cos history shows us that they've signally failed to "sell" those ideas to more than a fraction of politically-motivated activists.



> I can deny it. Anarchists place more emphasis on freedom; the SWP places more emphasis in the working class doing what it's told.



And being grateful to those who condescend to tell them what to do, obviously.


----------



## Athos (Jan 29, 2012)

Deleted double post.


----------



## Athos (Jan 29, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> You havn't though.



Eh?

And, I haven't what?

By the way, can you explain how you know the people you referred to are anarchists, please?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I do hope Athos digs up that particular thread, even if only to expose how you're misrepresenting him.


noneed, he has already reiterated;





Athos said:


> What is the 'movement as a whole'? If it isn't a movement towards freedom, it's nothing. And coercion of comrades is anathema to that freedom. This 'democratic will of the majority' is nothing more than mob rule when it is used to trample others' freedoms. My point was that there's room for a diversity of tactics.



so do you agree?


----------



## JimW (Jan 29, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> 3 people have been arrested for trespass for fucks sake - they've not been executed by firing squad. That's it, trespass - 'profligate waste of fine revolutionary comrades' indeed


We hardly knew 'em  We've lowered the black flag here at the Peng Pai Memorial Commune to half staff.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> noneed, he has already reiterated;



No, he didn't reiterate, he gave an answer to what you *said* that he'd stated. Nowhere near the same thing.



> so do you agree?



Why not read what I wrote in reply to Athos' point?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2012)

JimW said:


> We hardly knew 'em  We've lowered the black flag here at the Peng Pai Memorial Commune to half staff.



Same here at the embassy for the People's Republic of Panda. The skull and crossbones is at half-mast.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, he didn't reiterate, he gave an answer to what you *said*that he'd stated. Nowhere near the same thing.
> 
> 
> > he reiterated his position in the Seattle thread
> ...


because you are not talking about anarchism or Athos's position, you're obsessed with the SWP as usual.

So;

This 'democratic will of the majority' is nothing more than mob rule​


----------



## Athos (Jan 29, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> So;
> 
> This 'democratic will of the majority' is nothing more than mob rule



Don't you think there's something disingenuous about quoting half a sentence?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> because you are not talking about anarchism or Athos's position, you're obsessed with the SWP as usual.



Well, actually, as I'm sure Athos would attest, I was "talking about anarchism and Athos' position". I was merely doing so through the lens of an ideology that you favour. 



> So;
> 
> This 'democratic will of the majority' is nothing more than mob rule​



You're a rancidly dishonest little fuck, aren't you, selectively editing Athos' post so that what you've quoted is decontextualised from what he actually wrote.


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 29, 2012)

But which is worse a quick death at the hands of a firing squad under suspision of an alleged criminal tresspass, or a slow agonising death drowining in a sea of unsent petitions, newspaper sales targets and memos from central office demanding yet another recruitment drive to build the revolutionary party.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2012)

Athos said:


> Don't you think there's something disingenuous about quoting half a sentence?



Disingenuous? More like dishonest and absolutely of a par with what he always does.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2012)

eoin_k said:


> But which is worse a quick death at the hands of a firing squad under suspision of an alleged criminal tresspass, or a slow agonising death drowining in a sea of unsent petitions, newspaper sales targets and memos from central office demanding yet another recruitment drive to build the revolutionary party.



I'll take the quick death every time, thanks.


----------



## manny-p (Jan 29, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> noneed, he has already reiterated;
> 
> so do you agree?


----------



## Athos (Jan 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Disingenuous? More like dishonest and absolutely of a par with what he always does.



I know. Not sure why I bother getting drawn into his shit.


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 29, 2012)

you won't be needing this then.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 29, 2012)

Hmmm. From the facts on the ground the olsx are not anarchists or commies, just people with a shared sense of injustice and some well meaning ideas. The majority of them if they HAVE to be classified are Buddhists. 

What is dismaying is that both the mainstream media and the collective wisdom of the so called political left seem to relish taking potshots at them and ascribing labels to them to disassociate themselves and their creeds from them. 

Rarely have I seen anything which approaches a fair representation of those people involved from any of the groups reporting around them. Let alone anything like a supportive or positive encouragement. 

To the mainstream they are dirty unwashed junkie hippies and to the wadical left they are unfocused jumped up petit borgious. 

Both are so thoroughly entrenched in their ideas of what the olsx and the wider occupy movement should be and how it should behave to have bothered to take the time to find out the truth of the matter. 

Many on here are frankly showing there naked prejudices as much as the mainstream. 

The brutally sad thing is that as a result it only goes to show that modern left and right wing thinking is nothing more than sides of the same coin. 

Time to become relevant or fuck off as the dinosaurs of another age. Cos at present both groups look like apologists who are intent on maintaining the status quo as it feathers there own nests. 

Fucking pathetic.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 29, 2012)

Athos said:


> Don't you think there's something disingenuous about quoting half a sentence?


don't you think this something disingenuous not dealing with the issue and just making up shit that me in the SWP are supposed to believe?

Whether anarchists like it or not, there is a democratic will of the majority. Those who concentrate on the actions of the collective,those who see the emancipation of the working class being the act of the working class, seek to work with the working-class, *even when* the will majority goes against what they believe would be best for the movement as a whole [ie the real world me]. SOME Anarchist's obsession with individual conscience and individual initiative leads them more often than not to spit their dummies when the vote goes against them,, fuckoff and do their own thing, instead of trying to work with people. This leaves them exposed as individuals, easy meat for the state to pick off and throw in jail, something I regret as I consider you comrades.in the case of Seattle, the actions of the anarchists gave this day an excuse to bash the movement as a whole. The movement as a whole paid the price for your ''freedom' imo.


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 29, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> ...
> Many on here are frankly showing there naked prejudices as much as the mainstream...



I think you have the wrong thread.  This one is for ridiculing resistanceMP3 for trying to label members of the occupy movement as anarchists.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 29, 2012)

I will repost this link as it seems to have been ignored, and is in fact quite interesting on A anarchist position.

http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/11/489316.html


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 29, 2012)

It simply ceases to be an issue of what they should be doing or should be saying or how they should be doing something else with this or that polical paradigm but one of what are you doing within a popular uprising to peruse those ends.

The answer is of corse deafening silence other than irrelevant bitching on the side lines as in reality is always the case.

Time to put up or fuck off.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 29, 2012)

eoin_k said:


> I think you have the wrong thread. This one is for ridiculing resistanceMP3 for trying to label members of the occupy movement as anarchists.


according to one anarchist "The occupy movement is a genuine attempt to create the institutions of a new society in the shell of the old''​
 *The 'Occupy' movement is 'a genuine attempt to create the institutions of a new society in the shell of the old' [AFP]*​


----------



## manny-p (Jan 29, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> SOME Anarchist's obsession with individual conscience and individual initiative leads them more often than not to spit their dummies when the vote goes against them



Give us an example of this?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 29, 2012)

eoin_k said:


> I think you have the wrong thread.  This one is for ridiculing resistanceMP3 for trying to label members of the occupy movement as anarchists.


I think most on these boards with professed left Wong ideals are nothin more than armchair generals with fuck all intention of doing anything like what the occupy movement have attempted because they are only interested in being right on the Internet.

This thread as with EVERY other bullshit thread on here on the subject really is about further entrenching those battlelines so pinkos and anarkids can say I'm considerably more radical than you...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 29, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I will repost this link as it seems to have been ignored, and is in fact quite interesting on A anarchist position.
> 
> http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/11/489316.html


Bullshit post by irrelevant label obsessed wanker is as relevant as George Osborne take on them...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 29, 2012)

Seriously. Resistances or any of you prize pussyholes what the fuck have you done....

Nothing. Fuck all.  I posted my wadical thoughts on the interwebs. Fuck off.  You're all fucking jokes..


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 29, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> Bullshit post by irrelevant label obsessed wanker is as relevant as George Osborne take on them...


Oh right, the usual, 'he aint a real anarchist' arguement. OK


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 29, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> according to one anarchist "The occupy movement is a genuine attempt to create the institutions of a new society in the shell of the old''


I've seen the SWP sniffing arround there trying to get in on the action.  Perhaps it is a secret front set up by the CC and nobody told you about it.  Seriously what does this prove.  I know people who would consider themselves anarchists who have got involved.  I also noticed some stoned people a few Turkish tankies, members of a womens football team and an Ayn Rand fanboy.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 29, 2012)

And all this about people using the democratic will of the majority to control anarchists is nothing but paranoia. Nobody wants to control anarchists.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 29, 2012)

eoin_k said:


> I've seen the SWP sniffing arround there trying to get in on the action. Perhaps it is a secret front set up by the CC and nobody told you about it. Seriously what does this prove. I know people who would consider themselves anarchists who have got involved. I also noticed some stoned people a few Turkish tankies, members of a womens football team and an Ayn Rand fanboy.


I'm not interested in that strawman arguement. Never have been. Anarchism's obsession with the individual, which is constantly leading you into this kind of martyrdom.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 29, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> because you are not talking about anarchism or Athos's position, you're obsessed with the SWP as usual



I think this might be just a teensy weensy bit hypocritical. I can't check whether vp has ever started a thread on the swp (posting from my phone) but I certainly don't remember him ever doing so. In fact the only times I can even recall him mentioning them have been on threads about anarchism started by you. And there are fucking loads of those (again, posting from my phone so I can't give a number). Might I respectfully suggest that it's you who is obsessed with anarchism, not vp who is obsessed with the swp. 

And as a Marxist I'd also like to point out to my anarchist friends that most of us are not like rmp3, in fact we find him as annoying as you do. Maybe more so, since he and the likes of him act to discredit us better than any opponent could ever hope to (and regretably there are plenty of people who call themselves marxists whose ideas are similar to his)


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 29, 2012)

My sect is better than your sect.

Fucking splitters.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 29, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Oh right, the usual, 'he aint a real anarchist' arguement. OK


Seriously fuck off son. 

It's the they are representative of the group they are critiquing but fine place it into your own terms so you can dismiss actual action being taken from your keyboard warrior bullshit. 

You and all like you attempting to ascribe ideals to other groups from the outside are scum. 

Plain and simple. 

One day, and I pray its soon you'll be beaten to death by mobs.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 29, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I'm not interested in that strawman arguement. Never have been. Anarchism's obsession with the individual, which is constantly leading you into this kind of martyrdom.


You post nothing but straw man arguments. 

I do mean nothing. You vaccines waste of DNA


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 29, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I'm not interested in that strawman arguement.


Wheras your argument lacks the structure to construct a straw man.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 29, 2012)

See my cock...

It's bigger than your cock...


----------



## Athos (Jan 29, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> don't you think this something disingenuous not dealing with the issue and just making up shit that me in the SWP are supposed to believe?



I don't even know what your issue is!



ResistanceMP3 said:


> Whether anarchists like it or not, there is a democratic will of the majority.



There is nothing 'democratic' about a position which tramples over the legitimate freedoms of comrades.



ResistanceMP3 said:


> Those who concentrate on the actions of the collective,those who see the emancipation of the working class being the act of the working class, seek to work with the working-class, *even when* the will majority goes against what they believe would be best for the movement as a whole [ie the real world me].  SOME Anarchist's obsession with individual conscience and individual initiative leads them more often than not to spit their dummies when the vote goes against them,, fuckoff and do their own thing, instead of trying to work with people.



I don't seek to work with the working class; I am working class.  And the feedom in which I believe isn't the individulism to do exactly as I please, in my own interests; instead, it is simply the freedom to act according to my own conscience and judgement (informed but not dictated by comrades), to act in the way which I believe will further our shared aims.



ResistanceMP3 said:


> This leaves them exposed as individuals, easy meat for the state to pick off and throw in jail, something I regret as I consider you comrades.



Perhaps this would be more believable if it wasn't for the constant sniping.



ResistanceMP3 said:


> in the case of Seattle, the actions of the anarchists gave this day an excuse to bash the movement as a whole. The movement as a whole paid the price for your ''freedom' imo.



People will always bash the movement.  What's depressing is that others can't see through this crude divide-and-rule tactic, and actually adopt it themselves.

What would you have achieved without the anarchists, anyway?

And, for the umpteenth time: what makes you sure that those people you referred to in the OP were anarchists?


----------



## Athos (Jan 29, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> according to one anarchist "The occupy movement is a genuine attempt to create the institutions of a new society in the shell of the old''​
> *The 'Occupy' movement is 'a genuine attempt to create the institutions of a new society in the shell of the old' [AFP]*​



Sorry, I forgot that we'd elected him Grand master of all the Anarchists.


----------



## Athos (Jan 29, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> Seriously. Resistances or any of you prize pussyholes what the fuck have you done....
> 
> Nothing. Fuck all. I posted my wadical thoughts on the interwebs. Fuck off. You're all fucking jokes..


 
Like you've got a fucking clue what people here have or haven't done.  Clown.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 29, 2012)

Athos said:


> Like you've got a fucking clue what people here have or haven't done.  Clown.


Nothing. 

That's the point. 

Still I'm sure you have a massive penis


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 29, 2012)

What I do know is they aren't involved in the actions they are decrying now on this thread or others son.


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 29, 2012)

Garfield it is nice to hear that you have a big one.  I'm glad for you.  You seem very proud of it.  But again I think you might have the wrong thread.  You could try the naked one or perhaps something in Nobbing and Sobbing.


----------



## Athos (Jan 29, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> Nothing.
> 
> That's the point.
> 
> Still I'm sure you have a massive penis



Seriously. It's ridiculous to suggest that nobody on this thread has done anything more than post on the internet.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 29, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> What I do know is they aren't involved in the actions they are decrying now on this thread or others son.


If you actually read i decried the actions of the socialist James Connolly, I wasn't involved with that either. Does that mean I cant discuss it?


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 29, 2012)

If only the Irish Citizens' Army had had the benefit of your strategic leadership.


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 29, 2012)

And what exactly was the straw man argument I was supposed to be using - I wasn't seriously suggesting that occupy London was a secret front set up by the SWP CC.  You do realise that?


----------



## Athos (Jan 29, 2012)

eoin_k said:


> If only the Irish Citizens' Army had had the benefit of your strategic leadership.


 
They'd have sold a lot more papers.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 29, 2012)

Athos said:


> Seriously. It's ridiculous to suggest that nobody on this thread has done anything more than post on the internet.


Cool. What precisely have you done insupport of the occupy movement you can be vague in case the Feds are watching but I'm sure you can say where you've helped out this cause. If not then your protests are simply adding to the cacophony of pointless noise.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 29, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> If you actually read i decried the actions of the socialist James Connolly, I wasn't involved with that either. Does that mean I cant discuss it?


You can discuss what you want.  You usually do. It doesn't mean your opinion has any ficking weight as part of this current movement.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 29, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> Hmmm.
> snip
> Fucking pathetic.


because of what happened earlier, I thought I would explain why I like your post.

Your post in my experience of most people I have spoke to on here do seem to reflect the majority of anarchist position to progressive left.   ' modern left and right wing thinking is nothing more than sides of the same coin.'

it's a bit like the link I gave to the anarchist talking about the occupying movement, and his position about 'Marxism' just wanting to take over the state and wield it on behalf of the working class, even though the SWP have said many times "the state is not like a car you cant get in and drive in any direction you want' and 'the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class'. It just amazes me how often anarchists completely must understand, and misrepresent what is actually said, and then jump to the conclusion that the the SWP, and in this case the whole  socialist revolutionary left, are just as bad as the ruling class.


----------



## Athos (Jan 29, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> Cool. What precisely have you done insupport of the occupy movement you can be vague in case the Feds are watching but I'm sure you can say where you've helped out this cause. If not then your protests are simply adding to the cacophony of pointless noise.


Listen, mate - I do my bit.

Though, as it happens, I haven't done anything particularly significant for the Occupy movement.  So what?  I haven't disparaged it, either.

I have no beef with Occupy, or with you.  i just think it's silly to come on here to call people 'prize pussyholes' and say that they've done fuck all other than than post on the internet.


----------



## Athos (Jan 29, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> because of what happened earlier, I thought I would explain why I like your post.
> 
> Your post in my experience of most people I have spoke to on here do seem to reflect the majority of anarchist position to progressive left. 'modern left and right wing thinking is nothing more than sides of the same coin.'
> 
> it's a bit like the link I gave to the anarchist talking about the occupying movement, and his position about 'Marxism' just wanting to take over the state and wield it on behalf of the working class, even though the SWP have said many times "the state is not like a car you cant get in and drive in any direction you want' and 'the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class'. It just amazes me how often anarchists completely must understand, and misrepresent what is actually said, and then jump to the conclusion that the the SWP, and in this case the whole socialist revolutionary left, are just as bad as the ruling class.



I don't think the SWP is just as bad as the ruling class.

I think it's worse!


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 29, 2012)

Athos said:


> Listen, mate - I do my bit.
> 
> Though, as it happens, I haven't done anything particularly significant for the Occupy movement.  So what?  I haven't disparaged it, either.
> 
> I have no beef with Occupy, or with you.  i just think it's silly to come on here to call people 'prize pussyholes' and say that they've done fuck all other than than post on the internet.



I'm just fed up of people attempting to liable it as this type of movement or to claim it s not doing shit as they would have it done the point if it has any political motivation at all is to have a place a movement where the dialogue can be heard and to then move forward.

It's nothing more than a provisional council, to hear people on this thread and others talk about it it's failed as a movement of resistance and change because a its not what they would, do whilst not actually being involved themselves. These are the pussyholes I refer too.  Unless you identify as one of them then you shouldn't take offence if you do identify with that characterisation then get involved or cease bitching.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> Hmmm. From the facts on the ground the olsx are not anarchists or commies, just people with a shared sense of injustice and some well meaning ideas. The majority of them if they HAVE to be classified are Buddhists.
> 
> What is dismaying is that both the mainstream media and the collective wisdom of the so called political left seem to relish taking potshots at them and ascribing labels to them to disassociate themselves and their creeds from them.



TBF, the only person who's done that w/r/t OLSX is RMP3, and he's pretty much an exemplar of the "wisdom" of an element of the "political left".



> Rarely have I seen anything which approaches a fair representation of those people involved from any of the groups reporting around them. Let alone anything like a supportive or positive encouragement.
> 
> To the mainstream they are dirty unwashed junkie hippies and to the wadical left they are unfocused jumped up petit borgious.



The mainstream have several agendas which get fulfilled by implying that protesters are some sort of "marginals", and the "wadical left" usually find anyone who doesn't implicitly or explicitly follow *their* agenda to be "unfocused". As for the _bourgeois_ label, who knows whether that's true unless they actually know the people being labelled?



> Both are so thoroughly entrenched in their ideas of what the olsx and the wider occupy movement should be and how it should behave to have bothered to take the time to find out the truth of the matter.
> 
> Many on here are frankly showing there naked prejudices as much as the mainstream.
> 
> ...



The mainstream view (at last as represented by the media) wants to denigrate and neutralise protest, part of the "left" view wants to co-opt any protest as fuel and fodder for a revolution that they will lead, with the protesters as willing ground-troops. Of course it's pathetic, not least because it's unrealistic.


----------



## Athos (Jan 29, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> I'm just fed up of people attempting to liable it as this type of movement or to claim it s not doing shit as they would have it done the point if it has any political motivation at all is to have a place a movement where the dialogue can be heard and to then move forward.
> 
> It's nothing more than a provisional council, to hear people on this thread and others talk about it it's failed as a movement of resistance and change because a its not what they would, do whilst not actually being involved themselves. These are the pussyholes I refer too. Unless you identify as one of them then you shouldn't take offence if you do identify with that characterisation then get involved or cease bitching.



Since I don't identify with the pussyholes, no offence taken.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 29, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> because of what happened earlier, I thought I would explain why I like your post.
> 
> Your post in my experience of most people I have spoke to on here do seem to reflect the majority of anarchist position to progressive left.   ' modern left and right wing thinking is nothing more than sides of the same coin.'
> 
> it's a bit like the link I gave to the anarchist talking about the occupying movement, and his position about 'Marxism' just wanting to take over the state and wield it on behalf of the working class, even though the SWP have said many times "the state is not like a car you cant get in and drive in any direction you want' and 'the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class'. It just amazes me how often anarchists completely must understand, and misrepresent what is actually said, and then jump to the conclusion that the the SWP, and in this case the whole  socialist revolutionary left, are just as bad as the ruling class.


None of which hs anything to do with the occupy movement. Nothing.

It has to do with your disaatisfaction at the state of left wing movements and frankly that's of little consequence to anyone other than your idea of self identity.  No one cares. Except you. 

It certainly has fuck all to do with the many hundreds in the uk or thousands across the world trying hard in the face of these very emotionally crippled activists to move the debate forward on all sides. 

Practical application is more important than posturing about idiologies of different sects.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> don't you think this something disingenuous not dealing with the issue and just making up shit that me in the SWP are supposed to believe?
> 
> Whether anarchists like it or not, there is a democratic will of the majority.


No, there's a will of the majority that may be or may not be "democratic".



> Those who concentrate on the actions of the collective,those who see the emancipation of the working class being the act of the working class, seek to work with the working-class...



What a fucking joke. You don't even see the contradiction in seeing "the emancipation of the working class being an act of the working class" and then following with that with crap about "working *with* the working class" (my emphasis). You're not part of us, you're part of a bunch of cocksucking leeches who want to leech off of us.



> *...even when* the will majority goes against what they believe would be best for the movement as a whole [ie the real world me]. SOME Anarchist's obsession with individual conscience and individual initiative leads them more often than not to spit their dummies when the vote goes against them,, fuckoff and do their own thing, instead of trying to work with people. This leaves them exposed as individuals, easy meat for the state to pick off and throw in jail, something I regret as I consider you comrades.in the case of Seattle, the actions of the anarchists gave this day an excuse to bash the movement as a whole. The movement as a whole paid the price for your ''freedom' imo.



Where's your "movement" ever got people, hmm? Seems like we've achieved a fuckload more as disparate strands of protest , than as stooges being stage-managed by the swappies.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> according to one anarchist "The occupy movement is a genuine attempt to create the institutions of a new society in the shell of the old''​
> *The 'Occupy' movement is 'a genuine attempt to create the institutions of a new society in the shell of the old' [AFP]*​



You're still having problems with the reality that because *one* anarchist offers an interpretation doesn't mean that *all* anarchists find that interpretation tenable.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> TBF, the only person who's done that w/r/t OLSX is RMP3, and he's pretty much an exemplar of the "wisdom" of an element of the "political left".



Sadly they are not alone. If it was one rabid muppet it would be fine but not.

I'm sure if I was a swappie I'd name names at this point as being traitors to the revolution!


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 29, 2012)

Athos said:


> Since I don't identify with the pussyholes, no offence taken.


Then we are all friends again.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 29, 2012)

Athos said:


> I don't think the SWP is just as bad as the ruling class.
> 
> I think it's worse!


The. Really don't engage with them or their kind. 

It's a waste of breath.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> I think most on these boards with professed left Wong ideals are nothin more than armchair generals with fuck all intention of doing anything like what the occupy movement have attempted because they are only interested in being right on the Internet.
> 
> This thread as with EVERY other bullshit thread on here on the subject really is about further entrenching those battlelines so pinkos and anarkids can say I'm considerably more radical than you...



TBF, as far as I'm concerned, it's nothing to do with whose radicalism is stronger, it's about certain elements of the left not wishing to accept that left-thought isn't a homogeneous slab of opinion that can and should be brought to bear against any target that those certain elements of the left wish to direct it against. RMP3's arguments are riddled with his assumptions and presumptions about what people of the left *should* do (under the aegis of his favoured organisation, preferably), and with his misrepresentation of the position of anyone who doesn't fall in with his opinions.


----------



## Athos (Jan 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're still having problems with the reality that because *one* anarchist offers an interpretation doesn't mean that *all* anarchists find that interpretation tenable.



He can't quite get his head around a grouping of the revolutionary left in which all 'members' aren't required to adhere strictly to a centrally dictated orthodoxy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Oh right, the usual, 'he aint a real anarchist' arguement. OK



Isn't what Garf said.

I mean, we know how you like to construct these straw men, but at least have a little bit more fucking finesse, eh?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2012)

Athos said:


> He can't quite get his head around a grouping of the revolutionary left in which all 'members' aren't required to adhere strictly to a centrally dictated orthodoxy.



Not just that, but the fact that they don't *offends* him.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I'm not interested in that strawman arguement. Never have been. Anarchism's obsession with the individual, which is constantly leading you into this kind of martyrdom.



You're not interested in any but your own straw men, anyway, because that's what your reply contains.


----------



## Athos (Jan 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not just that, but the fact that they don't *offends* him.


And, judging from his obsession with anarchism, enthralls and excites him at the same time.  He's a sectarian fetishist.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2012)

Athos said:


> Sorry, I forgot that we'd elected him Grand master of all the Anarchists.



We did? I didn't get a vote. The tyranny of the majority!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2012)

eoin_k said:


> If only the Irish Citizens' Army had had the benefit of your strategic leadership.



They'd have all been dead before 1916.


----------



## Athos (Jan 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> We did? I didn't get a vote. The tyranny of the majority!!


I think you'll find it's the democratically decided will of the majority.  Why do you need a vote?  It's that sort of individualism which undermines 'the movement' or should that be 'The Wave'?


----------



## JHE (Jan 29, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Where's that pic of the skinny middle class anarcho that ernestolynch loves so much? That needs an airing on this thread.



Be fair.  Not all Anarcho-Wotsits are masked teenagers.









DotCommunist said:


> You forgot 'sly quips about cannabis and/or cider'



Why be sly about it?


----------



## Athos (Jan 29, 2012)

JHE said:


> Be fair. Not all Anarcho-Wotsits are masked teenagers.



What the fuck is with his ball-bag?!

I had enlarged the image and zoomed in, just in time for the Mrs to walk in.  Have some explaining to do.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 29, 2012)

That has to be a gut, nobody has balls like that except that Viz character


----------



## Riklet (Jan 29, 2012)

50 pages....


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 29, 2012)




----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 29, 2012)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> Seriously fuck off son.
> 
> It's the they are representative of the group they are critiquing but fine place it into your own terms so you can dismiss actual action being taken from your keyboard warrior bullshit.


WHAT? What is your point?


> You and all like you attempting to ascribe ideals to other groups from the outside are scum.
> 
> Plain and simple.
> 
> One day, and I pray its soon you'll be beaten to death by mobs.


LOL And you haven't ascribed ideals to other groups from the outside? such as Leninists, the SWP, and myself?  [what's worse is you and vp ascribe ideals to me I don't even hold. lol]


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2012)

Athos said:


> And, judging from his obsession with anarchism, enthralls and excites him at the same time. He's a sectarian fetishist.



You've made my stomach turn. And just before grub, too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 29, 2012)

Athos said:


> What the fuck is with his ball-bag?!
> 
> I had enlarged the image and zoomed in, just in time for the Mrs to walk in. Have some explaining to do.



Looks like a pretty nasty hernia.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 29, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> What a fucking joke. You don't even see the contradiction in seeing "the emancipation of the working class being an act of the working class" and then following with that with crap about "working *with* the working class" (my emphasis).





> Whether anarchists like it or not, there is a democratic will of the majority. Those who concentrate on the actions of the collective,those who see the emancipation of the working class being the act of the working class, seek to work with the working-class, *even when* the will majority goes against what they believe would be best for the movement as a whole [ie the real world me]. SOME Anarchist's obsession with individual conscience and individual initiative leads them more often than not to spit their dummies when the vote goes against them,, fuckoff and do their own thing, instead of trying to work with people. This leaves them exposed as individuals, easy meat for the state to pick off and throw in jail, something I regret as I consider you comrades.in the case of Seattle, the actions of the anarchists gave this day an excuse to bash the movement as a whole. The movement as a whole paid the price for your ''freedom' imo.​


I ripped apart the sentence from Athos to make a point, that the will of the majority in a working class movement is not always the same as anarchists or socialists. At that point you have to come to a decision, do you carry on working with the majority, or fuckoff? @ists tend to fuckoff and do their own thing imo.

You have ripped apart my paragraph and it's meaning. The real contradiction in my paragraph is between the anarchists who are more likely to do their own thing, and socialists who are more likely to submit to the will of the majority to remain part of the/a mass movement [whatever movement that is, anti-war movement, antifascist movement etc.) I suggest anarchists are more likely to do this, because of the emphasis upon the individual that you yourself are highlighted, and socialists are less likely to do this because of their emphasis on collectivist, mass action.

to deal with your spurious point. I see myself as part of the WC. the SWP see themselves as part of the working class. as a x-member of the SWP you know this, I don't know why you keep pretending it is otherwise.


----------



## Athos (Jan 29, 2012)

"Ripped apart"


----------



## JimW (Jan 29, 2012)

Athos said:


> "Ripped apart"


The force of dialectic can do that sometimes, comrade. Handle with care.


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 29, 2012)

So Resistance,

How do you feel about this line of argument:

Why Marxism as a method of action doesn't work.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Organization_17_November

When you look at these comrades, you can have nothing but admiration for the selfless and frankly heroic acts of these individuals. For their bravery and commitment to the cause you can do nothing but salute them.

In my opinion this kind of activity is fine, if it is part of a mass movement who can make the state think twice about taking such actions against individuals [eg those trade unionists the 1970s who were released from prison on spurious grounds when it became evident there would be mass strikes if they remained in prison.] But in the real world nobody can sustain this kind of activity. Who can afford to be constantly on the run, arrested, and imprisoned?

So while I salute these people, I also find this methodology a profligate waste of fine activists.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 29, 2012)

Athos said:


> There is nothing 'democratic' about a position which tramples over the legitimate freedoms of comrades.


you see I honestly believe you completely misunderstand the socialist argument. Nobody is arguing you should NOT have the right to do exactly as you want. that we argue for mass unity, and against you forking off and doing your own thing, does not mean we do not accept your right to do so. Placing the arguments to convince you not to do so, does not mean we are denying you that right.

Can you give me examples of where socialist have trampled on your  legitimate freedoms in reality? Where they had stopped you from doing what you want to do?



> I don't seek to work with the working class; I am working class. And the feedom in which I believe isn't the individulism to do exactly as I please, in my own interests; instead, it is simply the freedom to act according to my own conscience and judgement (informed but not dictated by comrades), to act in the way which I believe will further our shared aims.


I am working class. The SWP is working class. _Whether anarchists like it or not, there is a democratic will of the majority. Those who concentrate on the actions of the collective,those who see the emancipation of the working class being the act of the working class__, seek to work with the working-class _*MOVEMENTS*_, __*even when*__ the will majority goes against what they believe would be best for the movement as a whole [ie the real world me]. SOME Anarchist's obsession with individual conscience and individual initiative leads them more often than not to spit their dummies when the vote goes against them,, fuckoff and do their own thing, instead of trying to work with people. This leaves them exposed as individuals, easy meat for the state to pick off and throw in jail, something I regret as I consider you comrades.in the case of Seattle, the actions of the anarchists gave this day an excuse to bash the movement as a whole. The movement as a whole paid the price for your ''freedom' imo._

for me it is self-evident that I and the SWP are part of the working class, and so negates the inference that you and VP have made. However I have inserted the word movements to add extra clarity.I don't think there was only a lack of clarity, I think you are VP are projecting onto myself and the SWP views we don't hold.



> Perhaps this would be more believable if it wasn't for the constant sniping.


you're not being serious, you are pulling my leg comrade?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Jan 29, 2012)

eoin_k said:


> So Resistance,
> 
> How do you feel about this line of argument:
> 
> ...


go on, summarise your point.


----------



## Athos (Jan 29, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:
			
		

> you see I honestly believe you completely misunderstand the socialist argument. Nobody is arguing you should NOT have the right to do exactly as you want. that we argue for mass unity, and against you forking off and doing your own thing, does not mean we do not accept your right to do so. Placing the arguments to convince you not to do so, does not mean we are denying you that right.
> 
> Can you give me examples of where socialist have trampled on your  legitimate freedoms in reality? Where they had stopped you from doing what you want to do?
> 
> ...



Mass unity under the direction of that working class organisation, the SWP.

The idea that anyone who doesn't tow the SWP line is necessity acting in his own interests rather than that of his whole class is ridiculous.

I can't be bothered with this.


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 29, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> go on, summarise your point.


analogy


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 30, 2012)

manny-p said:


> No cos he might say the Makhnovischina were anti semites and that the Kronstadt sailors were traitor counter revolutionaries that 'regretably' had to be crushed in order for the revolution to stay on course!



some sympathy for the latter actually.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Jan 30, 2012)

I could be wrong, but wasn't Makhnovshchina coined and used mockingly by the Bolsheviks ('look at the annakisseds, lol')?  A bit like the Whites, when they called the fluctuating territory of the new Soviet state Sovdepia during the civil war.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 30, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I ripped apart the sentence from Athos to make a point...



You did what? You didn't "rip it apart".



> ...that the will of the majority in a working class movement is not always the same as anarchists or socialists.



He didn't claim that it was.



> At that point you have to come to a decision, do you carry on working with the majority, or fuckoff? @ists tend to fuckoff and do their own thing imo.



That's not what you said. You mentioned nowt about making a decision, you spouted some pious bollocks about how "Those who concentrate on the actions of the collective,those who see the emancipation of the working class being the act of the working class, seek to work with the working-class, *even when* the will majority goes against what they believe would be best for the movement as a whole".
Stop making your excuses up as you go along, eh?



> You have ripped apart my paragraph and it's meaning. The real contradiction in my paragraph is between the anarchists who are more likely to do their own thing, and socialists who are more likely to submit to the will of the majority to remain part of the/a mass movement [whatever movement that is, anti-war movement, antifascist movement etc.) I suggest anarchists are more likely to do this, because of the emphasis upon the individual that you yourself are highlighted, and socialists are less likely to do this because of their emphasis on collectivist, mass action.



I didn't highlight an emphasis on the individual, I pointed out that your perspective pays no regard to the individual, preferring to see activists merely as possible cogs in the Swappie machinery.
Oh, and read your history. Socialism wasn't born of mass action, but of the struggles of individuals and small communities against exploitation. Mass action and involvement only came about after examples had been set of how people could achieve some measure of control over their workplaces.



> to deal with your spurious point. I see myself as part of the WC. the SWP see themselves as part of the working class. as a x-member of the SWP you know this, I don't know why you keep pretending it is otherwise.



You're chatting shit again.
If the SWP are "part of the working class", then why all the flannel about "working *with* the working class", hmm? How do you work *with* something you're a part *of*? You don't. We both know that "work with" means "guide the proles, because they can't manage to guide themselves".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 30, 2012)

Athos said:


> Mass unity under the direction of that working class organisation, the SWP.



I haven't been a member for about 30 years, but I 've got friends and acquaintances who stayed in, and I've never heard this bollocks argument that the SWP are a working class organisation before. Nearest I've heard is how they're an organisation *for* the working class, which is a mile different from what RMP3 is claiming.



> The idea that anyone who doesn't tow the SWP line is necessity acting in his own interests rather than that of his whole class is ridiculous.
> 
> I can't be bothered with this.



And yet we always bite when he posts this crap. Mostly because he misrepresents anarchist positions so egregiously.


----------



## Athos (Jan 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> I haven't been a member for about 30 years, but I 've got friends and acquaintances who stayed in, and I've never heard this bollocks argument that the SWP are a working class organisation before. Nearest I've heard is how they're an organisation for the working class, which is a mile different from what RMP3 is claiming.
> 
> And yet we always bite when he posts this crap. Mostly because he misrepresents anarchist positions so egregiously.



Promise me you'll remind me not to get sucked in, if I begin to rise to his bullshit in future!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 30, 2012)

Athos said:


> Promise me you'll remind me not to get sucked in, if I begin to rise to his bullshit in future!



I'll do my best, but I'll probably get sucked in myself anyway!


----------



## TopCat (Jan 30, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


>


The way forward is concerned with Brewers yeast products comrade.


----------



## october_lost (Feb 1, 2012)

Athos said:


> What the fuck is with his ball-bag?!
> 
> I had enlarged the image and zoomed in, just in time for the Mrs to walk in. Have some explaining to do.


Its a saline injection into his scrotum, which is an ideal accompaniment to this thread TBF


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 4, 2012)

Athos said:


> What is the 'movement as a whole'? If it isn't a movement towards freedom, it's nothing. And coercion of comrades is anathema to that freedom. This 'democratic will of the majority' is nothing more than mob rule when it is used to trample others' freedoms. My point was that there's room for a diversity of tactics. But, sadly, some within 'the left' don't like that, because they prefer to control the whole show.
> 
> 
> 
> I can deny it. Anarchists place more emphasis on freedom; the SWP places more emphasis in the working class doing what it's told.





ViolentPanda said:


> From what is a collective constituted?
> From individuals, of course. At best from individuals with broadly-similar aims, at worst, from forcing people to come together behind a particular philosophy.
> Anarchisms often choose to focus on the former, rather than seek imposition of the latter.


A collective for AnarchismS is formed from individuals coming together with broadly-similar aims. And for AnarchismS when the majority in that collective, ie Seattle, don't want to ie smash up and/or occupy banks etc, anarchists believe they have the right to do so regardless of the will of the majority.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 4, 2012)

eoin_k said:


> So Resistance,
> 
> How do you feel about this line of argument:
> 
> ...


Couldn't agree with your more. A terrible waste. A grossly flawed method.


----------



## manny-p (Feb 4, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Couldn't agree with your more. A terrible waste. A grossly flawed method.


You need slapped.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 4, 2012)

Athos said:


> Mass unity under the direction of that working class organisation, the SWP.


Only a nutter would even consider this could be imposed/possible.


The idea that anyone who doesn't tow the SWP line is necessity acting in his own interests rather than that of his whole class is ridiculous.[/quote]Couldn't agree with you more. Completely and utterly ridiculous .  Good job no-one has said that.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2012)

I don't want to sex u up.


----------



## Athos (Feb 4, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> A collective for AnarchismS is formed from individuals coming together with broadly-similar aims. And for AnarchismS when the majority in that collective, ie Seattle, don't want to ie smash up and/or occupy banks etc, anarchists believe they have the right to do so regardless of the will of the majority.


 
Yes.  Many anarchists do not consider themselves bound by the will of others; this remains the case even when those others happen to be comrades engaged in the same struggle.  Many anarchists consider that they are free to pursue the class struggle using those tactics which they believe are most likely to be successful, and in a manner consistent with a belief in freedom from oppression.  This will often mean a refusal to be dictated to by others in the same movement.  That makes sense on a philosophical level, and in practical terms, where a many-faceted attack can prove successful.  The majority of black Americans preferred MLK Jr to Malcolm X; the majority of Indians preferred Gandhi to Subhas Chandra Bose; the majority of Irish Republicans favoured peaceful protest to the actions of the IRA.  But, in each case the struggled was significantly aided by a minority which chose to pursue the same aims through different tactics.  Would you have stamped out those dissenting comrades?


----------



## october_lost (Feb 4, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> A collective for AnarchismS is formed from individuals coming together with broadly-similar aims.


The problem here is that you think the SWP represents anything beyond its own numbers, when it clearly does not. Even when you make grandiose statements on behalf of workers, it still falls flat. Anarchism and anarchists, if they make any claims, its they hold true to a methodology which sees "the emancipation of the working class, as the job of the working class."

A diversity of tactics is bread and butter to anarchism, but you still failed in the OP to identify anarchists and critique them on that level.


----------



## cool herc (Feb 4, 2012)

Anarchism ha ha, the perfect way for lazy feckers with mental health issues to feel wanted. Can't even get rid of the hopeless drunks if they wanted to, the anarchists will allow them to dribble and vomit their way into a self-defeating "election" where they can't be dismissed.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 4, 2012)

JHE said:


> Be fair. Not all Anarcho-Wotsits are masked teenagers.


 
bourgouis dilettante fops , the scourge of the left . Have a fucking wash , get a haircut , put your bollocks away and put some fucking clothes on you waste of space cunts. Just another bunch of fucking misfits and perverts who dont fit in anywhere else seeing a space for their fuckwittery somewhere on the left. Rendering it a fucking joke .

God i hate cunts like that . For all of uncle Joes many faults at least he'd still have sorted those cunts out .


----------



## JHE (Feb 4, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> bourgouis dilettante fops , the scourge of the left . Have a fucking wash , get a haircut , put your bollocks away and put some fucking clothes on you waste of space cunts. Just another bunch of fucking misfits and perverts who dont fit in anywhere else seeing a space for their fuckwittery somewhere on the left. Rendering it a fucking joke .
> 
> God i hate cunts like that


 
Orwell said something similar.





			
				Orwell said:
			
		

> ...the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist and feminist in England...


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 4, 2012)

october_lost said:


> Anarchism and anarchists, if they make any claims, its they hold true to a methodology which sees "the emancipation of the working class, as the job of the working class."
> .


 
so where dpes all this veganism and laissez faire attitudes to personal hygiene come into it then / Genuine questionn . Ive anarchist freinds but im fucked if i can get an answer to this beyond " we are alternative people"


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 4, 2012)

JHE said:


> Orwell said something similar.


 
thats a brilliant quote ,cheers


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> so where dpes all this veganism and laissez faire attitudes to personal hygiene come into it then / Genuine questionn . Ive anarchist freinds but im fucked if i can get an answer to this beyond " we are alternative people"


Great stuff - you just missed dog on a string HA HA HA HA and so on. Flann lives.

Why haven't you killed anyone yet?


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 4, 2012)

oh jesus...he wants to bore the bollocks of me again . Im not playing this time either


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2012)

Ah for jaysus there's paple to be sorting yet.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 4, 2012)

nobody even asked you you dreary attention seeking string of pish


----------



## Athos (Feb 4, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> bourgouis dilettante fops , the scourge of the left . Have a fucking wash , get a haircut , put your bollocks away and put some fucking clothes on you waste of space cunts. Just another bunch of fucking misfits and perverts who dont fit in anywhere else seeing a space for their fuckwittery somewhere on the left. Rendering it a fucking joke .
> 
> God i hate cunts like that . For all of uncle Joes many faults at least he'd still have sorted those cunts out .


 
Don't forget to mention cider.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2012)

Oh god i heard abut this fillumm about al-jazieria.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 4, 2012)

its got nothing to do with cider and everything to do with weirdoes


----------



## Athos (Feb 4, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> so where dpes all this veganism and laissez faire attitudes to personal hygiene come into it then / Genuine questionn . Ive anarchist freinds but im fucked if i can get an answer to this beyond " we are alternative people"


 

Yeah.  Anarchism is all about dirty vegans being alternative people. Nothing more to it.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 4, 2012)

i never said that for a minute . I simply asked where it comes into it, because it does in a lot of cases .

dont fucking answer then , up to yourself


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> its got nothing to do with cider and everything to do with weirdoes


Who fail to kill people.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> i never said that for a minute . I simply asked where it comes into it, because it does in a lot of cases .
> 
> dont fucking answer then , up to yourself


You asked a screwed up question (ha ha) based on tired stereotypes yet you not only get annoyed when you get the same in return but you consistently refuse to kill anyone.


----------



## Athos (Feb 4, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> i never said that for a minute . I simply asked where it comes into it, because it does in a lot of cases .
> 
> dont fucking answer then , up to yourself


Ok.  I'll answer: it comes straight from your fevered and feeble mind.


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 5, 2012)

Athos said:


> Ok. I'll answer: it comes straight from your fevered and feeble mind.


 

does it fuck . I was having this same conversation tonight with a former Red Action bod who thankfully isnt an hysterical whinger . I pointed out to him Ive been in 4 anarchist gaffs in my life . 1 in Belfast , 1 in Dublin , 2 in Berlin . All were fucking vegan . I was eating a burger outside one in Belfast and fed a bit of it to this mangy fucker of a dog tied to a lamp post . I was then harangued by this manky cunt who went bananas because his dog was apparently vegetarian . All i did was feed a hungry looking dog.

Fair play to vegans, their lifestyle choice is none of my business, but the vast majority of the working class arent vegans ..so why are anarchist champions of the working class venues vegan ? Its a fair question . But plainly a question that fucks you off ,and that other tosser . Plainly you dont want to address the issue and insult someone for having the temerity to raise it , up to you . I couldnt give a fuck .

 But heres the thing . I also raised the issue tonight of me standing on a football terrace in the company of about 4000 fash over in germany. The same football team has a small left wing contingent as well . But the fact is despite their abhorrent politics I felt id more in immediate common , more personal identification with the fash than Ive had with any anarchist . Despite the fact the anarchists I know couldnt have been more freindly , comradely and welcoming . But they might as well have been from another planet .

How does this fact translate among the working class who are less politically aware ? Who are they more likely to identify with ? Its a fair question but one you are obvuiously intent on replying to with inane and banal fucking insults as opposed to addressing .

As for that other waste of space its par for the course but I asked you a genuine question .


----------



## Casually Red (Feb 5, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You asked a screwed up question (ha ha) based on tired stereotypes yet you not only get annoyed when you get the same in return but you consistently refuse to kill anyone.


 
i dont know what you are on about , i dont care who the fuck you are , you dont know who the fuck i am . But you insist on spouting shit about me killing people, or not killing people , or whatever it is your projecting your cryptic ,wank the dog of a fuck all 2 bob persona about . When i have the temerity to put up a post on what is apparently your fucking territory which you are the be all and end all .

You sad dreary bitter little cunt . I can respect a man who says something straight but not a twistylittle cunt who thinks cryptic asides are clever .

spit it out and stop being such a little princess . Your boggle, Dorothy, what is it exactly ? Why has you been following me about with these frilly little asides ? Get to the point or stop muttering while knitting your little doilies .


----------



## Athos (Feb 5, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> does it fuck . I was having this same conversation tonight with a former Red Action bod who thankfully isnt an hysterical whinger . I pointed out to him Ive been in 4 anarchist gaffs in my life . 1 in Belfast , 1 in Dublin , 2 in Berlin . All were fucking vegan . I was eating a burger outside one in Belfast and fed a bit of it to this mangy fucker of a dog tied to a lamp post . I was then harangued by this manky cunt who went bananas because his dog was apparently vegetarian . All i did was feed a hungry looking dog.
> 
> Fair play to vegans, their lifestyle choice is none of my business, but the vast majority of the working class arent vegans ..so why are anarchist champions of the working class venues vegan ? Its a fair question . But plainly a question that fucks you off ,and that other tosser . Plainly you dont want to address the issue and insult someone for having the temerity to raise it , up to you . I couldnt give a fuck .
> 
> ...


 
Yeah, and my answer was serious, too. The 'fact' that anarchists are vegans etc is a product of your imagination, or, if you really have met four anarchists who are all vegans, your lack of imagination i.e. your failure to appreciate that less than a handful of people are necessarily representative of a great many more. If that's the sort of stereotyping you resort to, maybe you really do have more in common with the fash!

For the record, I am not a vegan, not even a vegetarian; in fact, I'm not adverse to killing what I eat. Nor do I have a dog on a string, or drink cider. Nor am I a pampered middle class kid living off a trust fund. Nor a lifestyle anarchist. Nor any of the other silly stereotypes.

I relate to the working class, as do my ideas, because I am working class, and because of the message in those ideas.


----------



## Random (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> A collective for AnarchismS is formed from individuals coming together with broadly-similar aims. And for AnarchismS when the majority in that collective, ie Seattle, don't want to ie smash up and/or occupy banks etc, anarchists believe they have the right to do so regardless of the will of the majority.


 
Was there a general decision on what tactics to take in Seattle? Wasn't there myself.

But it reminds me of the time in Prague 2000 when the SWP agreed in the central meeting to go on the pin and silver march, and then gate-crashed the yellow march as it was more likely to get them into the media. And afterwards they not only defended their breaking with the democratically agreed decision, but slagged off those who were responsible for the yellow march, for not launching a surge of thousands of protestors into a narrow bridge tightly packed with police vans.

This makes me think that Leninists have a problem with democracy, and abiding by majority decisions.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 5, 2012)

Athos said:


> Yeah, and my answer was serious, too. The 'fact' that anarchists are vegans etc is a product of your imagination, or, if you really have met four anarchists who are all vegans, your lack of imagination i.e. your failure to appreciate that less than a handful of people are necessarily representative of a great many more. If that's the sort of stereotyping you resort to, maybe you really do have more in common with the fash!
> 
> For the record, I am not a vegan, not even a vegetarian; in fact, I'm not adverse to killing what I eat. Nor do I have a dog on a string, or drink cider. Nor am I a pampered middle class kid living off a trust fund. Nor a lifestyle anarchist. Nor any of the other silly stereotypes.
> 
> I relate to the working class, as do my ideas, because I am working class, and because of the message in those ideas.


 
I thought you were training to be a barrister


----------



## Athos (Feb 5, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> I thought you were training to be a barrister


 
No.  Not sure why you thought that.  I am a solicitor by profession, though no longer practice; I used to think that the law was a way to change things for the better, but realised it is actually a smokescreen to maintain the status quo.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 5, 2012)

Random said:


> Was there a general decision on what tactics to take in Seattle? Wasn't there myself.
> 
> But it reminds me of the time in Prague 2000 when the SWP agreed in the central meeting to go on the pin and silver march, and then gate-crashed the yellow march as it was more likely to get them into the media. And afterwards they not only defended their breaking with the democratically agreed decision, but slagged off those who were responsible for the yellow march, for not launching a surge of thousands of protestors into a narrow bridge tightly packed with police vans.
> 
> This makes me think that Leninists have a problem with democracy, and abiding by majority decisions.


and with common sense


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 5, 2012)

Athos said:


> ResistanceMP3 said:
> 
> 
> > A collective for AnarchismS is formed from individuals coming together with broadly-similar aims. And for AnarchismS when the majority in that collective, ie Seattle, don't want to ie smash up and/or occupy banks etc, anarchists believe they have the right to do so regardless of the will of the majority.
> ...


 

POINT 1. The problem with your argument is nobody, absolutely nobody has denied you that right. What you don't seem to understand is, there is a world of difference between denying anarchist their right to do their own thing, and debating the efficacy of them doing their own thing. Can you not see the difference?

To underline the point. Nobody denied the right of anarchists in Seattle [our previous discussion]. It is patently untrue to suggest anyone stoped anarchists, because there is yards and yards of film footage of anarchists doing exactly what they wanted to do, even though this went against the will of the majority. [I'll come back to the will of the majority]

What's more, as you point out correctly, it is good everybody doesn't toe the majority to rule line. Diversity in tactics IS A GOOD THING! However, in the case of Seattle I think it was a bad thing. The anarchists did their thing, and the police mainly left them alone. Preferring to use the actions of the anarchists as an excuse to pulverise the students and workers. Using the anarchists as volunteer agent provocateurs, so to speak.

So, nobody is denying the right, just debating the efficacy.

POINT 2. You are still totally misunderstanding this socialist argument. Let me give you an example.

I have absolutely nothing against people solving eg op homelessness by occupying empty properties. Socialist would be totally in agreement with anarchist that the best way to deal with homelessness, would be to occupy empty properties. But there is a world of difference between a few self appointed activists doing it on behalf of homeless people, and the homeless people doing it themselves en masse.

I would support the en masse occupation of empty properties by homeless people, but not by a few people doing it on behalf of the working class. This is substitutionism. I don't know whether you are familiar with the term, and I wasn't clear in my original post, but I am clear now that what I am arguing against is substitutionism. This is what James Connolly was guilty of, and he paid for with his life. And this is what these people are guilty of, and they are paying for it. And so, though I admire these people's commitment, and don't question for one moment they do so for the best of reasons, I believe it is folly to open yourself up to state victimisation. If you do this as part of a mass campaign, you do not open yourself up to the same victimisation, because they cannot throw us all in prison en masse. That's the difference. And that's the main point. [There are many other reasons to be against substitutionism]

POINT 3. When I talk about working with the working class, what I actually said was working with working-class movements, what I am doing is counterposing the attitude of some anarchists "we will do what we want, regardless of the will of the majority", and the attitude of some socialists "we voluntarily submit ourselves to the will of the majority [mob rule as you put it]". Why? Why do socialists submit themselves to the will of the majority, to stay within the working class movement? [I'm using the term movement in the generic sense. ie the anti-war movement, the housing movement, whatever you want]

As a socialist I'm totally in agreement with this point "The majority of black Americans preferred MLK Jr to Malcolm X; the majority of Indians preferred Gandhi to Subhas Chandra Bose; the majority of Irish Republicans favoured peaceful protest to the actions of the IRA. But, in each case the struggled was significantly aided by a minority which chose to pursue the same aims through different tactics. Would you have stamped out those dissenting comrades?" That is a good point well made, and a point that is equally well made in many Socialist worker publications. But the problem there, as I am sure many class struggle Anarchists would point out, is that neither MLK Jr or Malcolm X; Gandhi or Subhas Chandra Bose; Irish Republicans in favour peaceful protest or the the IRA  DIDN''T deal with the problem, the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle. They didn't put at the forefront the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class. But that, looking to MLk Ghandi peaceful protest, was the will of the majority. That was/is the consciousness of the majority. The majority don't necessarily accept that we need a social revolution, that the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class. There is no running away from the will of the majority for people who want to see a social revolution, you have to deal with the will of the majority. You have to make a decision. Do we work with the working class movements the working class produces, or do we run away to our own little ghetto, and do our own thing? This is where I disagree with anarchist just doing their own thing.

What I am saying is, I think it is better to take a dynamic dialectical view of working-class consciousness. You start from the reality, what the majority of people think is the best method to deal with eg homelessness. You argue your case ie that the best thing to do would be for homeless people en masse to occupy all empty properties. If you do not convince people, you have made your point, but you carry on working with them at what level of activity they are prepared to commit to. If this is a petition, demonstration, occupation, whatever. The key is to get as many people active as possible. And then trust that in that struggle, they will learn their own lessons as to the best way to take that struggle forward. Because at the end of the day, the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class. This is the hard slog, but it is more efficacious IN MY OPINION than activism for activism sake Or substitutionism.



eoin_k said:


> One of the strengths of many 'Anarchists'* over the sort of politics you represent is their ability to apply this sort of critique to their own practice in periods when I can only imagine the likes of you indulging in self congratulatory, delusional rhetoric.
> 
> Take this text published in the wake of June the 18th, one of the high water marks of 'Anarchist' activism in recent decades:
> 
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 5, 2012)

Random said:


> Was there a general decision on what tactics to take in Seattle? Wasn't there myself.
> 
> But it reminds me of the time in Prague 2000 when the SWP agreed in the central meeting to go on the pin and silver march, and then gate-crashed the yellow march as it was more likely to get them into the media. And afterwards they not only defended their breaking with the democratically agreed decision, but slagged off those who were responsible for the yellow march, for not launching a surge of thousands of protestors into a narrow bridge tightly packed with police vans.
> 
> This makes me think that Leninists have a problem with democracy, and abiding by majority decisions.


another thing is that riots / war are often invoked by the swp - especially the battle of cable street and russian revolution - while they then retreat from any association with violence, marching people up a hill. this seems to me to be a recipe for trying to get people nicked.


----------



## cantsin (Feb 5, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> does it fuck . I was having this same conversation tonight with a former Red Action bod who thankfully isnt an hysterical whinger . I pointed out to him Ive been in 4 anarchist gaffs in my life . 1 in Belfast , 1 in Dublin , 2 in Berlin . All were fucking vegan . I was eating a burger outside one in Belfast and fed a bit of it to this mangy fucker of a dog tied to a lamp post . I was then harangued by this manky cunt who went bananas because his dog was apparently vegetarian . All i did was feed a hungry looking dog.
> 
> Fair play to vegans, their lifestyle choice is none of my business, but the vast majority of the working class arent vegans ..so why are anarchist champions of the working class venues vegan ? Its a fair question . But plainly a question that fucks you off ,and that other tosser . Plainly you dont want to address the issue and insult someone for having the temerity to raise it , up to you . I couldnt give a fuck .
> 
> ...


 
you do accept that there are 'lifestyle' type anarchos and 'class struggle ' type anarchos' , and they're about as close politically / ideologically as RA would once have been to new left type hippies who would also have identified themselves as 'Reds' ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> POINT 3. When I talk about working with the working class, what I actually said was working with working-class movements, what I am doing is counterposing the attitude of some anarchists "we will do what we want, regardless of the will of the majority", and the attitude of some socialists "we voluntarily submit ourselves to the will of the majority [mob rule as you put it]". Why? Why do socialists submit themselves to the will of the majority, to stay within the working class movement? [I'm using the term movement in the generic sense. ie the anti-war movement, the housing movement, whatever you want]
> 
> As a socialist I'm totally in agreement with this point "The majority of black Americans preferred MLK Jr to Malcolm X; the majority of Indians preferred Gandhi to Subhas Chandra Bose; the majority of Irish Republicans favoured peaceful protest to the actions of the IRA. But, in each case the struggled was significantly aided by a minority which chose to pursue the same aims through different tactics. Would you have stamped out those dissenting comrades?" That is a good point well made, and a point that is equally well made in many Socialist worker publications. But the problem there, as I am sure many class struggle Anarchists would point out, is that neither MLK Jr or Malcolm X; Gandhi or Subhas Chandra Bose; Irish Republicans in favour peaceful protest or the the IRA DIDN''T deal with the problem, the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle. They didn't put at the forefront the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class. But that, looking to MLk Ghandi peaceful protest, was the will of the majority. That was/is the consciousness of the majority. The majority don't necessarily accept that we need a social revolution, that the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class. There is no running away from the will of the majority for people who want to see a social revolution, you have to deal with the will of the majority. You have to make a decision. Do we work with the working class movements the working class produces, or do we run away to our own little ghetto, and do our own thing? This is where I disagree with anarchist just doing their own thing.
> 
> What I am saying is, I think it is better to take a dynamic dialectical view of working-class consciousness. You start from the reality, what the majority of people think is the best method to deal with eg homelessness. You argue your case ie that the best thing to do would be for homeless people en masse to occupy all empty properties. If you do not convince people, you have made your point, but you carry on working with them at what level of activity they are prepared to commit to. If this is a petition, demonstration, occupation, whatever. The key is to get as many people active as possible. And then trust that in that struggle, they will learn their own lessons as to the best way to take that struggle forward. Because at the end of the day, the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class. This is the hard slog, but it is more efficacious IN MY OPINION than activism for activism sake Or substitutionism.


it seems to me that what you're saying here is that if the majority of the working class / majority of working class movements don't want a revolution then the socialist revolutionary movement won't strive for a revolution: "The majority don't necessarily accept that we need a social revolution, that the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class. There is no running away from the will of the majority for people who want to see a social revolution, you have to deal with the will of the majority. You have to make a decision. Do we work with the working class movements the working class produces, or do we run away to our own little ghetto, and do our own thing?" that is, i understand you to mean that either you would work with the wc/wcm ON THEIR TERMS or you would piss off to a ghetto and try to do something there. the problem with this is that it does not accord with leninist practice in the past, notably in 1917


----------



## Athos (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> POINT 1. The problem with your argument is nobody, absolutely nobody has denied you that right. What you don't seem to understand is, there is a world of difference between denying anarchist their right to do their own thing, and debating the efficacy of them doing their own thing. Can you not see the difference?
> 
> To underline the point. Nobody denied the right of anarchists in Seattle [our previous discussion]. It is patently untrue to suggest anyone stoped anarchists, because there is yards and yards of film footage of anarchists doing exactly what they wanted to do, even though this went against the will of the majority. [I'll come back to the will of the majority]
> 
> ...


 
I agree that the SWP doesn't deny anarchists the right to act in the way that they do.  Though I suspect that's simply because they couldn't stop it!  However, what they do constantly snipe at and disparage anarchists.  They'd be better off saving that ire for our common enemy.

I'm glad you agree about a diversity of tactics.

We'll have to disagree about the relative efficacy of direct action v selling papers.

I don't understand how acting on our own behalf, and at our own direction, could be substitutionism.  On the contrary, if we were to act in the way that others felt best, we would necessarily be acting in the interests of others (because ends and means are inseparable), which would be substitutionism.

I don't need to submit to the will of others to remain in the working class movement.  I am part of the working class.

I understand your argument about the importance of building mass support.  But at what cost?  I don't want to surrender my freedom now, in the hope of future freedom; I want to bring about freedom by living it every day.  The lesson of history is that when we believe our masters' lies that repression is a necessary evil in the short term and that we'll all be free soon, they get a taste for it and freedom never comes.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree, once again.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 5, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> it seems to me that what you're saying here is that if the majority of the working class / majority of working class movements don't want a revolution then the socialist revolutionary movement won't strive for a revolution:


No I'm not.
"_When I talk about working with the working class, what I actually said was working with working-class movements, what I am doing is counterposing the attitude of some anarchists "we will do what we want, regardless of the will of the majority", and the attitude of some socialists "we voluntarily submit ourselves to the will of the majority [mob rule as you put it]". Why? Why do socialists submit themselves to the will of the majority, to stay within the working class movement? [I'm using the term movement in the generic sense. ie the anti-war movement, the housing movement, whatever you want]_"




there is a world of difference between working with working-class MOVEMENTS on an equal basis, whilst arguing for a revolutionary perspective, and submitting yourself to the dominant ideas in society which unfortunately permeates the consciousness of so many of the working class I meet every day in the real world.

btw do you know what WTF VP is talking about when he says that anarchists are working-class, and then says something about Socialist's [workers] not being working-class.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> A collective for AnarchismS is formed from individuals coming together with broadly-similar aims. And for AnarchismS when the majority in that collective, ie Seattle, don't want to ie smash up and/or occupy banks etc, anarchists believe they have the right to do so regardless of the will of the majority.


 
No, not just anarchists with different visions of anarchism, all collectives. Do stop trying to be disingenuous.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2012)

cool herc said:


> Anarchism ha ha, the perfect way for lazy feckers with mental health issues to feel wanted. Can't even get rid of the hopeless drunks if they wanted to, the anarchists will allow them to dribble and vomit their way into a self-defeating "election" where they can't be dismissed.


 
Herc, you're a gibbering twat.


----------



## october_lost (Feb 5, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> does it fuck . I was having this same conversation tonight with a former Red Action bod who thankfully isnt an hysterical whinger . I pointed out to him Ive been in 4 anarchist gaffs in my life . 1 in Belfast , 1 in Dublin , 2 in Berlin . All were fucking vegan .


Why are you hanging around 'anarchsit gaffs'? And why are you expecting anything other than the subcultural ghetto there?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Nbtw do you know what WTF VP is talking about when he says that anarchists are working-class, and then says something about Socialist's [workers] not being working-class.


do you think people like paul foot or alex callinicos had/have any genuine claim to be working class?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> so where dpes all this veganism and laissez faire attitudes to personal hygiene come into it then / Genuine questionn . Ive anarchist freinds but im fucked if i can get an answer to this beyond " we are alternative people"


 
That's probably because your "friends" think you're a cunt, but respect your right to be a cunt. 

I'm not a vegan, or even a vegetarian, and I don't have personal hygeine issues. Of the anarchists I know, few of them are or do, unless they're committed crusties, and then it's a minority lifestyle choice, not an all-embracing concomitant of adopting an anarchist perspective.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> i never said that for a minute . I simply asked where it comes into it, because it does in a lot of cases .


 
Only in your experience, short round.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> does it fuck . I was having this same conversation tonight with a former Red Action bod who thankfully isnt an hysterical whinger . I pointed out to him Ive been in 4 anarchist gaffs in my life . 1 in Belfast , 1 in Dublin , 2 in Berlin . All were fucking vegan . I was eating a burger outside one in Belfast and fed a bit of it to this mangy fucker of a dog tied to a lamp post . I was then harangued by this manky cunt who went bananas because his dog was apparently vegetarian . All i did was feed a hungry looking dog.]


 
Ah, that'd have absolutely nowt to do with with the squat scene attracting anarcho-crusties, would it? Of course not!

You great gawping shite! 



> Fair play to vegans, their lifestyle choice is none of my business, but the vast majority of the working class arent vegans ..so why are anarchist champions of the working class venues vegan ? Its a fair question . But plainly a question that fucks you off ,and that other tosser . Plainly you dont want to address the issue and insult someone for having the temerity to raise it , up to you . I couldnt give a fuck .


 
Ah, but you obviously *do* give a fuck, or this stuff wouldn't be festering in you like an arse boil!



> But heres the thing . I also raised the issue tonight of me standing on a football terrace in the company of about 4000 fash over in germany. The same football team has a small left wing contingent as well . But the fact is despite their abhorrent politics I felt id more in immediate common , more personal identification with the fash than Ive had with any anarchist . Despite the fact the anarchists I know couldnt have been more freindly , comradely and welcoming . But they might as well have been from another planet .


 
So in all the time you've been going to matches, you haven't noticed the collective _camaraderie_ before? I went to Upton Park from the age of 11, up until the Taylor report put seats in. 16 years, and the whole fellow-feeling thing was fairly obvious - you identify with people because they're fellow-supporters/fanatics. They're members of your tribe, whatever their politics.
Conflating that with how you feel around people with different politics *in the cold light of day* is ridiculous, and I reckon you know that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2012)

october_lost said:


> Why are you hanging around 'anarchsit gaffs'? And why are you expecting anything other than the subcultural ghetto there?


 
_Flaneurism_. innit?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 5, 2012)

Athos said:


> I agree that the SWP doesn't deny anarchists the right to act in the way that they do.Though I suspect that's simply because they couldn't stop it! However, what they do constantly snipe at and disparage anarchists. They'd be better off saving that ire for our common enemy.
> 
> 
> We'll have to disagree about the relative efficacy of direct action v selling papers.


 Sniping?

I did say earlier, you have to be pulling my leg on the issues. My snipes are timid compared to the vitriol meted out by Pickman, VP, Butchers towards 'SW trotbots'. But I will tell you what I will do, I will not snipe at anarchist or egregiously misrepresent them on this board, until I see an anarchist sniping or egregiously misrepresenting socialist worker. that will probably be about 30 seconds. 




> I don't understand how acting on our own behalf, and at our own direction, could be substitutionism. On the contrary, if we were to act in the way that others felt best, we would necessarily be acting in the interests of others (because ends and means are inseparable), which would be substitutionism.
> 
> 
> I don't need to submit to the will of others to remain in the working class movement. I am part of the working class.
> ...


you have clearly NOT understood it.

It is NOT about "building mass support" FOR YOU to "I want to bring about freedom by living it every day" on behalf of the working class. You are substituting your activity, your 'better' direct action, for the working class's own MASS direct act. The emancipation of the working class, has to be the act of the working class. It is only when the working class en masse takes direct action in its own collective interest, that freedom can be achieved. History actually shows us, the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle. There is no substitution for class struggle. and there is no substitution for social revolutionaries, but to promote the self activity of the working class.




> The lesson of history is that when we believe our masters' lies that repression is a necessary evil in the short term and that we'll all be free soon, they get a taste for it and freedom never comes.


Only anarchists have learned class society negates freedom? No I a Lenninist have learened That any form, literally any form of class society is an anathema to everything I seek to achieve. And how is that lesson expunged from my consciousness once I gain power? How is that lesson learned in the process of social revolution, expunged from the working class consciousness? And how do those with 'power' negate the structures created by the working class precisely to make class rule impossible? I think your opinion is too deterministic.





> I think we'll have to agree to disagree, once again.


Sweet!


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 5, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, not just anarchists with different visions of anarchism, all collectives. Do stop trying to be disingenuous.


What are you trying to say?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 5, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> do you think people like paul foot or alex callinicos had/have any genuine claim to be working class?


Hegel, Marx? Whats your point? Are you saying there has never been a middle or ruling class member, who is/has been an anarchist.

I think you're misrepresenting him, VP would construct a better argument than that, so leave it. Your clearly not up to the task.  

BTW, arent you middle class?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> What are you trying to say?


 
Read my post, then your response. I'm sure that if you try hard enough, that the meaning of my reply to your response will occur to you.


----------



## Athos (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Sniping?
> 
> I did say earlier, you have to be pulling my leg on the issues. My snipes are timid compared to the vitriol meted out by Pickman, VP, Butchers towards 'SW trotbots'. But I will tell you what I will do, I will not snipe at anarchist or egregiously misrepresent them on this board, until I see an anarchist sniping or egregiously misrepresenting socialist worker. that will probably be about 30 seconds.
> 
> ...


 
I'm not substituting anything.  I don't claim to be acting instead of, or even on behalf of the working class.  Furthermore, I do nothing which I believe undermines working class direct action.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Hegel, Marx? Whats your point? Are you saying there has never been a middle or ruling class member who is has been an anarchist.
> 
> I think you're misrepresenting him, VP would construct a better argument than that, so leave it. Your clearly not up to the task.


i'm not misrepresenting him, you've admitted you can't understand his posts you daft fuck.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Only anarchists have learned class society negates freedom?


 
That's not what he said.

Thanks for posting another excellent example of what a dishonest pissant of a poster you can be, though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> BTW, arent you middle class?


am i?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> btw do you know what WTF VP is talking about when he says that anarchists are working-class, and then says something about Socialist's [workers] not being working-class.


 
More misrepresentation. So far, so normal.

I didn't say that "anarchists are working class" (the "us" I spoke of in post #117 wasn't "us, the anarchists", it was "us, the working class"), I queried how your claim that "the emancipation of the working class being an act of the working class" could be successfully integrated with your claim that the SWP believed in "working *with* the working class". By your own words that would suppose the SWP becoming part of the working class, which they are not. The membership isn't drawn primarily from the working class, however "working class" the accents the paper-sellers adopt, and the central committee? They're not working class, even if some of them do live in Hackney. Like I said, the SWP isn't part of us (the working classes), it's part of a bunch of cocksucking leeches looking to get somewhere on the backs of the working classes.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 5, 2012)

Athos said:


> He can't quite get his head around a grouping of the revolutionary left in which all 'members' aren't required to adhere strictly to a centrally dictated orthodoxy.


I cant get my head around the suggestion that there are NO, none, common principles amongst anarchists, which can define them and distinguish them. In other words, that the term anarchism is completely meaningless.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I cant get my head around the suggestion that there are NO, none, common principles amongst anarchists, which can define them and distinguish them. In other words, that the term anarchism is completely meaningless.


so you're saying there is greater meaning in the word 'socialist' which encompasses people like you and tony blair. what principles do you and tony blair share?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 5, 2012)

that's shut you up


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm not misrepresenting him, you've admitted you can't understand his posts you daft fuck.


 
You're not misrepresenting me. He can't even understand my posts, the daft fuck.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 5, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I haven't been a member for about 30 years, but I 've got friends and acquaintances who stayed in, and I've never heard this bollocks argument that the SWP are a working class organisation before. Nearest I've heard is how they're an organisation *for* the working class, which is a mile different from what RMP3 is claim


these acquaintances, you have asked them 'is the Socialist WORKERS party a working-class organisation'? You need to explain how you distinguish between anarchists being working class, and socialists [or does this only apply to Socialist worker] not being so.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> these acquaintances, you have asked them 'is the Socialist WORKERS party a working-class organisation'? You need to explain how you distinguish between anarchists being working class, and socialists [or does this only apply to Socialist worker] not being so.


what principles do you share with tony blair?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 5, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> so you're saying there is greater meaning in the word 'socialist' which encompasses people like you and tony blair. what principles do you and tony blair share?


No! lol

you say you are an anarchist not a socialist, so you define what you mean by this.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 5, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> what principles do you share with tony blair?


what principles do you share with the working class people who elected tony blair/new labour?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> No! lol
> 
> you say you are an anarchist not a socialist, so you define what you mean by this.


you're contrasting anarchism, which you're saying is meaningless, with socialism, which is presumably for you a coherent set of ideas. you call yourself a socialist, and tony blair calls himself a socialist. what principles do you share with tony blair?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> what principles do you share with the working class people who elected tony blair/new labour?


i've asked you a question: what principles do you share with tony blair? and until you answer that question i'm not up for getting sidetracked by your puerile distractions.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 5, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> More misrepresentation. So far, so normal.
> 
> I didn't say that "anarchists are working class" (the "us" I spoke of in post #117 wasn't "us, the anarchists", it was "us, the working class"), I queried how your claim that "the emancipation of the working class being an act of the working class" could be successfully integrated with your claim that the SWP believed in "working *with* the working class". By your own words that would suppose the SWP becoming part of the working class, which they are not. The membership isn't drawn primarily from the working class, however "working class" the accents the paper-sellers adopt, and the central committee? They're not working class, even if some of them do live in Hackney. Like I said, the SWP isn't part of us (the working classes), it's part of a bunch of cocksucking leeches looking to get somewhere on the backs of the working classes.


LOL I didn't realise your shit argument was based upon such a flimsy hypothesis.

I didn't actually say that, and you have supposed wrong. But don't worry, I'm sure it was a genuine mistake.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> LOL I didn't realise your shit argument was based upon such a flimsy hypothesis.
> 
> I didn't actually say that, and you have supposed wrong. But don't worry, I'm sure it was a genuine mistake.


and what principles do you share with tony blair?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I cant get my head around the suggestion that there are NO, none, common principles amongst anarchists, which can define them and distinguish them. In other words, that the term anarchism is completely meaningless.


 
Even more misrepresentation. No-one has stated that no anarchists hold any principles in common (except maybe the voices in your head). What *has* been stated is that we don't have a unitary set of principles. In other words, we're not dogmatists. We don't conform to central _diktat_, whereas most dogmatists (be they Swappies or Fabians) do. And like all investors in belief systems, dogmatists anathematise those who "stray from the one true path" as heretics, misrepresenting them, condescending to them and otherwise attempting to "monster" them.

You're transparent, sunshine.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> so you're saying there is greater meaning in the word 'socialist' which encompasses people like you and tony blair. what principles do you and tony blair share?


 
A commitment to lying?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 5, 2012)

*edited because question answered in post 222*


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> these acquaintances, you have asked them 'is the Socialist WORKERS party a working-class organisation'? You need to explain how you distinguish between anarchists being working class, and socialists [or does this only apply to Socialist worker] not being so.


 
You know what, I have, and do you know what answer I got? A fairly honest one (from a 22-year veteran, no less!) that went something like "we say we're a party *of* the workers, but currently, because we're not yet a mass movement, we're a party *for* the workers".

See the difference?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> *edited because question answered in post 222*


 
See post #222.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 5, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> you're contrasting anarchism, which you're saying is meaningless, with socialism, which is presumably for you a coherent set of ideas. you call yourself a socialist, and tony blair calls himself a socialist. what principles do you share with tony blair?


I have never said anarchism is meaningless, I am asking anarchist, what is it's meaning.why do you refuse to answer, this thread is after all about anarchism, not Tony Blair, and not the SWP.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 5, 2012)

rmp3: what principles do you share with tony blair? i'm off now but i expect to see some answers by the time i return


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I cant get my head around the suggestion that there are NO, none, common principles amongst anarchists, which can define them and distinguish them. In other words, that the term anarchism is completely meaningless.





ResistanceMP3 said:


> I have never said anarchism is meaningless, I am asking anarchist, what is it's meaning.why do you refuse to answer, this thread is after all about anarchism, not Tony Blair, and not the SWP.


you lying cunt

now, what principles do you share with that famous socialist tony blair?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 5, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're not misrepresenting me. He can't even understand my posts, the daft fuck.


forgive me, I credited you with greater intelligence than was due.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> LOL I didn't realise your shit argument was based upon such a flimsy hypothesis.


 
Rather than laughing out loud and worrying your carer, why not put some effort into elucidating how my hypothesis is flimsy?



> I didn't actually say that, and you have supposed wrong. But don't worry, I'm sure it was a genuine mistake.


 
That stuff in my post? It's a direct quotation of you. You *did* "actually" say that.
Would you like me to tell you the number of the post in which you said that? It's #110, on page four.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> and what principles do you share with tony blair?


 
Hey, don't worry. he didn't say the stuff that he said in post #110, you know. 

It was probably some anti-Swappie computer virus infecting his speech recognition programme that said the stuff he didn't say.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> forgive me, I credited you with greater intelligence and was due.


 
You presuppose that I care about your opinion. I don't care for the opinion of liars. Never have and never will.


----------



## Riklet (Feb 5, 2012)

this is so embarrassing...


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 5, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Hey, don't worry. he didn't say the stuff that he said in post #110, you know.
> 
> It was probably some anti-Swappie computer virus infecting his speech recognition programme that said the stuff he didn't say.


All ready clarified what was meant when I said "working with working class MOVEMENTS" [my emphasis in my original post];





ResistanceMP3 said:


> POINT 1. The problem with your argument is nobody, absolutely nobody has denied you that right. What you don't seem to understand is, there is a world of difference between denying anarchist their right to do their own thing, and debating the efficacy of them doing their own thing. Can you not see the difference?
> 
> 
> To underline the point. Nobody denied the right of anarchists in Seattle [our previous discussion]. It is patently untrue to suggest anyone stoped anarchists, because there is yards and yards of film footage of anarchists doing exactly what they wanted to do, even though this went against the will of the majority. [I'll come back to the will of the majority]
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> the


----------



## Athos (Feb 5, 2012)

"the... above is a load of old pony"?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 5, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Hey, don't worry. he didn't say the stuff that he said in post #110, you know.


What's your problem with 110?  ie the Socialist workers party have never stated they want to take over the state and wield on behalf of the working class, that is a misrepresentation of Marxism.



ResistanceMP3 said:


> because of what happened earlier, I thought I would explain why I like your post.
> 
> Your post in my experience of most people I have spoke to on here do seem to reflect the majority of anarchist position to progressive left. 'modern left and right wing thinking is nothing more than sides of the same coin.'
> 
> it's a bit like the link I gave to the anarchist talking about the occupying movement, and his position about 'Marxism' just wanting to take over the state and wield it on behalf of the working class, even though the SWP have said many times "the state is not like a car you cant get in and drive in any direction you want' and 'the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class'. It just amazes me how often anarchists completely must understand, and misrepresent what is actually said, and then jump to the conclusion that the the SWP, and in this case the whole socialist revolutionary left, are just as bad as the ruling class.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> What's your problem with 110?the Socialist workers party have never stated they want to take over the state and wield on behalf of the working class, that is a misrepresentation.


^^ that's a misrepresentation


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 5, 2012)

Athos said:


> "the... above is a load of old pony"?


Well the key thing in that "load of old pony" was that the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class. Neither anarchists or socialists can substitute themselves for the self activity of the working class. Statements I'm prepared to stand by.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Well the key thing in that "load of old pony" was that the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class. Neither anarchists or socialists can substitute themselves for the self activity of the working class. Statements I'm prepared to stand by.


if 'neither anarchists or socialists' can substitute themselves for the self activity of the working class then why the fuck do you witter on about it so?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 5, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> you lying cunt


 


ResistanceMP3 said:


> I cant get my head around the suggestion that there are NO, none, common principles amongst anarchists, which can define them and distinguish them. In other words, [the suggestion] that the term anarchism is completely meaningless.


the reason I say there is a suggestion of the above in the comments of Anarchists on here, is because every time you try to discuss anarchism, they refuse. Often on the basis, there isn't one anarchism. I fully understand there isn't one anarchism, but to the same extent. There isn't one. Marxism, Trotskyism, Lenninism. That does not stop us from discussing those topics.

Notice suggestion, not statement.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> the reason I say there is a suggestion of the above in the comments of Anarchists on here, is because every time you try to discuss anarchism, they refuse. Often on the basis, there isn't one anarchism. I fully understand there isn't one anarchism, but to the same extent. There isn't one. Marxism, Trotskyism, Lenninism. That does not stop us from discussing those topics.
> 
> Notice suggestion, not statement.


and who was suggesting that the term anarchism is completely meaningless?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 5, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> if 'neither anarchists or socialists' can substitute themselves for the self activity of the working class then why the fuck do you witter on about it so?


because I love your wit and repartee. and I love how precious anarchists are to criticism. 8 pages lol.

And in this thread to highlight that there is a greater propensity towards substitutionism, among anarchists who love to ignore the will of the majority and do their own thing. A bit like scabs 

Dons tin hat


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> because I love your wit and repartee. and I love how precious anarchists are to criticism. 8 pages lol.
> 
> And in this thread to highlight that there is a greater propensity towards substitutionism, among anarchists who love to ignore the will of the majority and do their own thing. A bit like scabs
> 
> Dons tin hat


but you've said that neither anarchists nor socialists can substitute themselves for the self activity of the working class. and this being so how can you say that anarchists do in fact do what you say they cannot?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 5, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> and who was suggesting that the term anarchism is completely meaningless?


stop being an idiot. If you say every time the topic of anarchism is raised, we cannot discuss anarchism because it is so diverse, you render the term meaningless. There has to be a set of principles, some kind of definition of anarchism. I have my definition of anarchism. I have my set of principles which I think defines anarchism. to me the term anarchism is not meaningless. But I would like to hear what anarchists on here have to say for themselves. Looks like that is never going to happen.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 5, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> but you've said that neither anarchists nor socialists can substitute themselves for the self activity of the working class. and this being so how can you say that anarchists do in fact do what you say they cannot?


Oh fuckoff pickman, you cant be that stupid.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> All ready clarified what was meant when I said "working with working class MOVEMENTS" [my emphasis in my original post];


 
You haven't clarified anything, you dug yourself in deeper. Interesting that you can't see that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> What's your problem with 110? ie the Socialist workers party have never stated they want to take over the state and wield on behalf of the working class, that is a misrepresentation of Marxism.


 
No-one claimed that the SWP had stated that. You're misrepresenting others as making claims that they've not made.

Fuck me, you'd think that if anything, a dogmatist could keep their bullshit straight!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> if 'neither anarchists or socialists' can substitute themselves for the self activity of the working class then why the fuck do you witter on about it so?


 
You know what, I've only ever seen very limited manifestations of (IMO misguided) anarchists trying to do that, but have seen (through the infiltration of movements, the "packing" of community meetings etc) quite a few manifestations of some organisations claiming to be "socialist" doing so, and deluding themselves that in so doing they "become one" with the community whose political actions they're appropriating for their own purposes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> the reason I say there is a suggestion of the above in the comments of Anarchists on here, is because every time you try to discuss anarchism, they refuse.


 
That's right, none of us has ever tried to engage with you, have we?

None of us, having engaged with you, have had misrepresentations of what we've said thrown back at us, have we?



> Often on the basis, there isn't one anarchism. I fully understand there isn't one anarchism, but to the same extent. There isn't one. Marxism, Trotskyism, Lenninism. That does not stop us from discussing those topics.


 
Your error, as you've repeatedly been informed, is conflating an over-arching philosophy from which people individually and collectively assemble "ways of life" ("anarchism") with narrowly-defined (compared to "anarchism") *ideologies* that take most of their substance from an interpretation of the _corpus_ of the work of a relative handful of people.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> but you've said that neither anarchists nor socialists can substitute themselves for the self activity of the working class. and this being so how can you say that anarchists do in fact do what you say they cannot?


 
Because he's a gobshite?


----------



## Poo Flakes (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> because I love your wit and repartee. and I love how precious anarchists are to criticism. 8 pages lol.
> 
> ...
> 
> Dons tin hat


 
You actually raised some interesting points in the original post, but the conversation has gone to pot.  The fundamental question, which many left-wing activists would agree with, is whether the occupy movement is detrimental to left-wing causes. 

I doubt the occupy wall street movement could be considered anarchist or even socialist.  It looks like the petty bourgeious complaining about some of the most obvious problems of capitalism.  For an anarchist or socialist, the banking crisis should have been entirely predictable and does not really warrant any specific attention.

Judging from the educational curriculum in our best schools and also the kinds of publications of most promiment British journalists, academics and politicians, there seems a very narrow, imperialistic historical narrative where Winston Churchill has a prominent, almost demagogic, role (the BBC's recent coverage of the Falklands is comparable to the most explicit propoganda one could find).  I fear the original poster has fallen foul of the problem which is endemic across Britain, which can largely be based on this;

400 BC - Plato invents democracy
0 - Jesus is born
1066 - Britain becomes a democracy
1800s - Britain helps democratise the world
1914-1918 - A series of unfortunate circumstances creates catastrophe
1939-1945 - Britain prevails against evil 
1989 - Evil is finally defeated
1990-2010 - Shitty technological cliches used to describe how everyone wants to be like us


----------



## Random (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> because I love your wit and repartee. and I love how precious anarchists are to criticism. 8 pages lol.


 You're a boring troll, RMP3.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Oh fuckoff pickman, you cant be that stupid.


you've made two claims -

a) that neither anarchists nor socialists can substitute themselves for the self activity of the working class;

b) that anarchists have substituted themselves for the working class.

these claims cannot both be true

how do you square this particular circle? i manage to through my conviction that you're a shitferbrains twat: but how do you manage it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> stop being an idiot. If you say every time the topic of anarchism is raised, we cannot discuss anarchism because it is so diverse, you render the term meaningless. There has to be a set of principles, some kind of definition of anarchism. I have my definition of anarchism. I have my set of principles which I think defines anarchism. to me the term anarchism is not meaningless. But I would like to hear what anarchists on here have to say for themselves. Looks like that is never going to happen.


name names  who has been saying that we cannot discuss anarchism because it is so diverse?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 5, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's right, none of us has ever tried to engage with you, have we?


Never mind me, point to a serious discussions on here with anyone about anarchism.considering how many anarchists there are on here, the serious discussions when you do a search an incredibly low.




> None of us, having engaged with you, have had misrepresentations of what we've said thrown back at us, have we?


. Virtually every post pedantically picks apart what I have said, takes a few words out of 2 or 3 paragraphs, and misrepresents what I mean.  That you cant even acknowledge words are open to interpretation, filtered by our political perspectives is ridiculous. You are constantly trying to squeeze my words into your perception of Socialist worker. And even when I explain to you what I mean by things like, working  with working-class MOVEMENTS, you cannot acknowledge your mistake.

Socialist worker get constantly misrepresented on here, but you're not doing it disingenuously, You actually belive all the bullshit.  I don't even recognise the party that is discussed on here. ie  a few words is taken out of context from Lindsey German, and then said socialist worker has given up on gay rights. Pickman saying something like, SW intentionally fuckup the workers movement. You something like,the the SW CC deceive it's own membership, and have no interest in creating a classless society.. but when you and anarchism is genuinely misunderstood back to you, you cant accept it. 






> Your error, as you've repeatedly been informed, is conflating an over-arching philosophy from which people individually and collectively assemble "ways of life" ("anarchism") with narrowly-defined (compared to "anarchism") *ideologies* that take most of their substance from an interpretation of the _corpus_ of the work of a relative handful of people.


probably because keep repeating that, which doesn't actually make sense to me, isn't going to move us forward.


BTW I have never lied on here, there is no point. I find it funny that is the only way you can interpret my comments.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Pickman saying something like, SW intentionally fuckup the workers movement.


link or stfu


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 5, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> you've made two claims -
> 
> a) that neither anarchists nor socialists can substitute themselves for the self activity of the working class;
> 
> ...


anarchists AND socialist have tried to substitute themselves for the self activity of the working class. I've given the example of James Connolly, the socialist. However, I am arguing neither socialist nor anarchists can practically substitute themselves for the self activity on the working class, because the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class. I am arguing, it is illusory to believe Socialists or anarchists they can bring about a classless society, social revolutionaries should try to promote the self activity of the working class, FOUR. ONLY THEY CAN ANTICIPATE THEMSELVES.

I have said this many times, I don't know why you're asking me to explain it again.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 5, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> link or stfu


given you before.


----------



## Poo Flakes (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Socialist worker get constantly misrepresented on here, but you're not doing it disingenuously, You actually belive all the bullshit.  I don't even recognise the party that is discussed on here. ie a few words is taken out of context from Lindsey German, and then said socialist worker has given up on gay rights. Pickman saying something like, SW intentionally fuckup the workers movement. You something like,the the SW CC deceive it's own membership, and have no interest in creating a classless society.. but when you and anarchism is genuinely misunderstood back to you, you cant accept it.


 
I think that the Socialist Workers Party is full of very learned and interesting members; Owen Jones for example.  However, they always seem to be at the core of divisions in working-class movements.  The SSP split in Scotland, Respect in England.  Maybe it is unfair.  I just do not understand why they have not merged with other small organisations, accept that socialism needs a united voice, and they seem happy to control one small party even when it loses ground to the BNP.  The anarchists seem far more united.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Never mind me, point to a serious discussions on here with anyone about anarchism.considering how many anarchists there are on here, the serious discussions when you do a search an incredibly low.[


 
We're talking about this with reference to you, you lemon. You referred to "every time" you try and talk about anarchism.



> . Virtually every post pedantically picks apart what I have said, takes a few words out of 2 or 3 paragraphs, and misrepresents what I mean. That you cant even acknowledge words are open to interpretation, filtered by our political perspectives is ridiculous.


 
You have a pretty poor understanding and usage of language if you believe that sentences made up from words to form a *context* are "open to interpretation". That's the whole idea of context - to make the words far less amenable to interpretation.



> You are constantly trying to squeeze my words into your perception of Socialist worker. And even when I explain to you what I mean by things like, working with working-class MOVEMENTS, you cannot acknowledge your mistake.


 
Another good example of context is illustrated here, insofar as you're trying to divorce your own words from the context you originally used them in, so that they say something different from your original intention.

Fucking brilliant. You've just shot yourself in the foot again! 



> Socialist worker get constantly misrepresented on here, but you're not doing it disingenuously, You actually belive all the bullshit.  I don't even recognise the party that is discussed on here. ie a few words is taken out of context from Lindsey German, and then said socialist worker has given up on gay rights. Pickman saying something like, SW intentionally fuckup the workers movement. You something like,the the SW CC deceive it's own membership, and have no interest in creating a classless society.. but when you and anarchism is genuinely misunderstood back to you, you cant accept it.


 
The way it seems to me is that there are two or three options, and that's all.

1) That the SWP, through the "democratic centralism" of the CC, deliberately fuck up the "workers movement" (whatever the fuck that is).

2) That the constant screw-ups are *not* the product of malice, but of ineptness,
or
3) That there's some kind of agenda at work beyond being a fringe political organisation, whether that's providing a living for the CC, or sucking a tramp's armpit.




> probably because keep repeating that, which doesn't actually make sense to me, isn't going to move us forward.
> 
> 
> BTW I have never lied on here, there is no point. I find it funny that is the only way you can interpret my comments.


 
Someone who's been indoctrinated doesn't see the stuff they spout as lies, but as a "revealed truth". It's why you're so similar to bible-thumpers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 5, 2012)

Poo Flakes said:


> I think that the Socialist Workers Party is full of very learned and interesting members; Owen Jones for example. However, they always seem to be at the core of divisions in working-class movements. The SSP split in Scotland, Respect in England. Maybe it is unfair. I just do not understand why they have not merged with other small organisations, accept that socialism needs a united voice, and they seem happy to control one small party even when it loses ground to the BNP. The anarchists seem far more united.


 
You say "seem", I say "are proveably".


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2012)

Poo Flakes said:


> I think that the Socialist Workers Party is full of very learned and interesting members; Owen Jones for example. However, they always seem to be at the core of divisions in working-class movements. The SSP split in Scotland, Respect in England. Maybe it is unfair. I just do not understand why they have not merged with other small organisations, accept that socialism needs a united voice, and they seem happy to control one small party even when it loses ground to the BNP. The anarchists seem far more united.


Owen Jones is in the labour party not the SWP.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> given you before.


link or stfu


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> anarchists AND socialist have tried to substitute themselves for the self activity of the working class. I've given the example of James Connolly, the socialist. However, I am arguing neither socialist nor anarchists can practically substitute themselves for the self activity on the working class, because the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class. I am arguing, it is illusory to believe Socialists or anarchists they can bring about a classless society, social revolutionaries should try to promote the self activity of the working class, FOUR. ONLY THEY CAN ANTICIPATE THEMSELVES.
> 
> I have said this many times, I don't know why you're asking me to explain it again.


this being the case why did you say not three hours ago that 'neither anarchists or socialists can substitute themselves for working class self activity'? either they are able to do this, as you claim to have argued previously, or they can't as you argued earlier today. which is it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 5, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> given you before.


out of curiosity, how would you characterise the swp's behaviour in the socialist alliance if you deny that the swp were deliberately harming 'the workers movement'.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 5, 2012)

what was with all the cryptic stuff re Casually Red?  Seemed to be inferred he was a plastic paddy pro Real IRA-er?


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 5, 2012)

Poo Flakes said:


> I think that the Socialist Workers Party is full of very learned and interesting members; Owen Jones for example. However, they always seem to be at the core of divisions in working-class movements. The SSP split in Scotland, Respect in England. Maybe it is unfair. I just do not understand why they have not merged with other small organisations, accept that socialism needs a united voice, and they seem happy to control one small party even when it loses ground to the BNP. The anarchists seem far more united.


 

Good grief


----------



## LiamO (Feb 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Ah for jaysus there's paple to be sorting yet.


 


butchersapron said:


> Oh god i heard abut this fillumm about al-jazieria.


 
So you are trolling a man from the North of Ireland by writing 'wittily' in a Dublin accent? How ingenious. And you even got in the the empathetic vowel thing. Hilarious. Oh you are juxtaposing his generalisations with yours. How my sides ache.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 6, 2012)

cantsin said:


> you do accept that there are 'lifestyle' type anarchos and 'class struggle ' type anarchos' , and they're about as close politically / ideologically as RA would once have been to new left type hippies who would also have identified themselves as 'Reds' ?


 
There you are. All settled nicely in one simple sentence. Could have saved all that pissiness, couldn't we?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2012)

LiamO said:


> So you are trolling a man from the North of Ireland by writing 'wittily' in a Dublin accent? How ingenious. And you even got in the the empathetic vowel thing. Hilarious. Oh you are juxtaposing his generalisations with yours. How my sides ache.


i don't know what gave you the idea 'fillum' is peculiar to dublin.

although the 'jaysus' bit's certainly somewhere in the midlands.


----------



## LiamO (Feb 6, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't know what gave you the idea 'fillum' is peculiar to dublin.
> 
> although the 'jaysus' bit's certainly somewhere in the midlands.


 
Hello Mr Pedantic.

No the 'fillum' bit is covered in the empathetic vowel sub-section (part 1). Ironically the mocking of the use of empathetic vowels is in common amongst people from the north-east of our Sceptic Isle... to take the piss out of their fellow countrymen from the south and west.

Midlands? How do Dubs say 'Jaysus' and 'batin' then Picky? Maybe every writer from O'Casey to Roddy Doyle has it all wrong and you are right? Probably.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2012)

LiamO said:


> Hello Mr Pedantic.
> 
> No the 'fillum' bit is covered in the empathetic vowel sub-section (part 1). Ironically the mocking of the use of empathetic vowels is in common amongst people from the north-east of our Sceptic Isle... to take the piss out of their fellow countrymen from the south and west.
> 
> Midlands? How do Dubs say 'Jaysus' and 'batin' then Picky? Maybe every writer from O'Casey to Roddy Doyle has it all wrong and you are right? Probably.


i've heard 'fillum' from someone from newcastle, quite a way off from baile atha cliath. and given dublin's halfway up the coast, it's in my view of things in the midlands. not athlone, i'll grant you.

by the way, how's pointing out you're (in this case) talking a bit of shit pedantic?


----------



## LiamO (Feb 6, 2012)

yawn. night night.


----------



## mk12 (Feb 6, 2012)

In response to the title of the thread:

Which left-wing ideology _has_ worked? What does "worked" even mean? Achieving a classless society?

SWP-style Leninism has hardly achieved anything, has it? (apart from totalitarianism of course).


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 6, 2012)

They say "fillum" in Belfast too, as well as the north east of England.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 6, 2012)

LiamO said:


> How my sides ache.


 
That's punishment beatings for you.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Fuck me, you'd think that if anything, a dogmatist could keep their bullshit straight!


Still havn't said what you whining about in post 110





ResistanceMP3 said:


> because of what happened earlier, I thought I would explain why I like your post.
> 
> 
> Your post in my experience of most people I have spoke to on here do seem to reflect the majority of anarchist position to progressive left. ' modern left and right wing thinking is nothing more than sides of the same coin.'
> ...


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 6, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> this being the case why did you say not three hours ago that 'neither anarchists or socialists can substitute themselves for working class self activity'? either they are able to do this, as you claim to have argued previously, or they can't as you argued earlier today. which is it?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> The way it seems to me is that there are two or three options, and that's all.
> 
> 1) That the SWP, through the "democratic centralism" of the CC, deliberately fuck up the "workers movement" (whatever the fuck that is).
> 
> ...


The usual structural determinism. So, no room for agency. OK.





> Someone who's been indoctrinated doesn't see the stuff they spout as lies, but as a "revealed truth". It's why you're so similar to bible-thumpers.


Maybe so. Never claimed to be anything other than giving my honest veiwpoint.

I account for your inability to think outside your mindset or even discuss the topic of a thread in a similar fashion. ttfn


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 6, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Still havn't said what you whining about in post 110


 
There was me convinced I'd made it abundantly clear.

Perhaps you really are as stupid as some posters claim.

You say that the SWP says "the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class".
Yes?

You say this not very long after coming out with (w/r/t your perception of anarchists, and how "socialists", which of course is your code for the SWP, are so much more, well, socialist than anarchists) "Whether anarchists like it or not, there is a democratic will of the majority. Those who concentrate on the actions of the collective,those who see the emancipation of the working class being the act of the working class, seek to work *with the working-class*, even when the will majority goes against what they believe would be best for the movement as a whole [ie the real world me]"
See those bolded words? "With the working-class"? You've already shown, by talking of "working with", showed yourself/your organisation to be outside of "the working-class", and yet there you are, trying to influence the working class as to how/when/why they emancipate themselves.

The SWP are not, for the most part, *of* the working classes. Who the fuck are they to interpose themselves between the working classes and their emancipation?
I'll tell you *what* they are: Another bunch of leeches looking to gain power through stepping on the working classes. No more and no less.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 6, 2012)

Poo Flakes said:


> I think that the Socialist Workers Party is full of very learned and interesting members; Owen Jones for example. However, they always seem to be at the core of divisions in working-class movements. The SSP split in Scotland, Respect in England. Maybe it is unfair. I just do not understand why they have not merged with other small organisations, accept that socialism needs a united voice, and they seem happy to control one small party even when it loses ground to the BNP. The anarchists seem far more united.


Tried to unite in SA & RESPECT. My honest opinion. Think they may have been too hasty, didn''t spend enough time winning people to common cause ie the SP in the SA. Having said that, not sure the SP were winnable, as the  SP and the SWP had different agendas for the Socialist Alliance. In the crudest terms, the SWP saw the Socialist Alliance as some kind of alliance of revolutionaries and reformists seeking to build a mass alliance occupying the ground of old Labour where the revolutionaries would have been in a minority, but at least in the organisation, whereas I think the Socialist party, I emphasise I think, the SP saw Socialist Alliance as being in alliance of revolutionaries, or at least those to the left of the Labour Party. This left everybody suspicious of why the Socialist workers party was bending over backwards to accommodate reformist style views. Some involved the Socialist Alliance and respect accused the SWP of wanting to control the organisations, but this is in contradiction to its clearly stated, and often stated position, of wanting revolutionaries to be a minority in a mass [well at least big] working-class alliance.

there is so much distrust going in all directions, I am not picking on anyone in particular, that I don't think United left is possible. I am quite glad Socialist worker seems to have moved away from this line with the expulsion of John Reese Lindsey German, etc. [though very sorry to loose such fine comrades.]

If Anarchist's seem more united wherever you are, good. Get involved with them, and do stuff.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 6, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> The usual structural determinism. So, no room for agency. OK.


 
A Trot talking about agency. That's a new one!
It's not determinism,, it's a simple set of choices based on fairly common experience of the SWP held alike by former members, members and non-members. You may not like that so many people (a majority, even) hold such views, and are so deeply suspicious of the SWP's motives, but their suspicions *are* based on experience.




> Maybe so. Never claimed to be anything other than giving my honest veiwpoint.


 
What, even when you repeatedly told fibs by claiming butchersapron had said something that he hadn't? Oh no, that was a "mistake", although you only admitted the error after you'd repreated the lie...well...repeatedly.



> I account for your inability to think outside your mindset or even discuss the topic of a thread in a similar fashion. ttfn


 
Ah, the irony of *you*, who's left hostages-to-fortune of your own adherence to dogma all over Urban, implying that other people are narrow-minded!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 6, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Tried to unite in SA & RESPECT. My honest opinion. Think they may have been too hasty, didn''t spend enough time winning people to common cause ie the SP in the SA. Having said that, not sure the SP were winnable, as the SP and the SWP had different agendas for the Socialist Alliance. In the crudest terms, the SWP saw the Socialist Alliance as some kind of alliance of revolutionaries and reformists seeking to build a mass alliance occupying the ground of old Labour where the revolutionaries would have been in a minority, but at least in the organisation, whereas I think the Socialist party, I emphasise I think, the SP saw Socialist Alliance as being in alliance of revolutionaries, or at least those to the left of the Labour Party. This left everybody suspicious of why the Socialist workers party was bending over backwards to accommodate reformist style views. Some involved the Socialist Alliance and respect accused the SWP of wanting to control the organisations, but this is in contradiction to its clearly stated, and often stated position, of wanting revolutionaries to be a minority in a mass [well at least big] working-class alliance.
> 
> there is so much distrust going in all directions, I am not picking on anyone in particular, that I don't think United left is possible. I am quite glad Socialist worker seems to have moved away from this line with the expulsion of John Reese Lindsey German, etc. [though very sorry to loose such fine comrades.]
> 
> If Anarchist's seem more united wherever you are, good. Get involved with them, and do stuff.


 
Ah, so the Swappies *didn't* pack meetings in order to manipulate votes on policy, then?  We just imagined all of that, I suppose?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> There was me convinced I'd made it abundantly clear.
> 
> Perhaps you really are as stupid as some posters claim.
> 
> ...


I say it, or the SWP do in FACT say it? you were a member, and know members. Am I lying again?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 6, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I say it, or the SWP do in FACT say it? you were a member, and know members. Am I lying again?


 
Are you stupid? You say, as in "you have said in a previous post", not as in "you're saying that, but you're lying", you goat-witted fuckstick.


----------



## Random (Feb 6, 2012)

mk12 said:


> Which left-wing ideology _has_ worked? What does "worked" even mean? Achieving a classless society?


Both liberalism and social democracy have worked, across large parts of the globe. Where they're now less successful/in retreat it's as victims of their own success, rather than due to being crushed, as is the case with anarchism and old school bolshevism.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Ah, so the Swappies *didn't* pack meetings in order to manipulate votes on policy, then? We just imagined all of that, I suppose?


"Pack meetings"?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Are you stupid? You say, as in "you have said in a previous post", not as in "you're saying that, but you're lying", you goat-witted fuckstick.


I will put the question a different way. Do the SWP say "the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class."?

ETA, you must know, after all you are the expert.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> A Trot talking about agency. That's a new one!


interesting.I thought after reading  the anarchist article linked in the first page you might respond better to sociological talk.


> It's not determinism,, it's a simple set of choices based on fairly common experience of the SWP held alike by former members, members and non-members. You may not like that so many people (a majority, even) hold such views, and are so deeply suspicious of the SWP's motives, but their suspicions *are* based on experience.


2+2=5. At the end of the day comrade, they are and I am, motivated by achieving the same aims as you, a classless society.







> What, even when you repeatedly told fibs by claiming butchersapron had said something that he hadn't? Oh no, that was a "mistake", although you only admitted the error after you'd repreated the lie...well...repeatedly.


yes I apologised for misquoting him from a conversation several years earlier. I was sure he said that, and I was wrong. However, in my opinion, his position and yours still remains similar to what I stated, yours and his position on fascism is a stopped clock analysis, similar to that of the KPD.

Remember what I actually said now. Do you have a link?



> Ah, the irony of *you*, who's left hostages-to-fortune of your own adherence to dogma all over Urban, implying that other people are narrow-minded!


I've also acknowledge my fallibility in this respect. I think most peoples perception of things can be distorted by their respective, except you of course. You are infallible. Oh yes, and the other guy.


Do you not like discussing politics?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You say this not very long after coming out with (w/r/t your perception of anarchists, and how "socialists", which of course is your code for the SWP, are so much more, well, socialist than anarchists) "Whether anarchists like it or not, there is a democratic will of the majority. Those who concentrate on the actions of the collective,those who see the emancipation of the working class being the act of the working class, seek to work *with the working-class*, even when the will majority goes against what they believe would be best for the movement as a whole [ie the real world me]"
> See those bolded words? "With the working-class"? You've already shown, by talking of "working with", showed yourself/your organisation to be outside of "the working-class", and yet there you are, trying to influence the working class as to how/when/why they emancipate themselves.



I also talked about anarchist not working with the working class on the March organised by workers, and fucking off and doing their own thing. So what? by your twisted logic, this must mean they are working class???
so let me make this absolutely clear, socialist worked/marched with the working class in Seattle, anarchists didn't. That's it.

btw Socialist is socialist, and the Socialist workers party is the Socialist workers party. you cannot just insert your own words. And you cannot tell me my words had a meaning they didn't.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 6, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> The SWP are not, for the most part, *of* the working classes. Who the fuck are they to interpose themselves between the working classes and their emancipation?


And middle class anarchists I presume?


> I'll tell you *what* they are: Another bunch of leeches looking to gain power through stepping on the working classes. No more and no less.


idiot.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2012)

ResistanceMP3
John cooper
gmart


----------



## manny-p (Feb 6, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> ResistanceMP3
> John cooper
> gmart


To the gulags the lot of them- the counter revolutionary cunts!


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


>


/\ says all I need to know about your political nous


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2012)

manny-p said:


> To the gulags the lot of them- the counter revolutionary cunts!


The GULAG's too good for them


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 6, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> "Pack meetings"?


 
Fuck me, you've understood the meaning of the expression well enough to object to it before, and all of a sudden you don;t know what it means?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 6, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I will put the question a different way. Do the SWP say "the emancipation of the working class has to be the act of the working class."?


 
Yes, and according to you they also talk about "working *with* the working class" - to what end if not to facilitate their emancipation?



> ETA, you must know, after all you are the expert.


 
Have I ever claimed to be an expert?
Nah, you're just building your straw men again.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 6, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> interesting.I thought after reading the anarchist article linked in the first page you might respond better to sociological talk.


 
That's not "sociological talk", it's a strand of sociological theory alongside thousands of others, and not really something to be expected from someone whose ideology puts them firmly in the Marxian camp.



> 2+2=5.


 
Ah, we've all got it wrong, and you true believers are right. Where have I heard that _schtick_ before?



> At the end of the day comrade, they are and I am, motivated by achieving the same aims as you, a classless society.


 
I keep reading you saying this, and then I read you putting forward the ideas of a political party who practice a form of "democracy" that effectively constitutes an in-group and out-group (that's sociological *and* psychological theory, by the way, with a bit of social anthropology thrown in), just like the democrats of the Labour party etc do.





> yes I apologised for misquoting him from a conversation several years earlier. I was sure he said that, and I was wrong. However, in my opinion, his position and yours still remains similar to what I stated, yours and his position on fascism is a stopped clock analysis, similar to that of the KPD.
> 
> Remember what I actually said now. Do you have a link?
> 
> I've also acknowledge my fallibility in this respect. I think most peoples perception of things can be distorted by their respective, except you of course. You are infallible. Oh yes, and the other guy.


 
Hmm, I've never claimed to be infallible, so you've just wasted time building another straw man.



> Do you not like discussing politics?


 
I do.
You, however, like others, don't discuss "politics", you discuss your own positions. Your OP is an exemplar of this. Politics isn't just about applying *your* analysis to a situation and judging whether the situation is "right" or "wrong" according to your own ideological predicates. That's not politics, it's religious dogmatism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 6, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> And middle class anarchists I presume?


 
I wouldn't know. I don't currently know any, and those I did know usually turned out to be people going through a rebellious phase before wholeheartedly embracing capitalism.



> idiot.


 
Perhaps.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 6, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Tried to unite in SA & RESPECT. My honest opinion. Think they may have been too hasty, didn''t spend enough time winning people to common cause ie the SP in the SA. Having said that, not sure the SP were winnable, as the SP and the SWP had different agendas for the Socialist Alliance. In the crudest terms, the SWP saw the Socialist Alliance as some kind of alliance of revolutionaries and reformists seeking to build a mass alliance occupying the ground of old Labour where the revolutionaries would have been in a minority, but at least in the organisation, whereas I think the Socialist party, I emphasise I think, the SP saw Socialist Alliance as being in alliance of revolutionaries, or at least those to the left of the Labour Party. This left everybody suspicious of why the Socialist workers party was bending over backwards to accommodate reformist style views. Some involved the Socialist Alliance and respect accused the SWP of wanting to control the organisations, but this is in contradiction to its clearly stated, and often stated position, of wanting revolutionaries to be a minority in a mass [well at least big] working-class alliance.


 
This one win must dishonest post of 2012? ... and its only February...

You are either incredibly naive RMP3 or a liar


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 7, 2012)

as someone who sat in the hall at the ulu  in2003as the SWP forced through its winding up resolution on the SA, with more and more young SWP students filtering in from the SWP students meeting on the floor above verytime it looked as if those who actually wanted to keep their SA going might be making any headway. I can catagorically say the SWP packed meetings. By the way, have they ever return the money that they stole from  democratic labour party?


----------



## dennisr (Feb 7, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> as someone who sat in the hall at the ulu in2003as the SWP forced through its winding up resolution on the SA, with more and more young SWP students filtering in from the SWP students meeting on the floor above verytime it looked as if those who actually wanted to keep their SA going might be making any headway. I can catagorically say the SWP packed meetings. By the way, have they ever return the money that they stole from democratic labour party?


 
indeed -in the first place - they were also a year late in getting involved in this project for 'workers unity' we are told by this idiot they were so desperate to develop.

So the latest re-write of history is that the problem was because the SP saw the SAs as an "alliance of revolutionaries". Unlike the darlings of the SWP. Funny that - so why did the SWP want to change the constitution of the SAs from a loose decentralised alliance (with guaranted minority group rights...) to a centralised organisation that could be controlled by one dominant organisation - given their desire to for a mass alliance? In fact they demanded this constitutional change as a pre-condition for joining. They then used the resulting 'control by numbers' of the following conference (the reason we opposed the changing of the previous constitution) to close down the SA less than a year later. A new opportunistic chance (to lick Galloway's arse) had appeared on the horizon. That one went down just as well.

You couldn't make this up. After blunderingly and inainely making even the most basic anarchist arguments look more appealing (to put it frankly) on this thread - he ends up making a pop at the socialist opposition to SWPs stupidity by trying to turn history on its head. We warned everybody at the time....


----------



## Athos (Feb 7, 2012)

dennisr said:
			
		

> indeed -in the first place - they were also a year late in getting involved in this project for 'workers unity' we are told by this idiot they were so desperate to develop.
> 
> So the latest re-write of history is that the problem was because the SP saw the SAs as an "alliance of revolutionaries". Unlike the darlings of the SWP. Funny that - so why did the SWP want to change the constitution of the SAs from a loose decentralised alliance (with guaranted minority group rights...) to a centralised organisation that could be controlled by one dominant organisation - given their desire to for a mass alliance? In fact they demanded this constitutional change as a pre-condition for joining. They then used the resulting 'control by numbers' of the following conference (the reason we opposed the changing of the previous constitution) to close down the SA less than a year later. A new opportunistic chance (to lick Galloway's arse) had appeared on the horizon. That one went down just as well.
> 
> You couldn't make this up. After blunderingly and inainely making even the most basic anarchist arguments look more appealing (to put it frankly) on this thread - he ends up making a pop at the socialist opposition to SWPs stupidity by trying to turn history on its head. We warned everybody at the time....



It's 'the will of the majority' you know. RMP3 said so.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Fuck me, you've understood the meaning of the expression well enough to object to it before, and all of a sudden you don;t know what it means?


Define what you mean for clarity, and what you think SWP members are doing, that is 'wrong'?
did I object to it? What I said?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

*Violent Panda*


ResistanceMP3 said:


> ViolentPanda said:
> 
> 
> > You say this not very long after coming out with (w/r/t your perception of anarchists, and how "socialists", which of course is your code for the SWP, are so much more, well, socialist than anarchists) "Whether anarchists like it or not, there is a democratic will of the majority. Those who concentrate on the actions of the collective,those who see the emancipation of the working class being the act of the working class, seek to work with the working-class, even when the will majority goes against what they believe would be best for the movement as a whole [ie the real world me]"
> ...


 I notice you have not responded to this, perhaps it was an oversight, or perhaps you concede my words can be interpreted differently.





-----------------------------------

*ATHOS & **Violent Panda* .
FMPOV an interesting developments on this demonstration was that prior students and workers had chose to organise separately. On the demonstrations they marched separately. Some Socialist's remained with workers and students and some argued for unity, but I acceded to the will of the student and workers majority.

Then on the demonstration students and workers chose to unite and fight the police onslaught. The socialists were vindicated, and so better placed to suggest to workers and students to listen to the arguments that more than demonstrations, ie en masse working-class direct action, was needed to actually knock the state back. And where would the anarchist be while this debate was taking place, oh yes off doing their own thing.*

Don't get me wrong again, I'm not saying anarchists have no right to do their own thing, I am saying it is logically more efficacious to be with the working-class to suggest alternatives to the ideas Athos pointed to as dominating their ideas [when he mentioned MLK, and correctly in my opinion raised intentionally or inadvertently the notion of the dominant ideas in society being those of the ruling class.] Towards ie the en masse direct action of the working-class, instead doing your own thing away from the working-class mass movement.


*In fact the debate never took place. Why? Because the police used to volunteer agent provocateur actions of the anarchists as an excuse to pulverise the workers and students, and the debate went off in that direction. In my opinion the actions of the anarchists actually helped the state.
1. The state physically defeated the workers and students.
2. This undermined the argument for unity.
3. This undermined the argument for any type of action, let alone occupying smashing banks, as even the demonstration would be physically stopped.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 7, 2012)

it is a bit rich for the defenderof the swp, who promoted David Shaylor on the platforms and in their publications, to hark on about agent provocateurs


----------



## chilango (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> *Violent Panda* I notice you have not responded to this, perhaps it was an oversight, or perhaps you concede my words can be interpreted differently.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Were you at Seattle rmp3?

Or any of the other protests during that wave?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

dennisr said:


> indeed -in the first place - they were also a year late in getting involved in this project for 'workers unity' we are told by this idiot they were so desperate to develop.
> 
> 3.So the latest re-write of history is that the problem was because the SP saw the SAs as an "alliance of revolutionaries". Unlike the darlings of the SWP. Funny that - so why did the SWP want to change the constitution of the SAs from a loose decentralised alliance (with guaranted minority group rights...) to a centralised organisation that could be controlled by one dominant organisation - given their desire to for a mass alliance? In fact they demanded this constitutional change as a pre-condition for joining. They then used the resulting 'control by numbers' of the following conference (the reason we opposed the changing of the previous constitution) to close down the SA less than a year later. A new opportunistic chance (to lick Galloway's arse) had appeared on the horizon. That one went down just as well.


What was said;





ResistanceMP3 said:


> Tried to unite in SA & RESPECT. 1.My honest opinion. Think they [THE SWP] may have been too hasty, didn''t spend enough time winning people to common cause ie the SP in the SA. Having said that, not sure the SP were winnable, as the SP and the SWP had different agendas for the Socialist Alliance. In the crudest terms, the SWP saw the Socialist Alliance as some kind of alliance of revolutionaries and reformists seeking to build a mass alliance occupying the ground of old Labour where the revolutionaries would have been in a minority, but at least in the organisation, 2. whereas I think the Socialist party, I emphasise I think, the SP saw Socialist Alliance as being in alliance of revolutionaries, or at least those to the left of the Labour Party. This left everybody suspicious of why the Socialist workers party was bending over backwards to accommodate reformist style views. Some involved the Socialist Alliance and respect accused the SWP of wanting to control the organisations, but this is in contradiction to its clearly stated, and often stated position, of wanting revolutionaries to be a minority in a mass [well at least big] working-class alliance.
> 
> 
> there is so much distrust going in all directions, I am not picking on anyone in particular, that I don't think United left is possible. I am quite glad Socialist worker seems to have moved away from this line with the expulsion of John Reese Lindsey German, etc. [though very sorry to loose such fine comrades.]
> ...


1. I laid the blame with socialist worker, NOT the SP.

2. I made clear, and emphasised I may be mistaken about events years and years ago. correct it.
3. more you rewriting my post, than I rewriting history imo.

In fact, IMO if the SP's position was as I outlined [think workers power had a similar position], I think history has proved the SP&WP right, and the SWP WRONG! 

I now think history has shown a mass left of new labour alliance/party was,,,,,,,,,,, I think impossible is a strong word, there are some interesting counterarguments to my position, but I think history has shown a mass left of new labour was very close to impossible. So the SWP's agenda for the Socialist Alliance, a mass left of new Labour workers party, was wrong.

I also now think prior to the SW joining the SA, cooperation around the war in Yugoslavia etc [mine's a manchester centric experience.] showed there was a possibillity for some unity. with hindsight, I think building this type of unity would have been more productive. Chasing an ideal, a mass left of new labour alliance/party, SW fucked this opportunity. Some argue a left if Labour unity is impossible, some experiences in the SA made this claim very real.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I also talked about anarchist not working with the working class on the March organised by workers, and fucking off and doing their own thing. So what? by your twisted logic, this must mean they are working class???
> so let me make this absolutely clear, socialist worked/marched with the working class in Seattle, anarchists didn't. That's it.


 
Seattle?
Learn some fucking history. The Seattle WTO protests were organised and peopled by a broad coalition of people, from the working classes affected by the city's attempts to re-zone them out of existence, to students and staff from the two universities. That *some* anarchists chose not to work within the "rules" of the coalition had as much to do with those rules being imposed by the authorities *on* the coalition, as anything else.
Ever been to Seattle? Know any activists there? I have and I do. They have to deal with a police dept with a deserved reputation for being the most violent north of the Mason-Dixon line. That is the overwhelming reason why some anarchists went outside the agreed rules.



> btw Socialist is socialist, and the Socialist workers party is the Socialist workers party. you cannot just insert your own words. And you cannot tell me my words had a meaning they didn't.


 
No, "socialist" isn't "socialist". There is no single definition of socialism, there are many definitions. Socialism*s*.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> as someone who sat in the hall at the ulu in2003as the SWP forced through its winding up resolution on the SA, with more and more young SWP students filtering in from the SWP students meeting on the floor above verytime it looked as if those who actually wanted to keep their SA going might be making any headway. I can catagorically say the SWP packed meetings.


 
Thanks for independently confirming that, barney.



> By the way, have they ever return the money that they stole from democratic labour party?


 
It was just resting in the SWP account, honest!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

dennisr said:


> This one win must dishonest post of 2012? ... and its only February...


 
TBF that is the "official line" for SwapTrots.

They don't like it if you mention that it's a line of reasoning formed *after* the events had taken place, though.



> You are either incredibly naive RMP3 or a liar


 
Option 3 - a willingly-indoctrinated dupe.


----------



## mk12 (Feb 7, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> as someone who sat in the hall at the ulu in2003as the SWP forced through its winding up resolution on the SA, with more and more young SWP students filtering in from the SWP students meeting on the floor above verytime it looked as if those who actually wanted to keep their SA going might be making any headway. I can catagorically say the SWP packed meetings. By the way, have they ever return the money that they stole from democratic labour party?


 
The final SA conference wasn't at ULU, was it? I was there and I remember turning the other way outside Euston station to get to it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

dennisr said:


> indeed -in the first place - they were also a year late in getting involved in this project for 'workers unity' we are told by this idiot they were so desperate to develop.
> 
> So the latest re-write of history is that the problem was because the SP saw the SAs as an "alliance of revolutionaries". Unlike the darlings of the SWP. Funny that - so why did the SWP want to change the constitution of the SAs from a loose decentralised alliance (with guaranted minority group rights...) to a centralised organisation that could be controlled by one dominant organisation - given their desire to for a mass alliance? In fact they demanded this constitutional change as a pre-condition for joining. They then used the resulting 'control by numbers' of the following conference (the reason we opposed the changing of the previous constitution) to close down the SA less than a year later. A new opportunistic chance (to lick Galloway's arse) had appeared on the horizon. That one went down just as well.
> 
> You couldn't make this up. After blunderingly and inainely making even the most basic anarchist arguments look more appealing (to put it frankly) on this thread - he ends up making a pop at the socialist opposition to SWPs stupidity by trying to turn history on its head. We warned everybody at the time....


 
Ah, I see that we both recall history from the same perspective.

Still, we're all wrong, and the Swaps (and their dupes) are peddling the only true version of history. You can read all about it in their Holy Book newspaper!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

mk12 said:


> The final SA conference wasn't at ULU, was it? I was there and I remember turning the other way outside Euston station to get to it.


 
Conway Hall, Red Lion Square?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Define what you mean for clarity, and what you think SWP members are doing, that is 'wrong'?
> did I object to it? What I said?


 
"Packing meetings" - having plenty of members to hand to ram through resolutions that favour the SWP over other parties to alliances/compacts/whatever. It happens way too often to be incidental (which is what Swappies tend to claim if you tax them on it), and it's a manipulation of supposedly-democratic fora by a supposedly democratic (ha-fucking-ha!) organisation.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

barney_pig said:


> it is a bit rich for the defenderof the swp, who promoted David Shaylor on the platforms and in their publications, to hark on about agent provocateurs


 
It's a bit rich that his viewpoint on Seattle is straight out of the Globalise Resistance! songbook, and doesn't accord with many other accounts from anarchists, socialists and members of unions who protested there.


----------



## chilango (Feb 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's a bit rich that his viewpoint on Seattle is straight out of the Globalise Resistance! songbook, and doesn't accord with many other accounts from anarchists, socialists and members of unions who protested there.


 
That's why I asked what his experience of it was.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

chilango said:


> That's why I asked what his experience of it was.


 
I know, but I thought I'd give him another prod.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

Athos said:


> It's 'the will of the majority' you know. RMP3 said so.


Interestingly true.

I went to a big meeting, I think it was in Sheffield, about setting up for the election. I think workers power, and others, wanted ' disarming of the police' to be some kind major issue in the manifesto in the SA election [something like that]. SW agree with disarming of the police, and a SW comrade of mine couldn't understand why SW were throwing our majority behind defeating something we clearly agreed with.

You know the point you made about MLK etc, the point Chomsky made about Manufacturing consent, and the point Marx made about the dominant ideas in society? Well the majority of workers that would join a mass left of Labour Alliance do not necessarily agree with disarming of the police. SWP felt it better to get them in the organisation, and win the argument in the process of United struggle, rather than allowing disarming of the police to be imposed upon working-class people wanting to join.

so yes, once again it was about socialists wanting to work with the working class, rather than in splendidly politically correct isolation. ie anarchists. ;p

 SWP chose to submit to the will of the working class, rather than that of revolutionaries. Surely, after all that you have said, you should support this freedom. Respect this right "to do what you think is in the best interests of achieving freedom"? Surely you should support this diversity of tactics?


----------



## chilango (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> SWP chose to submit to the will of the working class, rather than that of revolutionaries.


 
Are you saying this about the SA, Seattle or both?

...and with a straight face?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> The SWP are not, for the most part, of the working classes. Who the fuck are they to interpose themselves between the working classes and their emancipation?
> 
> 
> ResistanceMP3 said:
> ...


So;


Athos said:


> No. Not sure why you thought that. I am a solicitor by profession, though no longer practice; I used to think that the law was a way to change things for the better, but realised it is actually a smokescreen to maintain the status quo.


Is a solicitor middle class Violent Panda?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Have I ever claimed to be an expert?
> Nah, you're just building your straw men again.


so if you are not an expert how can you claim





ViolentPanda said:


> The SWP are not, for the most part, of the working classes.


 
you need to define what you mean by working class.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Thanks for independently confirming that, barney.


You still haven't defined "packing meetings"! Shall I help?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> You still haven't defined "packing meetings"! Shall I help?


 
Post #316, made nearly an hour ago.
Going blind now too?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> So;
> 
> Is a solicitor middle class Violent Panda?


 
Depends whether you judge someone on income, on social class, or on relationship to the means of production. Are you stating that Athos is middle-class because he practiced as a solicitor?


----------



## Athos (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> *Violent Panda* I notice you have not responded to this, perhaps it was an oversight, or perhaps you concede my words can be interpreted differently.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

What the fuck's going on with the *RED INK*?!  

Anyway, as I said, we'll have to agree to disagree: you believe that the actions of some anarchists militated against the success of that protest; I believe that centralised control of a working class movement by a self-appointed ruling body (even if that is 'the will of the majority', is a class system by another name, and is anathema to revolution.

Even more so when the will of the majority is cynically manipulated by an entryist group.  Especially one which uses the working class to justify its own existence, but is not of the working class, and offers it nothing.  This en masse movement you talk about isn't a tool for a vanguard party to wield; it is made up of individuals working to bring about their own freedom - 'doing their own thing' you'd call it.

You always seem to miss the point that revolution is about freedom (from capital and it's corollary, the state). To my mind, the freedom of the working class will best be achieved by workers acting freely, not by submitting to the will of others, even comrades.  However, you see freedom as an endpoint, and seem to think a curtailment of freedom - which is what surrendering one's individual agency to the will of others is - in the short term is the way to achieve it.

I guess in some ways that this in an important distinction between your Leninist ideology and the anarchism to which I subscribe; I see the ends and means as inseparable, whereas you seem to focus on the endpoint of the struggle.  This difference in emphasis is why you miss the importance of employing means which are consistent with the ends, and seem to struggle with the idea that many anarchists define their ideology more in terms of a direction of travel than an endpoint.

In my opinion the focus on the endpoint i.e. revolution, has two significant flaws:

First, it disenfranchises the working class, by making the revolution seem like a remote paradise to come at some far off point in the future (which also creates an environment of navel-gazing); this can be contrasted with the strain of  anarchism which entails workers trying to live as freely as we can, every day, in the here and now.

Secondly, it can allow an 'ends justifies the means' mindset, whereby tactics are used to achieve the goal are inconsistent with it, thus pushing it further way than ever.  You only need to look at what was done in the Soviet Union in the name of workers' freedom to see that it ultimately had the opposite effect.

To me, revolution means freedom.  Freedom will only come when every worker lives freely.  Each of us will have to exercise that freedom himself or herself; it cannot be bestowed upon us by another entity (even one which claims to represent the collective interest of the class). And certainly freedom cannot be granted to a class by actions which curtail the freedoms of the members of that class.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> so if you are not an expert how can you claim...


 
The SWP shies away from explicating the demographics of the membership, but from my own observations, from knowing members and from the observations of others, the SWP has a tendency to draw from student bodies (as do many political organisations - students are activism fodder _par excellence!_), and the rank-an-file has a preponderance of graduates that most businesses would be proud of. It also has a Central Committee that is (and has been historically) dominated by a mix of members of the ruling class, the professions and the political classes, people whose perspective on "the working class" (that's "class*es*", by the way. we're not a homogeneous mass) is at a remove from our lived experience.



> you need to define what you mean by working class.


 
Actually, I don't.


----------



## Athos (Feb 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Depends whether you judge someone on income, on social class, or on relationship to the means of production. Are you stating that Athos is middle-class because he practiced as a solicitor?


 
On the measures you set out, I would define myself as working class: 

Income - After you took out what I paid to service the loans I'd taken out to go to university and law school I was poorly paid.

Social class -  I am the son of two non-professionals; the first in my family to get even an A Level, never mind a degree.  I come from a working class area, and was educated at the local comp.  And I never had a foreign holiday until I left home!

Means of production - To pay my bils, I had to sell my labour exactly the same as I would have done if I'd gone to work on the production line at the local Vauxhall factory; I wasn't a partner or shareholder etc.

I am well paid now (relative to the national average), and that is reflected in my tastes e.g. good food etc, but that doesn't mean I'm no longer working class, does it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

Athos said:


> What the fuck's going on with the *RED INK*?!


 
It makes him feel like he's asserting control. 



> Anyway, as I said, we'll have to agree to disagree: you believe that the actions of some anarchists militated against the success of that protest; I believe that centralised control of a working class movement by a self-appointed ruling body (even if that is 'the will of the majority', is a class system by another name, and is anathema to revolution.
> 
> Even more so when the will of the majority is cynically manipulated by an entryist group. Especially one which uses the working class to justify its own existence, but is not of the working class, and offers it nothing. This en masse movement you talk about isn't a tool for a vanguard party to wield; it is made up of individuals working to bring about their own freedom - 'doing their own thing' you'd call it.


 
According to RMP3, the SWP aren'tvanguardist, you know.



> You always seem to miss the point that revolution is about freedom (from capital and it's corollary, the state). To my mind, the freedom of the working class will best be achieved by workers acting freely, not by submitting to the will of others, even comrades. However, you see freedom as an endpoint, and seem to think a curtailment of freedom - which is what surrendering one's individual agency to the will of others is - in the short term is the way to achieve it.
> 
> I guess in some ways that this in an important distinction between your Leninist ideology and the anarchism to which I subscribe; I see the ends and means as inseparable, whereas you seem to focus on the endpoint of the struggle. This difference in emphasis is why you miss the importance of employing means which are consistent with the ends, and seem to struggle with the idea that many anarchists define their ideology more in terms of a direction of travel than an endpoint.
> 
> ...


 
But surely, comrade, one needs fellow-workers who will submit to the will of the people and guide the class along the path of freedom?


----------



## chilango (Feb 7, 2012)

Apart from rmp3 and perhaps audiotech are there nay other SWPs and fellow travllers left on the boards? Is Das Uberdog still around? Any others? Poor old rmp3 is fighting a lonely battle at the moment....


----------



## Athos (Feb 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> But surely, comrade, one needs fellow-workers who will submit to the will of the people and guide the class along the path of freedom?


 
One's bound to think that.  One is middle class, after all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

Athos said:


> On the measures you set out, I would define myself as working class:
> 
> Income - After you took out what I paid to service the loans I'd taken out to go to university and law school I was poorly paid.


 
TBF, according to some Law Society papers I read in the '00s, over 60% of all practicing solicitors earn less than the "average" wage, with just over half of that 60% qualifying for "in-work benefits".



> Social class - I am the son of two non-professionals; the first in my family to get even an A Level, never mind a degree. I come from a working class area, and was educated at the local comp. And I never had a foreign holiday until I left home!


 
Similar, except I never got an A level, and damn few O levels, and I went to the local grammar (which went comp the year after I left - I think I lowered the standard!). All my higher ed has been funded out of my own pocket, and for reasons of interest rather than to pursue a career path.



> Means of production - To pay my bils, I had to sell my labour exactly the same as I would have done if I'd gone to work on the production line at the local Vauxhall factory; I wasn't a partner or shareholder etc.
> 
> I am well paid now (relative to the national average), and that is reflected in my tastes e.g. good food etc, but that doesn't mean I'm no longer working class, does it?


 
Depends who you're asking that question of, doesn't it? For me, it's a lot about attitude, too. About your politics and whether you shape them to accommodate the lifestyle you desire, or stay true to what you believe. This is why I dislike neo-libs - they follow the money rather than their convictions.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

chilango said:


> Apart from rmp3 and perhaps audiotech are there nay other SWPs and fellow travllers left on the boards? Is Das Uberdog still around? Any others? Poor old rmp3 is fighting a lonely battle at the moment....


 
Most of 'em are as fed-up with rmp3s dogmatism and willful misrepresentations as many of the anarchists  on this board are.


----------



## Athos (Feb 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Depends who you're asking that question of, doesn't it? For me, it's a lot about attitude, too. About your politics and whether you shape them to accommodate the lifestyle you desire, or stay true to what you believe.


 
Unexpectedly, I found myself moving further and further to the left the older I've got! In my teens, I was apolitical; in my early 20s, I was looking forward to a Labour government; ever since, I've become more and more interested in first Marx, and then anarchism. I thought it was supposed to go the other way.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

Athos said:


> Unexpectedly, I found myself moving further and further to the left the older I've got! In my teens, I was apolitical; in my early 20s, I was looking forward to a Labour government; ever since, I've become more and more interested in first Marx, and then anarchism. I thought it was supposed to go the other way.


 
Only for those with atherosclerosis of the brain.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Post #316, made nearly an hour ago.
> Going blind now too?


Aaaaah, so you are there. so, do you accept you were wrong to interpret socialist as Socialist worker, and interpret working with the working class the way you did?


----------



## chilango (Feb 7, 2012)

Soooo.................rmp3 _were_ you at Seattle then?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Aaaaah, so you are there. so, do you accept you were wrong to interpret socialist and Socialist worker, and interpret working with the working class the way you did?


 
No.
Hth.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> No.
> Hth.


 You were.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

chilango said:


> Apart from rmp3 and perhaps audiotech are there nay other SWPs and fellow travllers left on the boards? Is Das Uberdog still around? Any others? Poor old rmp3 is fighting a lonely battle at the moment....


I rarely post here as well. Got fed up with VP's dogmatism and willful misrepresentations.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Most of 'em are as fed-up with rmp3s dogmatism and willful misrepresentations as many of the anarchists on this board are.


Define vangaurdism.


----------



## Athos (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Define vangaurdism.


SWP


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Depends who you're asking that question of, doesn't it? For me, it's a lot about attitude, too. About your politics and whether you shape them to accommodate the lifestyle you desire, or stay true to what you believe. This is why I dislike neo-libs - they follow the money rather than their convictions.


Fucking hell, my dustbin man isn't working class!!!!


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

Athos said:


> SWP


RU VP's glove puppet? 

go on admit, you don't know. your just repeating what the big boys have told you say.  


pssss, dont believe everything VP says.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I rarely post here as well. Got fed up with VP's dogmatism and willful misrepresentations.


 
You plum.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Fucking hell, my dustbin man isn't working class!!!!


 
So you equate a menial job with being "working class", do you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> You were.


 
No, I wasn't.
What I *am*, is fed-up with being required to explain myself over and over again by some dupe whose politics don't benefit the working classes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

Athos said:


> SWP


 
Makes you wonder whether rmp3 has ever bothered to look out the founding principles of the organisation, or analyse the philosophy it was originally based on.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> RU VP's glove puppet?
> 
> go on admit, you don't know. your just repeating what the big boys have told you say.


 
What a snidey little sod you are. You have a pop, then you attempt to cover it with smilies.



> pssss, dont believe everything VP says.


 
You know what, I don't ask or require anyone to believe anything I say, I state what I believe to be true, and let others decide.
Odd how those "others" tend to see things my way rather than yours, though. I suppose that they're all my sock-puppets, then?

Idiot.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Makes you wonder whether rmp3 has ever bothered to look out the founding principles of the organisation, or analyse the philosophy it was originally based on.


 



ViolentPanda said:


> According to RMP3, the SWP aren'tvanguardist, you know.


Where did I say that?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> What a snidey little sod you are. You have a pop, then you attempt to cover it with smilies.


oh fuck off you soft get.





> You know what, I don't ask or require anyone to believe anything I say, I state what I believe to be true, and let others decide.
> Odd how those "others" tend to see things my way rather than yours, though. I suppose that they're all my sock-puppets, then?


 


ViolentPanda said:


> According to RMP3, the SWP aren'tvanguardist, you know.


Where did I say that?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> So you equate a menial job with being "working class", do you?


No! There you go again reading what hasn't been said.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

> But surely, comrade, one needs fellow-workers who will submit to the will of the people and guide the class along the path of freedom?


No comrade, we need a squat, 'freedom' in the heart of capitalism, that will act as a beacon to the working classES, to which they will flock, and will convert en masse to the one true belief, to achieve freedom you have to be freedom.


Did ever see that Reginald D Hunter comedy routine about the Batman movie, "in order to overcome fear, you have to become fear." lol


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Where did I say that?


 
What, you don't remember denying it and disingenuously asking "what is 'vanguardist?' " when the subject came up in one of your previous threads having a pop at anarchism?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> oh fuck off you soft get.


 
Whatever.







> Where did I say that?


 
Repeating yourself?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> No! There you go again reading what hasn't been said.


 
What else does your post mean, then? Perhaps if you were a little less incomprehensible...?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> No comrade, we need a squat, 'freedom' in the heart of capitalism, that will act as a beacon to the working classES, to which they will flock, and will convert en masse to the one true belief, to achieve freedom you have to be freedom.


 
Because, as is well known, all anarchists are "squat-punks". 

Oh, and anarchism makes no claims to being "one true belief". Never has, and hopefully never will. Anarchisms aren't about conversion of the masses from one ideology to another, it's about trying to set an example of a way of living that doesn't depend on some bunch of technocratic leeches interposing themselves between the people and the achievement of the will of the people. There's no freedom in swapping one belief system for another, and you don't achieve freedom by "being" freedom, you achieve it by *doing* freedom, by action and example.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, I wasn't.
> What I *am*, is fed-up with being required to explain myself over and over again by some dupe whose politics don't benefit the working classes.


You fucking were, and you cshould know it. Your interpretation is nonsense. 

you can be a member of the working class and choose not to work with the working classes, ie join the Tory party or the BNP. Or you could be a member of the working classes, and choose not to work with them, preferring to go on living some little anarchist squat in the republic of nowhere. And I stated, the example of Seattle, where anarchist chose not to work with the workers march. That you choose to work with the working classes, DOES NOT automatically place you outside them.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Packing meetings" - having plenty of members to hand to ram through resolutions that favour the SWP over other parties to alliances/compacts/whatever. It happens way too often to be incidental (which is what Swappies tend to claim if you tax them on it), and it's a manipulation of supposedly-democratic fora by a supposedly democratic (ha-fucking-ha!) organisation.


 
And this is exactly why any organsation working towards genuine unity would have to guarentee minority rights within its setup - so the respective parts of that organisation could learn to trust through working together, knowing that one organisation - regardless of how they dominate in terms of numbers cannot override genuine concerns of significent minority views. It is how the SA was established - before folk, unfortunately took the desicion to vote away that constitutional setup - on the basis of a hoped for "unity" with the SWP (the mythical 'unity of left groups' hope over experience - seen as more important than the initiation of an organisation that could draw in and genuinely become a beacon for unifying more than just those left groups).

The irony should not be lost on anyone (apart from RMP3)


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, "socialist" isn't "socialist". There is no single definition of socialism, there are many definitions. Socialism*s*.


Look, at this point you are aware of the stupidity of your inserting your own words into my comments and stating that is what I meant to say. Just let it go.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> You fucking were, and you cshould know it. Your interpretation is nonsense.


 
Only to you, seemingly.



> you can be a member of the working class and choose not to work with the working classes, ie join the Tory party or the BNP. Or you could be a member of the working classes, and choose not to work with them, preferring to go on living some little anarchist squat in the republic of nowhere. And I stated, the example of Seattle, where anarchist chose not to work with the workers march. That you choose to work with the working classes, DOES NOT automatically place you outside them.


 
You're a dishonest halfwit.

I haven't claimed that choosing to work with the working classes "automatically" does *anything*. What I DID say was that taken with your speechifying about the emancipation of the working class being down to the working class, for the SWP, an organisation that isn't *OF* the working classes, your choice of words was illustrative, insofar as it showed the SWP as imposing themselves on the situation and on the class.
I mean, what *are* the SWP's working-class credentials? For such a large sect, the SWP has made remarkably little impact on w/c areas, except in terms of shitting up our environment with thrown-away copies of the _Socialist Worker_ and pasted-up posters and handbills.  I've seen a fuckload more action from the SpeebyGeebies and even the bloody AWL round here than from the SWP.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Look, at this point you are aware of the stupidity of your inserting your own words into my comments and stating that is what I meant to say. Just let it go.


 
Let what go? That you're claiming something that no-one else sees?

Bite me.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

dennisr said:


> And this is exactly why any organsation working towards genuine unity would have to guarentee minority rights within its setup - so the respective parts of that organisation could learn to trust through working together, knowing that one organisation - regardless of how they dominate in terms of numbers cannot override genuine concerns of significent minority views. It is how the SA was established - before folk, unfortunately took the desicion to vote away that constitutional setup - on the basis of a hoped for "unity" with the SWP (the mythical 'unity of left groups' hope over experience - seen as more important than the initiation of an organisation that could draw in and genuinely become a beacon for unifying more than just those left groups).
> 
> The irony should not be lost on anyone (apart from RMP3)


 
The irony certainly wasn't lost on me, and neither was the despair that the destruction of the SA induced in many people. A lot of us set aside misgivings and took them on trust, and then paid for it.

What's that old US folk-adage? "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Packing meetings" - having plenty of members to hand



Precisely, the SWP are guilty of having plenty of members, period. Imagine SW party members voting in an organisation they are part of....  Packing means having the temerity to vote.


ViolentPanda said:


> to ram through resolutions that favour the SWP over other parties to alliances/compacts/whatever.


SW organise, to vote the way THEY believe will best further our shared aims.
IE >





Athos said:


> I don't seek to work with the working class; I am working class. And the feedom in which I believe isn't the individulism to do exactly as I please, in my own interests; instead, it is simply the freedom to act according to my own conscience and judgement (informed but not dictated by comrades), to act in the way which I believe will further our shared aims.


 SW claims the same freedom


ViolentPanda said:


> It happens way too often to be incidental (which is what Swappies tend to claim if you tax them on it), and it's a manipulation of supposedly-democratic fora by a supposedly democratic (ha-fucking-ha!) organisation.


 Oh Jesus! Stop making up these fictitious SWP members will you?  SW   DO ORGANISE, to vote the way THEY believe will best further our shared aims. 


So are you saying to me that if anarchists had the majority of members of an organisation, they wouldn't vote in the way which they believed would further our shared aims?


----------



## dennisr (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> SW organise, to vote the way THEY believe will best further our shared aims.


 
So are you saying that the SWPs precondition for joining the Socialist Alliance - and the resulting domination by that organisation and the closing of that same organisation was an example of their belief in what "best furthered the shared aims" of the SA ?

Stop lieing RMP3. "Rule or Ruin" is my repeated experience of the SWPs belief system.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I haven't claimed that choosing to work with the working classes "automatically" does anything.





ViolentPanda said:


> You've already shown, by talking of "working with", showed yourself/your organisation to be outside of "the working-class",


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

dennisr said:


> So are you saying that the SWPs precondition for joining the Socialist Alliance - and the resulting domination by that organisation and the closing of that same organisation was an example of their belief in what "best furthered the shared aims" of the SA ?


No!
Our shared aims are the emancipation of the working class, BY THE WORKING CLASS. I have already said, Those inside disagreed how to achieve those aims. Just like the anarchist's in Seattle acted according to their conscience, we voted according to our conscience as to what would be best suited to attracting enough workers to create a mass alliance/party, and facilitating the self activity of the working class. 

you know this whole discussion determines really on one issue. Do you believe as John Rees stated in front of 500 people at Marxism, and as was said in many of their publication is, in many of their internal and public meetings over and over, the design for both the Socialist Alliance and respect was a mass organisation?

if you accept that, then logically the SWP being part of a mass party, would make them a minority. An unprotected minority. it logically follows that they Constitution they demanded would by design place SW as a unprotected minority, and still demanded it because they believed that was in the best interests promoting the self activity of a organised working class. 

Now if you look above you will see I now believe they were wrong. This probably wasn't feasible. But it is what they said/believed.

I can go on to why they argued they should place themselves in such a precarious position. But it is pointless without dealing the issue above first.

PS. you voted according to your conscience against the changes in the constitution, and even when SWP were not in the Socialist Alliance you've lost the vote. No so-called packing involved. Are you saying everybody in the Socialist Alliance besides the Socialist party voted out of self-interest?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> There was me convinced I'd made it abundantly clear.
> 
> Perhaps you really are as stupid as some posters claim.
> 
> ...


my comment's wherein the context of a general discussion about socialism and anarchism, with references to the Easter uprising, and in particular Seattle, where THERE IS NO SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY. I wasn't talking about how the Socialist worker's party behaved more socialist in Seattle, I was talking about socialists. YOU cannot just insert socialist worker, where I actually said socialist, and say that is what I meant. I didn't mean to say socialist worker, I meant to say socialist''s


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Precisely, the SWP are guilty of having plenty of members, period. Imagine SW party members voting in an organisation they are part of....  Packing means having the temerity to vote.


 
No, it doesn't, it means mobilising the membership to deliberately manipulate the outcome of a meeting.



> SW organise, to vote the way THEY believe will best further our shared aims.


 
Even when that means doing so in order to destroy a coalition?



> IE > SW claims the same freedom
> Oh Jesus! Stop making up these fictitious SWP members will you? SW DO ORGANISE, to vote the way THEY believe will best further our shared aims.


 
"Fictitious"?



> So are you saying to me that if anarchists had the majority of members of an organisation, they wouldn't vote in the way which they believed would further our shared aims?


 
You're kind of missing the point there. Anarchists don't do entryism.

Fuckwit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> .


 
Nice bit of selective editing there in post #367.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

dennisr said:


> So are you saying that the SWPs precondition for joining the Socialist Alliance - and the resulting domination by that organisation and the closing of that same organisation was an example of their belief in what "best furthered the shared aims" of the SA ?


 
Or, rather more likely, what "best furthered the shared aims" of the SWP CC.



> Stop lieing RMP3. "Rule or Ruin" is my repeated experience of the SWPs belief system.


 
And of many.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> my comment's wherein the context of a general discussion about socialism and anarchism, with references to the Easter uprising, and in particular Seattle, where THERE IS NO SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY. I wasn't talking about how the Socialist worker's party behaved more socialist in Seattle, I was talking about socialists. YOU cannot just insert socialist worker, where I actually said socialist, and say that is what I meant. I didn't mean to say socialist worker, I meant to say socialist''s


 
Putz.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> you know this whole discussion determines really on one issue. Do you believe as John Rees stated in front of 500 people at Marxism, and as was said in many of their publication is, in many of their internal and public meetings over and over, the design for both the Socialist Alliance and respect was a mass organisation?


 
Gibberish. You are saying this discussion "detemines weather of not I believe what John Rees said". What the feck are you going on about you idiot?

The actual actions of the organisation say a damn sight more than weasel words from Master Rees. Those actions are repeated again and again. - Its not an occasional mistake - its a political trend.

How does one build this 'mass party' that you say the SWP wanted - by opening up that potential party? - by not denying minority views by control through votes while that party is still small? - by building genuine respect and trust between the various elements of that formation by ensuring that small groups will have a guarenteed voice?* Or* by shutting those initial democratic debates down? crushing the shoots that could have grown into a genuine mass organisation by stiffling it at its very birth?

All the SWP ever wanted was *control*. it shut down the SAs - the very organisation that could have grown into a mass organisation. *Less than one year later*. So much for its stated desire for a "mass party". And now you have the audacity to argue that what went wrong was a result of the friction between the latecomers and the SP who, apparently, wanted a revolutionary party not a mass party! - what utter. dribbling. idiocy.

And that desire for control is really what is so pathetic about this organisation - I mean what was to be gained? - by (or for or on behalf of - or however you wish to put the term...) this working class you claim to love so much - by being the dominant fish in such an incredibly small pond? - by ending up speaking to yourselves? (everyone else having given up listening). What the feck have manipulative stitch-ups like this got to do with furthering the interests of the working class? And idiots like you wonder why we just shook our heads and walked away from the whole sorry mess?

Ironicly, we now find ourselves in a position where we have to argue for the idiots of the SWP being allowed in unity organisations - they are hated so much - understandably - by so many folk that, as a result of bitter experience, these same folk even try and work out ways of being inclusive but not allowing the SWP! (of course I cannot condone that...). But really... How sad is that? How pathetic? Does your organisation never question why it has come to this - when some of the most combative trade unionists existing in the UK today try to avoid you? Do you ever question what mistakes have resulted in such a - frankly - embarrassing and shameful situation?

And the pigs looked like humans and the humans looked like pigs - again. So which is it RMP3 - are you simply a gibbering idiot - or a manipulative lieing troll?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nice bit of selective editing there in post #367.


something you never do? 


ViolentPanda said:


> I haven't claimed that choosing to work with the working classes "automatically" does anything.





ViolentPanda said:


> You've already shown, by talking of "working with", showed yourself/your organisation to be outside of "the working-class",


Clearly contradictory statements.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Putz.


Liar.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2012)

Oh god, someone make him stop, for the love of Marx, make him stop!


----------



## krink (Feb 7, 2012)

dennisr said:


> So which is it RMP3 - are you simply a gibbering idiot - or a manipulative lieing troll?


 
from my close reading of this thread (I'm at work so not wasting 'my' time) I'd say he is the former but desperately trying to be the latter.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 7, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Oh god, someone make him stop, for the love of Marx, make him stop!


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

dennisr said:


> And that desire for control is really what is so pathetic about this organisation - I mean what was to be gained? - by being the dominant fish in such a small pond.


None.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

krink said:


> from my close reading of this thread (I'm at work so not wasting 'my' time) I'd say he is the former but desperately trying to be the latter.


Ehem! 13 pages.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> None.


 
why defend such appalling mistakes then? (i am being generous by using the term 'mistakes') why defend it by misrepresenting the views or wishes or hard work of other organisations? - work the SWP destroyed again... - work which put the longer-term interests of the wider working class ahead of the short-term interests of our own organisation.

Honestly you haven't got a leg to stand on. The excuses are pathetic - absolutely pathetic.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Ehem! 13 pages.


 
the one good point made - good troll - shit politics


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

btw, determines, decides upon


v. de·ter·mined, de·ter·min·ing, de·ter·mines. v.tr. 1. a. To decide or settle (a dispute, for example) conclusively and authoritatively. b. To end or decide, as by *...*


----------



## Athos (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> RU VP's glove puppet?
> 
> go on admit, you don't know. your just repeating what the big boys have told you say.
> 
> ...


 
Yeah, that's right, because he's the only person who has suggested the SWP is vanguardist. 

Anyone who has any experience of your party knows that it tries to hijack movements and place itself at the centre.  If the SWP can't gain control, it would rather see the whole thing torn apart.  The SWP's actions have demonstrated that it wants nothing more than to control each and every working class grouping.  

I'm sure there's plenty VP and I disagree about.  However, I'm sure we can concur that you're a knob.  Something which, no doubt, we have in common with most people who have had dealings with you.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

dennisr said:


> why defend such appalling mistakes then? (i am being generous by using the term 'mistakes') why defend it by misrepresenting the views or wishes or hard work of other organisations? - work the SWP destroyed again... - work which put the longer-term interests of the wider working class ahead of the short-term interests of our own organisation.
> 
> Honestly you haven't got a leg to stand on. The excuses are pathetic - absolutely pathetic.


You are right, there was no motivation to control the SA. wanting to control the SA, was like wanting to control an empty sweetshop, pointless. so changing the constitution was not about control, there was other reasons all there in the publications for you to read.

if you attack the real reasons for not giving minority groups a veto, I might agree with you, only then in the short term.

btw who voted to change the SA constituion?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

Athos said:


> Yeah, that's right, because he's the only person who has suggested the SWP is vanguardist.


NO! because the SWP are a vanguard party. Just not VP's interpretation of Vanguardism. go on, get him to define it, it's hoot.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

v. de·ter·mined, de·ter·min·ing, de·ter·mines. v.tr. 1. a. To decide or settle (a dispute, for example) conclusively and authoritatively. b. To end or decide, as by *...*
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/determine


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

dennisr said:


> Gibberish. You are saying this discussion "detemines weather of not I believe what John Rees said". What the feck are you going on about you idiot?
> 
> The actual actions of the organisation say a damn sight more than weasel words from Master Rees. Those actions are repeated again and again. - Its not an occasional mistake - its a political trend.
> 
> ...


If the SA became a mass party of 10 or 20000 workers with a basicly old labour outlook, the SWP 1000 revolutionaries would have been in a minority, wouldn't it?


----------



## Athos (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> NO! because the SWP are a vanguard party. Just not VP's interpretation of Vanguardism. go on, get him to define it, it's hoot.


 
So, you pulled me up for saying that the SWP is vanguardist, and suggested that I got the idea from VP.  Whereas, in fact, you acknowledge that the SWP is a vanguard party.    What was your point, again?


----------



## dennisr (Feb 7, 2012)

*listen* > its jesus, he's weeping


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> ResistanceMP3 said:↑
> ​Precisely, the SWP are guilty of having plenty of members, period. Imagine SW party members voting in an organisation they are part of....  Packing means having the temerity to vote.​No, it doesn't, it means mobilising the membership to deliberately manipulate the outcome of a meeting


ROFL   you are fucking mad. How can anyone vote without intending to deliberately manipulate the outcome by voting against those who wish to manipulate the meetings outcome in another direction.?


> SW organise, to vote the way THEY believe will best further our shared aims.​Even when that means doing so in order to destroy a coalition?


 
nobody was destroyed. The vast majority went into respect, a coalition. Some of them remain there.


> IE > SW claims the same freedom​Oh Jesus! Stop making up these fictitious SWP members will you? SW DO ORGANISE, to vote the way THEY believe will best further our shared aims.​"Fictitious"?


fictitious yes. I don't believe any comrades has said any such thing to you, it's ridiculous. Of course, SWP DO organise their interventions. Would you expect, socialist's to behave like anarchists?



> So are you saying to me that if anarchists had the majority of members of an organisation, they wouldn't vote in the way which they believed would further our shared aims?​You're kind of missing the point there. Anarchists don't do entryism.


 
I know, you're too busy doing your own thing. but that wasn't the question.



> Fuckwit..


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

Athos said:


> So, you pulled me up for saying that the SWP is vanguardist, and suggested that I got the idea from VP. Whereas, in fact, you acknowledge that the SWP is a vanguard party.  What was your point, again?


I didn't ask you to define it, I asked VP. Plus, your definition wasn't really a definition of of vanguardism, it was just a glib statement of fact. So I made an equally glib, joshing.





ResistanceMP3 said:


> RU VP's glove puppet?  translates as;, I didn't ask you
> 
> 
> go on admit, you don't know. your just repeating what the big boys have told you say.  .translates as; that's not definition
> ...


I mean, I'm guessing you intended your response to be somewhat humorous, I was trying to respond in kind. humour doesn't always translate in a serious conversation


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

dennisr said:


> *listen* > its jesus, he's sweeping


And Rmp3 has the shovle.

you are the one who said there was no point controlling the Socialist Alliance. You proved SWP had no motive.

You deny they wanted to create a mass WORKERS party?


----------



## krink (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Ehem! 13 pages.


 
but where is the quality? try harder, try-hard.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

krink said:


> but where is the quality? try harder, try-hard.


never mind the quality, feel the width

now WTF was that?


ETA  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_Mind_the_Quality,_Feel_the_Width


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Couldn't agree with your more. A terrible waste. A grossly flawed method.


Did you deliberately miss read my post or are you just thick?  I couldn't care less what you think about November 17th.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

eoin_k said:


> Did you deliberately miss read my post or are you just thick? I couldn't care less what you think about November 17th.


ye, fair play to you, you are one of the few who gave a reasonable response, and so you deserve better than that.


I think I admitted somewhere back in the mists of this thread, my original post was not clear, and what I really was opposed to was substitutionism [not sure whether you are familiar with the term in the way the SWP uses it]

I think I also acknowledged in response to your first post to this thread, that socialist have been guilty of actions similar to the one in the original post, substitutionism. [Did you see the one about James Connolly]

And so, overall, you are right, substitutionism by anarchists doesn't doesn't mean anarchism as a method of action doesn't work.


What I would say though is substitutionism as a method of action doesn't work, and as far as I can see is far more prevalent among anarchists imo. Is virtually all I see.

But again, fair play to you. The article you produced from class struggle anarchists seem to make an overall criticism of this kind of anarchist action, which I agreed with. However, I really struggled with it, because many of the foundations upon which these criticisms were based, were difficult for me to swallow.



> Experts
> 
> By 'an activist mentality' what I mean is that people think of themselves primarily as activists and as belonging to some wider community of activists. The activist identifies with what they do and thinks of it as their role in life, like a job or career. In the same way some people will identify with their job as a doctor or a teacher, and instead of it being something they just happen to be doing, it becomes an essential part of their self-image.
> 
> ...


 
ETA, I'm going to go back and try finish article off now


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

eoin_k said:


> Of course the myriad sects of the Leninist left have never been politically irrelevant glee clubs whose members burn themselves out engaging in irrelevant ineffective activism. Whereas no anarchists have ever been contributed to effective mass actions on the basis of class struggle. Fact!
> 
> One of the strengths of many 'Anarchists'* over the sort of politics you represent is their ability to apply this sort of critique to their own practice in periods when I can only imagine the likes of you indulging in self congratulatory, delusional rhetoric.
> 
> ...


good link eoin.a very very good article, with much food for thought. Thanks.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

dennisr said:


> *listen* > its jesus, he's weeping


 
That grinding sound you hear is Marx gnashing his teeth, and the odd gibbering noise is Bronstein pulling his hair out and dribbling.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

dennisr said:


> why defend such appalling mistakes then? (i am being generous by using the term 'mistakes') why defend it by misrepresenting the views or wishes or hard work of other organisations? - work the SWP destroyed again... - work which put the longer-term interests of the wider working class ahead of the short-term interests of our own organisation.


you still haven't explained to me what the real position I misrepresented was, what was the agenda the SP had for the Socialist Alliance?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> That grinding sound you hear is Marx gnashing his teeth, and the odd gibbering noise is Bronstein pulling his hair out and dribbling.


what right did Marx have to interfere with the working class?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nice bit of selective editing there in post #367.


something you never do? 


ViolentPanda said:


> I haven't claimed that choosing to work with the working classes "automatically" does anything.





ViolentPanda said:


> You've already shown, by talking of "working with", showed yourself/your organisation to be outside of "the working-class",


Clearly contradictory statements.





ViolentPanda said:


> There was me convinced I'd made it abundantly clear.
> 
> Perhaps you really are as stupid as some posters claim.
> 
> ...


 Full quote. How have I shown myself to be outside the working class.

and have you got a link to the actual post where I said socialist, and you say I meant by this socialist worker?

and even if I accept your premise, which I don't, that socialist worker and not of the working class, why does this negate them promoting emancipation of the working class by the working class?  Apart from your moral indignation, is in any logical reason they could not facilitate?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Clearly contradictory statements.


your posts are full of them


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> what right did Marx have to interfere with the working class?


what, you mean 'what right did he have to interfere with his maid'?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 7, 2012)

RMP3, why do you keep repeating yourself? Do you think that if you repeat your inanities often enough they'll become more meaningful?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> ye, fair play to you, you are one of the few who gave a reasonable response, and so you deserve better than that.


what he deserves, as do we all, is a firm commitment on your part that you'll stop posting.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> what he deserves, as do we all, is a firm commitment on your part that you'll stop posting.


Ignore my posts, as simple as you.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 7, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> RMP3, why do you keep repeating yourself? Do you think that if you repeat your inanities often enough they'll become more meaningful?


you were the one whining about my editing your post, I quote the full thing and you're still whining.

as pickmans would say, explain or stfu.  also still no link to my alleged comments about Vanguardism?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> you were the one whining about my editing your post, I quote the full thing and you're still whining.
> 
> as pickmans would say, explain or stfu. also still no link to my alleged comments about Vanguardism?


so where's the link i asked for?


----------



## Athos (Feb 7, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> good link eoin.a very very good article, with much food for thought. Thanks.


That article stresses the importance of not fracturing ends from means.  And of trying to live freely now, rather than making freedom contingent upon some far off event i.e. revolution.  And of the impossibility of one group delivering freedom to another.  The same points which, when I made them, didn't receive the same reception from you.


----------



## Poo Flakes (Feb 7, 2012)

This thread is a metaphor.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 7, 2012)

Poo Flakes said:


> This thread is a metaphor.


a metaphor for how shit rmp3's politics are


----------



## chilango (Feb 8, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I rarely post here as well. Got fed up with VP's dogmatism and willful misrepresentations.


 
If you can't cope with a few narky anarchists how you gonna cope arguing your case with "the working class" who may often be a lot less "on your side" than VP is?

You never answered my question re. Seattle by the way...were you involved in any of those protests?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2012)

He's not very good at dealing with questions


----------



## chilango (Feb 8, 2012)

I know.

...but what's the harm in asking again.

and again.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2012)

If I had my way we'd be putting these questions to him in a rather different environment


----------



## chilango (Feb 8, 2012)

What? a on orderly meeting where the speaker gets to pick pre-arranged questioners with the answers all leading neatly to a single, simple conclusion?


----------



## chilango (Feb 8, 2012)




----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 8, 2012)

chilango said:


> What? a on orderly meeting where the speaker gets to pick pre-arranged questioners with the answers all leading neatly to a single, simple conclusion?


I was thinking more of the inquisition


----------



## Athos (Feb 8, 2012)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> If I had my way we'd be putting these questions to him in a rather different environment



Steady on Comrade, there's no need. The more he witters on, the more he digs a grave for his own confused ideas.

Although I disagree with almost all of what he says, that's not what bothers me - it's the persistent misrepresentation of anarchism and, worse, of other posters' positions.

It's a shame because he's obviously earnest in his beliefs, and understands some of what he's talking about, and dedicates much time and effort. If only it was less divisive, dogmatic and dishonest.

Meantime, I try (but usually fail) not to get drawn in by his nonsense, or to treat him as a dialectical device. Because surely nobody here takes his position seriously?


----------



## chilango (Feb 8, 2012)

He had an interesting point to make, but refuses to make it.


----------



## Athos (Feb 8, 2012)

chilango said:
			
		

> He had an interesting point to make, but refuses to make it.



If the point was that he disagrees with substitutionism, then I'm sure most people agree.

What I can't agree with is that workers taking action which has not sanctioned by some controlling body (based on 'the will of the majority') is substitutionism. In fact, the opposite is true: when that other entity attempts to dictate to individual workers how they should behave in order to bring about revolution, that is trying to substitute its will for theirs. For that entity to lead the struggle.

I'd be interested to see RMP3's definition of substitutionism.


----------



## chilango (Feb 8, 2012)

Innit.

The role of the activist in relation to mass struggle is a valid question to explore. One that anarchists et al.(The sits wrote some interesting stuff on this, as have autonomists) have investigated repeatedly.

rmp3, rightly, found this question emerging again in relation to the occupy movement. Sadly, he hasn't been able to articulate this question without slipping into incoherent dogma.


----------



## Athos (Feb 8, 2012)

chilango said:
			
		

> Innit.
> 
> The role of the activist in relation to mass struggle is a valid question to explore. One that anarchists et al.(The sits wrote some interesting stuff on this, as have autonomists) have investigated repeatedly.
> 
> rmp3, rightly, found this question emerging again in relation to the occupy movement. Sadly, he hasn't been able to articulate this question without slipping into incoherent dogma.



As usual, he was sidetracked by his anti-anarchism mania.


----------



## barney_pig (Feb 8, 2012)

The sad reality for rmp3 is that many/most of those who engage with him on here are ex members of the SWP/is so, unlike him, we actually have some knowledge of what we speak.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> you were the one whining about my editing your post, I quote the full thing and you're still whining.
> 
> as pickmans would say, explain or stfu. also still no link to my alleged comments about Vanguardism?


 
I've found several links, but why would I waste my time giving *you* a link? After all, I *am* "fucking mad"! 

Anyone else wishing to see for themselves what I say about vanguardism, and have a laff at rmp3's efforts to avoid the charge, can read rmp3's "If anarchists didn't exist, the coppers would have to invent them" thread. It's another piece of vituperative bitchiness from him, and one where he embarrasses himself even worse than here.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2012)

Athos said:


> That article stresses the importance of not fracturing ends from means. And of trying to live freely now, rather than making freedom contingent upon some far off event i.e. revolution. And of the impossibility of one group delivering freedom to another. The same points which, when I made them, didn't receive the same reception from you.


 
rmp3 trying to play "favourites"?

'cos everyone craves his approval/endorsement, you know.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> so where's the link i asked for?


 
There's only one-way traffic on rmp3s highway.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2012)

chilango said:


>


 
There is some really great body language going on in the audience. Occasional "that's interesting! I'm listening eagerly" postures spread in amongst the far more prevalent "what the fuck am I doing here?" and "when is lunch?" postures.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2012)

Athos said:


> If the point was that he disagrees with substitutionism, then I'm sure most people agree.
> 
> What I can't agree with is that workers taking action which has not sanctioned by some controlling body (based on 'the will of the majority') is substitutionism. In fact, the opposite is true: when that other entity attempts to dictate to individual workers how they should behave in order to bring about revolution, that is trying to substitute its will for theirs. For that entity to lead the struggle.


 
The June 1953 revolution in East Germany is probably the finest modern example of the working classes taking responsibility for the emancipation of the working classes, and yet, contrary to the Leninist prescription, there was no controlling body, and it was that very fact that made it so difficult for the state to nay-say, even though the state controlled all the media.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 8, 2012)

anyone convinced after 400 plus posts  that anarchism as a method of organising does work yet?


----------



## chilango (Feb 8, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> anyone convinced after 400 plus posts that anarchism as a method of organising does work yet?


 
Nope. But then I wasn't anyway.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 8, 2012)

Don't get me wrong they do a good job in keeping vegan food alive  as a lifestyle issue but apart from that I don't think their business plan is as ambitious as it could be.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 8, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> good link eoin.a very very good article, with much food for thought. Thanks.


 
Stop thanking me.  I feel complicit enough in your little endevour as it is.  As if I have naively directed a vampire to a feeding opportunity.


----------



## Athos (Feb 8, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> anyone convinced after 400 plus posts that anarchism as a method of organising does work yet?


 
A strange thing to say, given that the anarchists on this thread didn't post here with an intention of organising anything.


----------



## Athos (Feb 8, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Don't get me wrong they do a good job in keeping vegan food alive as a lifestyle issue but apart from that I don't think their business plan is as ambitious as it could be.


 
Don't forget the cider, squat and dog on a string.

Don't think this meme will ever really take off, I'm afraid.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 8, 2012)

Athos said:


> A strange thing to say, *given that the anarchists on this thread didn't post here with an intention of organising anything*.


 
par for the course I'm afraid


----------



## Athos (Feb 8, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> par for the course I'm afraid


Hur.  Hur.  Hur.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> par for the course I'm afraid


 
Well, you know what gets said about those who stand on the sidelines and criticise...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2012)

Athos said:


> Hur. Hur. Hur.


 
Careful, your sides may split!


----------



## JHE (Feb 8, 2012)

RMP3 is not a troll, whatever some people claim.  He's sincere.

Many trolls, though, must envy RMP3 his ability to wind up Anarcho-Wotsits.  There are more than 440 posts on this thread and more than half of them are from indignant Anarcho-Wotsits, telling RMP3 off for some supposed error or other.


----------



## quinny518 (Feb 8, 2012)

Most boring thread ever, can't believe I actually read a fair bit of that twoddle.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 8, 2012)

quinny518 said:


> Most boring thread ever, can't believe I actually read a fair bit of that twoddle.


 
Almost the most boring post ever, can't believe I only felt dizzy reading it, rather than falling asleep.


----------



## cantsin (Feb 8, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> There is some really great body language going on in the audience. Occasional "that's interesting! I'm listening eagerly" postures spread in amongst the far more prevalent "what the fuck am I doing here?" and "when is lunch?" postures.


 
got to admit, had a bit a moment standing back in the mid-late 80's, first marxism ,right fist in the air,singing the Internationale just behind Chris Dean , with Cliff up on the stage . It soon passed, but still....


----------



## romeo2001 (Feb 9, 2012)

chilango said:


> If you can't cope with a few narky anarchists how you gonna cope arguing your case with "the working class" who may often be a lot less "on your side" than VP is?


 
he wont need to argue - he'll just appear and the light shining from his halo will guide "the unclean" to the promised land


----------



## audiotech (Feb 9, 2012)

Can't remember which one, but there's a recording of a speech at one Marxism on rmp3's site and you can clearly hear some distressed Mother shouting: "I want my son back". That was a Scientology moment and confirmed for me that I was correct in leaving the organisation when I did.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 9, 2012)

audiotech said:


> I was correct in leaving the organisation when I did.


 
the SWP seem to be one of the best recruiters for the anarchist movement in the UK! - Would you consider yourself a left commie or anarchist or similar now AT ?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 9, 2012)

audiotech said:


> Can't remember which one, but there's a recording of a speech at one Marxism on rmp3's site and you can clearly hear some distressed Mother shouting: "I want my son back". That was a Scientology moment and confirmed for me that I was correct in leaving the organisation when I did.


 
Current Swappies get enraged at accusations of being cult-like, but to be fair, nowhere near as enraged as members of the AWL do if you accuse *them* of it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 9, 2012)

dennisr said:


> the SWP seem to be one of the best recruiters for the anarchist movement in the UK!


 
I know a fair few members of the SP who joined as a deliberate choice after exposure to the SWP, so it seems to drive people to more points of the political compass than just anarchism.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 10, 2012)

chilango said:


> Apart from rmp3 and perhaps audiotech are there nay other SWPs and fellow travllers left on the boards? Is Das Uberdog still around? Any others? Poor old rmp3 is fighting a lonely battle at the moment....


 
I think we've just about all been in the SWP at one stage or another, it's like serving your time as an apprentice with a really shit craftsman - shows you what not to do.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 10, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, I wasn't.
> What I *am*, is fed-up with being required to explain myself over and over again by some dupe whose politics don't benefit the working classes.


 
Why do you prefer the term classes out of interest vp? I've always preferred class myself, for reasons that EP Thompson states far more eloquently than I ever could:




			
				EP Thompson [I]The Making of the English Working Class[/I] said:
			
		

> Class, rather than classes, for reasons which it is one purpose of this book to examine. There is, of course, a difference. "Working classes" is a descriptive term, which evades as much as it defines. It ties loosely together a bundle of discrete phenomena. There were tailors here and weavers there, and together they make up the working classes.
> 
> By class I understand an historical phenomenon, unifying a number of disparate and seemingly unconnected events, both in the raw material of experience and in consciousness. I emphasise that it is an historical phenomenon. I do not see class as a "structure", nor even as a " category", but as something which in fact happens (and can be shown to have happened) in human relationships.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 10, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Current Swappies get enraged at accusations of being cult-like, but to be fair, nowhere near as enraged as members of the AWL do if you accuse *them* of it.


 
Cheers for the tip, there's one AWLer round here that really winds me up, the most condescending, patronising twat I've ever met (and I've met Alex Callinicos) so I'll be sure to bring up the cult thing next time we meet


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 10, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I know a fair few members of the SP who joined as a deliberate choice after exposure to the SWP, so it seems to drive people to more points of the political compass than just anarchism.


 
That's pretty much exactly what I did, with a couple of years off in the meantime.

(Sorry about the multiple posts, came to the thread late and I've been replying to posts as I read them)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 11, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Why do you prefer the term classes out of interest vp? I've always preferred class myself, for reasons that EP Thompson states far more eloquently than I ever could:


 
I'm a big fan of Thompson, but I believe that class*es* makes more sense now than it did in Thompson's day, mostly because whereas in Thompson's time "classes" meant different strata of mostly workers and families (if you believe the "full employment" _schtick_), nowadays it has to encompass a large (and growing) sector of people who are either precariously (under)employed, or who are not employed at all.
Plus, I'd assert that, at least more than in Thompson's time, where industry was still a large employer and therefore led (in the eyes of the Labour party, anyway) to a class homogeneity of interest, working class interests are heterogeneous (they shouldn't be, but are), and that needs to be acknowledged.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 11, 2012)

cantsin said:


> got to admit, had a bit a moment standing back in the mid-late 80's, first marxism ,right fist in the air,singing the Internationale just behind Chris Dean , with Cliff up on the stage . It soon passed, but still....


 
The buzz. 
It gets us all, and you soon realise that it's not about the people on stage, it's about the people you're *with*.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I think we've just about all been in the SWP at one stage or another, it's like serving your time as an apprentice with a really shit craftsman - shows you what not to do.


I haven't. I'm pure.


----------



## krink (Feb 11, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I think we've just about all been in the SWP at one stage or another, it's like serving your time as an apprentice with a really shit craftsman - shows you what not to do.


 
I've not. Been an anarchist since I was a kid. I've never understood why people would settle for less


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I haven't. I'm pure.


 
Truly, you are the Messiah!


----------



## articul8 (Feb 11, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I think we've just about all been in the SWP at one stage or another, it's like serving your time as an apprentice with a really shit craftsman - shows you what not to do.


 
Nope, me neither.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Nope, me neither.


 
Fabians are the exception that proves the rule, surely?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 11, 2012)

eoin_k said:


> Stop thanking me. I feel complicit enough in your little endevour as it is. As if I have naively directed a vampire to a feeding opportunity.


LOL, another 16 pages thread brewing.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 11, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Why do you prefer the term classes out of interest vp? I've always preferred class myself, for reasons that EP Thompson states far more eloquently than I ever could:


STFU if VP says it classes it is. an nobody is allowed to say otherwise.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 11, 2012)

Err... yes we are - I just did. Strangely I got a perfectly reasonable reply. I wonder why that might be...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Nope, me neither.


 
Yeah but it's clear from your posts on here that you don't really _need_ anyone to show you what not to do - you've figured that one out all for yourself


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 11, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm a big fan of Thompson, but I believe that class*es* makes more sense now than it did in Thompson's day, mostly because whereas in Thompson's time "classes" meant different strata of mostly workers and families (if you believe the "full employment" _schtick_), nowadays it has to encompass a large (and growing) sector of people who are either precariously (under)employed, or who are not employed at all.
> Plus, I'd assert that, at least more than in Thompson's time, where industry was still a large employer and therefore led (in the eyes of the Labour party, anyway) to a class homogeneity of interest, working class interests are heterogeneous (they shouldn't be, but are), and that needs to be acknowledged.


"nnowadays it has to encompass a large (and growing) sector of people who are either precariously (under)employed, or who are not employed at all" wow, that is unusual for British capitalism. lol are you one of these underclass merchants?

and hasn't always the working class had heterogeneous interests? Why more so today?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 11, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> STFU if VP says it classes it is. an nobody is allowed to say otherwise.


 
Have I ever imposed my thinking on anyone?
Of course I haven't, but that doesn't stop you making out that I have, does it?

Well done for providing *yet another* illustration of why you're held in such low esteem by so many posters.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 11, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> What, you don't remember denying it and disingenuously asking "what is 'vanguardist?' " when the subject came up in one of your previous threads having a pop at anarchism?


No I would never say that seriously. Do you have a link?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 11, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> "nnowadays it has to encompass a large (and growing) sector of people who are either precariously (under)employed, or who are not employed at all" wow, that is unusual for British capitalism. lol are you one of these underclass merchants?


 
More drivel from an idiot, I see.

It *is* "unusual" in the context of the post-WW2 welfare state. It's only happened (on a lesser scale) once before in the last almost 70 years.



> and hasn't always the working class had heterogeneous interests? Why more so today?


 
Why the fuck do you think?
Ah, my mistake. You *don't* think. You let someone else do that for you.

Quick lesson: Interests are *increasingly* heterogeneous because there are greater and more diverse forces arrayed that have as their aim the deliberate alienation of members of the working classes from the interests of the working classes.  Media saturation makes this far easier than it was even 10 or 20 years ago.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 11, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> No I would never say that seriously.


 
Of course you wouldn't. It's always the other person who shits on the floor, never you.



> Do you have a link?


 
Go search through your threads of the second half of last year.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 11, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> "nnowadays it has to encompass a large (and growing) sector of people who are either precariously (under)employed, or who are not employed at all" wow, that is unusual for British capitalism. lol are you one of these underclass merchants?
> 
> and hasn't always the working class had heterogeneous interests? Why more so today?


 
He's actually making a perfectly valid point (though one I'm not sure I completely agree with, need to have a think about it) since, for Thompson, class was an historical phenomenon - rather than being defined by the relations of production, it's merely partially determined by it. Class only "happens" when workers act as a class, or "act in class ways" as Thompson would put it. It's a combination of objective and subjective factors, or to use Marxist jargon, class only happens when class consciousness happens.

And the thing about them always having had hetrogenous interests - when Thompson was writing the labour movement was strong. We had large, unionised workplaces. In other words it was accurate to talk of a working class, who had seperate interests from the rest of society and, most importantly, were conscious of this fact and acted accordingly. And during the period he was writing about this was even more the case.

The reason I'm not sure if I agree is that there is still a relatively significant minority of workers who are well organised, view themselves as a class apart and their interests as intertwined with those of other workers, and since these workers operate in just about every sector of the economy I'm not sure you can separate the various working classes, or at least it's not as simple as that. But maybe I'm just stretching it a bit because it suits my prejudices, which is why I need to think about it.

See how I've engaged with what he actually said there? When you do that people will accept disagreement. It's the disrespectful and dishonest way you represent the views of others that pisses people off, not the fact that they disagree with you.

And just because the SWP say they want unity, that they want, as you so frequently state, the self-emancipation of the working class, that doesn't mean that they do so in reality. We judge political actors by their actions, not their words. Do you believe that David Cameron really wants what's in the interests of the population of the UK? That the Tories don't want to privatise the NHS? That the Lib Dems and New Labour are progressive and want a more equal society? Of course we don't. So why do you leave your scepticism at the door when it comes to the SWP? And just for the record, I don't believe you when you say you're no longer in the SWP. Your posts on here only make sense if we assume you're still a member, or at least still believe they're the one true faith.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 11, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Err... yes we are - I just did. Strangely I got a perfectly reasonable reply. I wonder why that might be...


 
Obviously we're in a conspiracy, Norm. A conspiracy to undermine rmp3 and the SWP.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 11, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Have I ever imposed my thinking on anyone?
> Of course I haven't, but that doesn't stop you making out that I have, does it?
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 11, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> never said you had. Did you ever have a sense of humour?


What does "STFU if VP says it classes it is. an nobody is allowed to say otherwise" say, if not that I impose my thinking on others?
Gonna pull the "I was only joking, honest" bullshit again?



> I said something about the working class earlier in the thread, then you arrogantly corrected me saying it should be working classes, didn't you?


 
Did I? I don't believe that I did. I believe that what I actually did was give an explanation of my POV.
Of course, explaining one's POV to a dogmatist might be *perceived* as an arrogant correction, but hey, not my problem.



> have seen your arguments over, and they are not convincing. I prefer the term working-class. Is that okay?


 
Of course it's okay, you disingenuous little creep.

Please note: No smiley by last sentence. I really *do* think you're a disingenuous little creep.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 11, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> What does "STFU if VP says it classes it is. an nobody is allowed to say otherwise" say, if not that I impose my thinking on others?
> Gonna pull the "I was only joking, honest" bullshit again?


LOL







> Did I? I don't believe that I did. I believe that what I actually did was give an explanation of my POV.
> Of course, explaining one's POV to a dogmatist might be *perceived* as an arrogant correction, but hey, not my problem.


Link it.






> Of course it's okay, you disingenuous little creep.


 
well after your lie's i won't be hurt.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 11, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Of course you wouldn't. It's always the other person who shits on the floor, never you.
> 
> 
> 
> Go search through your threads of the second half of last year.


So that's a no. liar 

SWP is a Vanguard party. Has always been a Vanguard party. It is just that your interpretation of Vanguard, and there interpretation of Vanguard is completely different. Fact. No one, no one could seriously suggest they are not a Vanguard  party.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 11, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> More drivel from an idiot, I see.
> 
> It *is* "unusual" in the context of the post-WW2 welfare state. It's only happened (on a lesser scale) once before in the last almost 70 years.
> 
> ...


what are the interests of the working class/es? You said the interests were heterogeneous didn't you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 11, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> LOL


 
Laugh out loud all you want. You'll still be as much of a disingenuous little creep after you've finished laughing as you were before.



> Link it.


Ask nicely, and I might.



> well after your lie's i won't be hurt.


 
The "lies" that no-one else but you believe exist?
You plum.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 11, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> So that's a no. liar


 
No, it's a "go search your threads yourself, I'm not doing it for you".



> SWP is a Vanguard party. Has always been a Vanguard party. It is just that your interpretation of Vanguard, and there interpretation of Vanguard is completely different. Fact. No one, no one could seriously suggest they are not a Vanguard party.


 
Q: How can two interpretations of "vanguard" be "completely different", when they both boil down to relying on the selfsame description?

A: They can't be, and all the nuances of difference in the world don't and can't change that.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 11, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> He's actually making a perfectly valid point (though one I'm not sure I completely agree with, need to have a think about it) since, for Thompson, class was an historical phenomenon - rather than being defined by the relations of production, it's merely partially determined by it. Class only "happens" when workers act as a class, or "act in class ways" as Thompson would put it. It's a combination of objective and subjective factors, or to use Marxist jargon, class only happens when class consciousness happens.
> 
> And the thing about them always having had hetrogenous interests - when Thompson was writing the labour movement was strong. We had large, unionised workplaces. In other words it was accurate to talk of a working class, who had seperate interests from the rest of society and, most importantly, were conscious of this fact and acted accordingly. And during the period he was writing about this was even more the case.
> 
> ...


I can't find the quote. Seem to remember earlier in the thread being rebuked for using the term working-class. Don't remember much of an explanation, just a instruction that I  shouldn't use the term.  if I am wrong, I will apologise. No problem.



> And just because the SWP say they want unity, that they want, as you so frequently state, the self-emancipation of the working class, that doesn't mean that they do so in reality. We judge political actors by their actions, not their words. Do you believe that David Cameron really wants what's in the interests of the population of the UK? That the Tories don't want to privatise the NHS? That the Lib Dems and New Labour are progressive and want a more equal society? Of course we don't. So why do you leave your scepticism at the door when it comes to the SWP? And just for the record, I don't believe you when you say you're no longer in the SWP. Your posts on here only make sense if we assume you're still a member, or at least still believe they're the one true faith.


I have never said anything other than I am not a paid-up member, haven't read any of their publications for getting on 10 years besides the odd article here and there, and have virtually no influence from them these days beyond still running www.resistanceMP.org.uk [and even that is rather ramshackle, as I still haven't put up the files four 2011] and going down as a tourist  now and again to Marxism.

I want the emancipation of the working class by the working-class. The reason being you cannot create a classless society any other way. I've never met a single member of the SWP who wouldn't agree with that, have you?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 11, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, it's a "go search your threads yourself, I'm not doing it for you".


liar. you know it's a ludicrous statement. Nobody who had been a member could say that seriously.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 11, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> what are the interests of the working class/es? You said the interests were heterogeneous didn't you?


 
Who am I to define the interests of the working classes?

Speaking for myself, I'd say that the interests of the working classes *as people who comprise communities* are becoming increasingly heterogeneous, moving further away from solidaristic principles, because of more severe and more prevalent social fractures forcing people to take positions on social and economic matters that are counter to their own long-term benefit, and the sorts of amelioration provided by previous governments (the "bread and circuses") aren't available, so "devil take the hindmost" is seen by some to be necessary.

As for defining what's *in* the interests of the working classes, I'll leave that to the various Leninists and Trots who're always keen to offer prescriptive "solutions".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 11, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> liar. you know it's a ludicrous statement. Nobody who had been a member could say that seriously.


 
Repeating your accusation, rather than going and checking the threads that you posted, won't make the label stick, you know.

But if it makes you feel better/superior/adequate then accuse away, by all means.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 11, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Who am I to define the interests of the working classes?
> 
> Speaking for myself, I'd say that the interests of the working classes *as people who comprise communities* are becoming increasingly heterogeneous, moving further away from solidaristic principles, because of more severe and more prevalent social fractures forcing people to take positions on social and economic matters that are counter to their own long-term benefit, and the sorts of amelioration provided by previous governments (the "bread and circuses") aren't available, so "devil take the hindmost" is seen by some to be necessary.
> 
> As for defining what's *in* the interests of the working classes, I'll leave that to the various Leninists and Trots who're always keen to offer prescriptive "solutions".


when you're using the term interests, where is underlined, do you mean interests as in what they are interested in,  or interests as in their what would be in their long-term benefit/interest?


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 11, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Repeating your accusation, rather than going and checking the threads that you posted, won't make the label stick, you know.
> 
> But if it makes you feel better/superior/adequate then accuse away, by all means.


You've said it. You back up your statement?

Anyway, forget it. Your entitled to make a mistake like anybody else.just don't keep repeating it, because it isn't true.just like the other stuff you said earlier.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 11, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> Tried to unite in SA & RESPECT. My honest opinion. Think they may have been too hasty, didn''t spend enough time winning people to common cause ie the SP in the SA. Having said that, not sure the SP were winnable, as the SP and the SWP had different agendas for the Socialist Alliance. In the crudest terms, the SWP saw the Socialist Alliance as some kind of alliance of revolutionaries and reformists seeking to build a mass alliance occupying the ground of old Labour where the revolutionaries would have been in a minority, but at least in the organisation, whereas I think the Socialist party, I emphasise I think, the SP saw Socialist Alliance as being in alliance of revolutionaries, or at least those to the left of the Labour Party. This left everybody suspicious of why the Socialist workers party was bending over backwards to accommodate reformist style views. Some involved the Socialist Alliance and respect accused the SWP of wanting to control the organisations, but this is in contradiction to its clearly stated, and often stated position, of wanting revolutionaries to be a minority in a mass [well at least big] working-class alliance.
> 
> there is so much distrust going in all directions, I am not picking on anyone in particular, that I don't think United left is possible. I am quite glad Socialist worker seems to have moved away from this line with the expulsion of John Reese Lindsey German, etc. [though very sorry to loose such fine comrades.]
> 
> ...


actually Dennis, I wanted to apologise, and say it is not fair for me to mention the socialist party as having any part in the Socialist Alliance becoming the part of the Respect alliance. The socialist party left a long time before.

I am interested though, have I misrepresented the agenda of the socialist party for the Socialist Alliance? Did they see it as an alliance of left of Labour socialist's, I kind of revolutionaries Alliance?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 11, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Fabians are the exception that proves the rule, surely?


 
Who are you calling a fucking Fabian?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2012)

You.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 11, 2012)

never been one - and never intend to


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2012)

Your intentions are neither here nor there.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 11, 2012)

objectively neither my class background nor politics are Fabian either


----------



## audiotech (Feb 11, 2012)

dennisr said:


> the SWP seem to be one of the best recruiters for the anarchist movement in the UK! - Would you consider yourself a left commie or anarchist or similar now AT ?


 
Tooting popular front with a smidgin of tankie.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Who are you calling a fucking Fabian?


 
You, you canting cunt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 11, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> You've said it. You back up your statement?
> 
> Anyway, forget it. Your entitled to make a mistake like anybody else.just don't keep repeating it, because it isn't true.just like the other stuff you said earlier.


 
Fuck right off, you condescending little shit-weasel.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 11, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> You, you canting cunt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 11, 2012)

articul8 said:


>


 
The rolleyes smilie is a better reply than the usual reformist "let's change Labour from the inside" crap you spout, I'll give you that much.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 11, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I can't find the quote. Seem to remember earlier in the thread being rebuked for using the term working-class. Don't remember much of an explanation, just a instruction that I shouldn't use the term. if I am wrong, I will apologise. No problem.


 
He said he preferred the term classes, doesn't sound much like an instruction to me.



ResistanceMP3 said:


> I have never said anything other than I am not a paid-up member, haven't read any of their publications for getting on 10 years besides the odd article here and there, and have virtually no influence from them these days beyond still running www.resistanceMP.org.uk [and even that is rather ramshackle, as I still haven't put up the files four 2011] and going down as a tourist now and again to Marxism.


 
But you're still a convinced SWPer - the only difference between you and much of the membership is that they pay subs and you don't. At least they've got the courage of their convictions.



ResistanceMP3 said:


> I want the emancipation of the working class by the working-class. The reason being you cannot create a classless society any other way. I've never met a single member of the SWP who wouldn't agree with that, have you?


 
In words they agree, yes. And I'm sure most think that's what they're working towards - I certainly did when I was a member. And I'm sure most of the _membership _believe that's what they're doing. But that's just words - the whole point of the paragraph that's a reply to was that we judge people by their actions, not their words. And in this instance, just as with the mainstream parties, those actions tell a very different story. They believe in it in theory (sort of, in a kind of self-contradictory way) but not in practice.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 11, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> He said he preferred the term classes, doesn't sound much like an instruction to me.


seriously? Have you got the post number?not the way I remember it. However, if that's the case, no problem my bad. Apologies all round.





> But you're still a convinced SWPer - the only difference between you and much of the membership is that they pay subs and you don't. At least they've got the courage of their convictions.


yes fair comment. I have very few convictions these days. Pretty much think we've blew every chance we had [meaning the left in general, not just the SWP]






> In words they agree, yes. And I'm sure most think that's what they're working towards - I certainly did when I was a member. And I'm sure most of the _membership _believe that's what they're doing. But that's just words - the whole point of the paragraph that's a reply to was that we judge people by their actions, not their words. And in this instance, just as with the mainstream parties, those actions tell a very different story. They believe in it in theory (sort of, in a kind of self-contradictory way) but not in practice.


well that is quite refreshing. People like pickman suggest they intentionally fuck the working-class movement. People like VP suggest a central committee have no intention of talk of trying to create a classless society.

Bit of a loaded question, what you mean by most of the membership? And not all?

and what does this mean exactly "They believe in it in theory (sort of, in a kind of self-contradictory way) but not in practice." The first bit first contradictory etc, and then a couple of specific examples on the not in practice.

if you don't mind me asking, what is your politics?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 11, 2012)

Can't be arsed with quotes so I'll just answer that in the order you've posted it.

Can't be arsed to look for the post but I've got no reason to make it up, and don't you think his subsequent posts, particularly the one in reply to my post where I disagreed with him, suggest that this is what he meant anyway?

Fair enough.

I think saying they intentionally fuck things up is an oversimplification. They're so convinced by their own rhetoric that they really believe they're the only ones with any answers. So if they see a movement or whatever that's growing, but that they can't control, they'll fuck it up. Not because they want to fuck over the w/c but because they think this is the best thing for the working class. We just don't know what's good for us is all.

It's not a loaded question because it's not a question. But by most I mean err... most. I know there's some in there purely to boost their own ego. The SWP isn't alone in this, I'd be surprised if there was a political organisation in the world, nevermind the UK, that didn't have any such people in its membership.

This thread is full of ecamples, the SA being one of them. It's self-contradictory because they go on about the self-emancipation of the working class, whilst at the same time setting up "united fronts" with Tories, slum landlords and strike breakers. They know what the working class wants, even if we've not realised that's what we want yet.

I'm a Marxist. I'm in the SP.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 11, 2012)

JHE said:


> RMP3 is not a troll, whatever some people claim. He's sincere.


 
I really cannot tell. Every thread he does extending fraternal comradely words seems to end as this one has.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 11, 2012)

JHE said:


> RMP3 is not a troll, whatever some people claim. He's sincere.
> 
> Many trolls, though, must envy RMP3 his ability to wind up Anarcho-Wotsits. There are more than 440 posts on this thread and more than half of them are from indignant Anarcho-Wotsits, telling RMP3 off for some supposed error or other.


is not hard though is it.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2012)

A really great wind-up where 1/4 of the post are his - and given the time and effort he must put into crayoning out his thoughts...well, what a great wind up...


----------



## JHE (Feb 11, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> is not hard though is it.


 
Some are just as easy to offend as Dhimmi-Trots.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 11, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> I really cannot tell. Every thread he does extending fraternal comradely words seems to end as this one has.


I know, I do tend to rise to the baiting by VP Pickman etc.I shouldnt let them get under my skin.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> A really great wind-up where 1/4 of the post are his - and give the time and effort he must put into crayoning out his thoughts...well,what a great wind up...


liar.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Feb 11, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Can't be arsed with quotes so I'll just answer that in the order you've posted it.
> 
> Can't be arsed to look for the post but I've got no reason to make it up, and don't you think his subsequent posts, particularly the one in reply to my post where I disagreed with him, suggest that this is what he meant anyway?


I'll believe you then, and apologise to both you and violent Panda. Sorry Panda.




> Fair enough.


don't know what thatis in response to, but it doesn't matter.




> I think saying they intentionally fuck things up is an oversimplification. They're so convinced by their own rhetoric that they really believe they're the only ones with any answers. So if they see a movement or whatever that's growing, but that they can't control, they'll fuck it up. Not because they want to fuck over the w/c but because they think this is the best thing for the working class. We just don't know what's good for us is all.


just two things on that. I generally sort of agree with you, would just squew your remarks this way. in my opinion,the first thing to realise if they don't consider the rest of the revolutionary left, the working-class. The rest of the revolutionaries left may may not be working class people, but that is not the focus of the SWP when they talk about working class. Rightly or wrongly they consider those Workers with what Trotsky called capitalist workers party consciousness, to be the working class. Their entire focuses upon these people, mostly with little regard for the rest of the revolutionary left.
it's not so much the don't think anybody else has any answers, it's a matter of once they have an answer, they go for it with everything they got and learn whether answer is right or wrong through practice.Democratic centralism.the above sentiment comes into again. There is no point in the left endlessly debating the merits of each case, better just for each group to compete so to speak, and see which methodology is successful. Diversity is a good thing, but it has to stand on its own feet and and win the fight for existence, in a kind of natural evolution way, if that makes sense.
So when you say, we just don't know what is good for us, it depends who you mean by us.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that s my take on my experience within the party.



> This thread is full of ecamples, the SA being one of them. It's self-contradictory because they go on about the self-emancipation of the working class, whilst at the same time setting up "united fronts" with Tories, slum landlords and strike breakers. They know what the working class wants, even if we've not realised that's what we want yet.
> 
> I'm a Marxist. I'm in the SP.


I would like to talk about this more, but I'm knackered. Going to bed. I will come back to if you don't mind.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2012)

I mind.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 11, 2012)

re: slum landlords and that, when did the swp do this? i know about the tories/uaf thing but what was this about?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2012)

That's what RESPECT did.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 11, 2012)

respect did a lot of things - i just remember them more for the courting of open islamists etc but what was the slum landlord thing?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2012)

The Islamic side was full of small business crap and BTL empire people. _The voice of their communities._


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 11, 2012)

ugh yes, the community leaders. i can just imagine  wasn't there something with election fraud etc as well (sorry my memory is incredibly crap)


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2012)

There were accusations from and against RESPECT of electoral fraud - part and parcel of the game. Don't think any against RESPECT stood up.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 11, 2012)

ah ok.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 12, 2012)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> just two things on that. I generally sort of agree with you, would just squew your remarks this way. in my opinion,the first thing to realise if they don't consider the rest of the revolutionary left, the working-class. The rest of the revolutionaries left may may not be working class people, but that is not the focus of the SWP when they talk about working class. Rightly or wrongly they consider those Workers with what Trotsky called capitalist workers party consciousness, to be the working class. Their entire focuses upon these people, mostly with little regard for the rest of the revolutionary left.
> it's not so much the don't think anybody else has any answers, it's a matter of once they have an answer, they go for it with everything they got and learn whether answer is right or wrong through practice.Democratic centralism.the above sentiment comes into again. There is no point in the left endlessly debating the merits of each case, better just for each group to compete so to speak, and see which methodology is successful. Diversity is a good thing, but it has to stand on its own feet and and win the fight for existence, in a kind of natural evolution way, *if that makes sense*.
> So when you say, we just don't know what is good for us, it depends who you mean by us.


 
No really I am afraid is makes very little sense at all. Dribblingly inaine in fact.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 12, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> The Islamic side was full of small business crap and BTL empire people. _The voice of their communities._


They also made a lot of recruiting a Labour cllr in Preston who designed and trumpeted the plan to flog the council housing stock off to an ALMO (she has since joined the LDs )


----------

