# 'anarchy' or 'anarchism' - time to dump em?



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 28, 2005)

it has becoming increasingly to me recently obvious that the term 'anarchy' predates the anarchist movements earliest writings by centuries. Augustine writes about the need to obey any tyrant despite their brutality to avoid falling into 'the pit of anarchy'. Thats a couple of centuries before Thomas moores Utopia, widely considered to be the first anarchist(ic) work. Before and during the existence of the anarchism as an ideology and movement, the term 'anarchy' has been used everywhere; it means a kind of social chaos, a situation where everyone is going mental - there is no exact definition (because its actually wrong, it technically means 'without leaders') but it will be used to describe the situation after the flood in New Orleans for example.

With the exception of some FUCKING IDIOT FUCKING TWAT primo's... woah jesus i need to calm down. Sorry. With the exception of some primitivists who like the idea of a big fuck up to reduce the population and a generally favour total chaos over organised society, and the flirtation of some sad punk bands in the 1980's (e.g. the exploited) flirting with a grotty circled A, anarchists do not want chaos.

But thats what the term anarchy means to most people.

so perhaps we should just give up on the fucker?

Just watched Nimmy Kleins documentary on the occupied factory movement in Argentina ('The Take') and if thats not anarchism, i don't know what is. But i don't doubt that not a single of the workers would call themselves or their actions such.

I am undecided BTW - just throwing it out there for you dawgs to chew on.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 28, 2005)

BTW feel free to rubbish my history bits, i'm fucking winging it.


----------



## blamblam (Oct 28, 2005)

Any term which begins to be used as part of a mass working class movement and threatens power and wealth will be tarred in the same way anarchism and socialism have been, so there's no point dropping the term, as any new term would be similarly affected a few years down the line if it gained any ground. Having said that, "anarchy" is a shite word generally anyway.


----------



## catch (Oct 28, 2005)

Most of the tarring nowadays is by 'anarchists' though innit. The couple of dozen baby-eating mainstream news stories per year pale in comparison to what self-proclaimed anarchists put out themselves.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 28, 2005)

...like what? Not with you there.


----------



## Sorry. (Oct 28, 2005)

icepick said:
			
		

> Any term which begins to be used as part of a mass working class movement and threatens power and wealth will be tarred in the same way anarchism and socialism have been, so there's no point dropping the term, as any new term would be similarly affected a few years down the line if it gained any ground. Having said that, "anarchy" is a shite word generally anyway.


I agree with this. Anything we use will get smeared, you just have to trust in your activities dispelling the myths.

That said, anarchy/anarchism have more baggage than most I think...


----------



## catch (Oct 28, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> ...like what? Not with you there.


pro-fascist
pro-paedophile
supporting the Oklahoma Bombers and the Tokyo Sarin attacks
National Anarchism

For a start.

Now either they aren't anarchists, in which case we can spend loads of time explaining that we don't agree with them despite the same political label, or they are, in which case I'd rather not associate myself with them thankyouverymuch.


----------



## catch (Oct 28, 2005)

Why isn't it a Publick Poll


----------



## soulman (Oct 28, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> pro-fascist
> pro-paedophile
> supporting the Oklahoma Bombers and the Tokyo Sarin attacks
> National Anarchism
> ...



Problem is you can just as easily find examples of the words socialism or communism being misrepresented in similar ways. It comes with the territory. If you are going to oppose and offer an alternative to capitalism and the state then they are going to twist your message, steal your ideas and recuperate what they can to dilute the impact of your opposition. I doubt if the examples you give above actually have any impact on public opinion of anarchism. What's far more damaging is the ridiculing of anarchism through linking it to spotty teenage punks and middle class drop-outs.


----------



## catch (Oct 28, 2005)

soulman said:
			
		

> What's far more damaging is the ridiculing of anarchism through linking it to spotty teenage punks and middle class drop-outs.



I'm not sure if you read the links - that stuff was written by people who call themselves anarchists.  (one of them is a middle-aged-middle-class-drop-out whose main audience is spotty teenage punks, don't know abou the other one). It's not newspaper articles _about_ anarchists, which normally just go on about rioting and ignore politics altogether.

Oh yeah, and quite a few anarchist bookshops, and even mainstream bookshops, sell TAZ. I'd guess it's one of the better selling 'anarchist' publications of the past 25 years.


----------



## Brainaddict (Oct 28, 2005)

soulman said:
			
		

> Problem is you can just as easily find examples of the words socialism or communism being misrepresented in similar ways. It comes with the territory. If you are going to oppose and offer an alternative to capitalism and the state then they are going to twist your message, steal your ideas and recuperate what they can to dilute the impact of your opposition. I doubt if the examples you give above actually have any impact on public opinion of anarchism. What's far more damaging is the ridiculing of anarchism through linking it to spotty teenage punks and middle class drop-outs.


 But socialism and communism - though they get distorted - dont' have an everyday use that has a distinctly different defn from the proper political use.

I've thought for ages that it ought to be dropped. It's all very worth to talk about reclaiming the use of it, but I think the damage has gone too far. But not many anarchists have ever agreed with me.


----------



## oisleep (Oct 28, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> BTW feel free to rubbish my history bits, i'm fucking winging it.



was augustine not about a thousand years before thomas more?


----------



## montevideo (Oct 28, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> it has becoming increasingly to me recently obvious that the term 'anarchy' predates the anarchist movements earliest writings by centuries. Augustine writes about the need to obey any tyrant despite their brutality to avoid falling into 'the pit of anarchy'. Thats a couple of centuries before Thomas moores Utopia, widely considered to be the first anarchist(ic) work. Before and during the existence of the anarchism as an ideology and movement, the term 'anarchy' has been used everywhere; it means a kind of social chaos, a situation where everyone is going mental - there is no exact definition (because its actually wrong, it technically means 'without leaders') but it will be used to describe the situation after the flood in New Orleans for example.
> 
> With the exception of some FUCKING IDIOT FUCKING TWAT primo's... woah jesus i need to calm down. Sorry. With the exception of some primitivists who like the idea of a big fuck up to reduce the population and a generally favour total chaos over organised society, and the flirtation of some sad punk bands in the 1980's (e.g. the exploited) flirting with a grotty circled A, anarchists do not want chaos.
> 
> ...




The worrying aspect is this need to claim ownership of the term & how we mould it to suit our purposes. If the chicago martyrs were alive today would people hail them as anarchists? 

The need for rigid categorisation, the need to seperate the bad from the good, the right from the wrong seems like a crisis of confidence. Again i think people will judge 'the anarchists' by what they do as opposed to a useful label they choose to give themselves.

I mention the chicago anarchists simply because they chose to call themselves anarchists precisely because of the negative reputation the american press had conferred upon the term.


----------



## Rob Ray (Oct 28, 2005)

Dropping it would have little or no impact, because our detractors aren't stupid, they'd simply go 'they're anarchists trying to pull the wool over your eyes' instead of 'they're anarchists'.


----------



## blamblam (Oct 28, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> I mention the chicago anarchists simply because they choose to called themselves anarchists precisely because of the negative reputation the american press had conferred upon the term.


You keep saying bizarre stuff about the chicago anarchists. They called themselves anarchists, cos most of them were socialists and communists who rejected statism and vanguardism, becoming class struggle anarchists. And before you quote Lingg again - he wasn't all of them.


----------



## catch (Oct 28, 2005)

Rob Ray said:
			
		

> Dropping it would have little or no impact, because our detractors aren't stupid, they'd simply go 'they're anarchists trying to pull the wool over your eyes' instead of 'they're anarchists'.



I don't think Bey, Black, Booth et al would. I think they do more harm overall than the odd smeary article in the Telegraph or the Economist.


----------



## catch (Oct 28, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> The need for rigid categorisation, the need to seperate the bad from the good, the right from the wrong seems like a crisis of confidence.



So you're quite happy to be associated with Hakim Bey, Green Anarchist, John Zerzan then? I don't think you are to be honest, but I'd appreciate an answer that doesn't side-step with references to Haymarket.


----------



## soulman (Oct 28, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if you read the links - that stuff was written by people who call themselves anarchists.  (one of them is a middle-aged-middle-class-drop-out whose main audience is spotty teenage punks, don't know abou the other one). It's not newspaper articles _about_ anarchists, which normally just go on about rioting and ignore politics altogether.



I think you're missing my point. Although the stuff you linked to is known within the movement (call it whatever you want) and regularly criticised it doesn't shape public opinion about anarchism in the way that newspaper and television misrepresentation does. If you don't want to call your politics anarchism because of some fringe group or individual then go ahead and call yourself something else, but I think you would be doing it for the wrong reason and aiming your annoyance at the wrong target.


----------



## catch (Oct 28, 2005)

icepick said:
			
		

> most of them were socialists and communists who rejected statism and vanguardism,



Loads of anarchists and anarchist publications used the word "vanguard" up until quite recently, it's only Leninism that's made it a dirty word.


----------



## montevideo (Oct 28, 2005)

icepick said:
			
		

> You keep saying bizarre stuff about the chicago anarchists. They called themselves anarchists, cos most of them were socialists and communists who rejected statism and vanguardism, becoming class struggle anarchists. And before you quote Lingg again - he wasn't all of them.


_
"All, moreover, used the term "anarchist" to characterize their political beliefs. Initially, as Parsons relates, the anarchist label had been fastened upon the Internationalists [International Working People's Association] by their opponents, who had sought to stigmatize them as enemies of "law and order". Before long, however, the Internationalists defiantly adopted it as a badge of esteem. "We began to allude to ourselves as anarchists" Parsons writes "and that name, which was at first imputed to us as a dishonour, we came to chrish and defend with pride""_

from paul avrich's 'the haymarket tragedy' (quoting 'authobiographies of the haymarket martyrs'


----------



## soulman (Oct 28, 2005)

Brainaddict said:
			
		

> *But socialism and communism - though they get distorted - dont' have an everyday use that has a distinctly different defn from the proper political use.*
> 
> I've thought for ages that it ought to be dropped. It's all very worth to talk about reclaiming the use of it, but I think the damage has gone too far. But not many anarchists have ever agreed with me.



Really?

For a lot of people the word communism is closely linked with the USSR. Hardly a correct use of the real political definition. Also socialism has been linked with 'national socialism', again a distinctly different definition.


----------



## catch (Oct 28, 2005)

soulman said:
			
		

> I think you're missing my point. Although the stuff you linked to is known within the movement (call it whatever you want) and regularly criticised it doesn't shape public opinion about anarchism in the way that newspaper and television misrepresentation does. If you don't want to call your politics anarchism because of some fringe group or individual then go ahead and call yourself something else, but I think you would be doing it for the wrong reason and aiming your annoyance at the wrong target.



I don't think you can measure the effects one way or the other, and I'm prepared to accept you're right. I see far more bollocks written about anarchism by self-proclaimed anarchists than I do from newspapers and television though, and although any working class movement would be smeared in the press, few do as good a job of smearing themselves as anarchists have. Even Trottish sectarianism is usually about disagreements over the best way to get to a libertarian communist society no matter how self-destructive or irrelevant it gets - some anarchists don't even want that (mass die-offs, "temporary autonomy" within capitalist society etc. etc.).

Personally I don't use the term as a self-descriptor much any more because I think it's both too open (to nutters) and too restrictive (of good stuff).

I'm at least as influenced by Marx as I am by Bakunin, I'm at least as inspired by the French and Russian revolutions (and others)  as I am by Spain. The enragés and the bulk of the factory committee/soviet movement weren't anarchists despite organising in a libertarian and communist (or socialist) manner, same with the councilists in Germany, and so on.

Libertarian Communism contains both the form and content of the sort of society and movement towards it I want to see. It very much includes social-anarchism, but doesn't exclude libertarian strands of marxism, or historical movements that fall into neither ideological category (Levellers, German Peasant revolts etc.)

That's my good reason for yer


----------



## catch (Oct 28, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> _
> "and that name, which was at first imputed to us as a dishonour, we came to chrish and defend with pride""_
> 
> from paul avrich's 'the haymarket tragedy' (quoting 'authobiographies of the haymarket martyrs'


Same with the impressionists. I don't see how it relates to what me and icepick are talking about, since there's no historical evidence of any of the haymarket martyrs justifying paedophilia or fascism.


----------



## catch (Oct 28, 2005)

soulman said:
			
		

> Really?
> 
> For a lot of people the word communism is closely linked with the USSR.


Much less so since it folded.



> Also socialism has been linked with 'national socialism', again a distinctly different definition.


 Yes, but 50 years ago, and it's almost always contracted to Nazism.


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 28, 2005)

*A "spotty teenage punk" writes*

IMO, its easiest to call yourself an anarchist, the negative connotations of "communist" and "socialist" are far worse and would definately carry over to the use of "libertarian communist" or "libertarian socialist".  At least if you say you're an anarchist, its a talking point, which allows you to explain what you actually think.


----------



## catch (Oct 28, 2005)

Jesus said:
			
		

> IMO, its easiest to call yourself an anarchist, the negative connotations of "communist" and "socialist" are far worse and would definately carry over to the use of "libertarian communist" or "libertarian socialist".  At least if you say you're an anarchist, its a talking point, which allows you to explain what you actually think.



libcomist then


----------



## soulman (Oct 28, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> libcomist then


----------



## rednblack (Oct 28, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> IMO, its easiest to call yourself an anarchist, the negative connotations of "communist" and "socialist" are far worse and would definately carry over to the use of "libertarian communist" or "libertarian socialist".  At least if you say you're an anarchist, its a talking point, which allows you to explain what you actually think.



what he said ^


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 28, 2005)

oisleep said:
			
		

> was augustine not about a thousand years before thomas more?


what i said no? Augustine defines anarchy as chaios LONG before anarchism even has its first outing - Moore.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 28, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> IMO, its easiest to call yourself an anarchist, the negative connotations of "communist" and "socialist" are far worse and would definately carry over to the use of "libertarian communist" or "libertarian socialist".  At least if you say you're an anarchist, its a talking point, which allows you to explain what you actually think.


maybe... But the point which hasn't been widely discussed yet is that 'anarchy' has connotations PREDATING anarchism. its not the 'wrong' interpretation or a a smear, my point is that it actually means some nasty chaos shaboodle - in the dictionary.


----------



## soulman (Oct 28, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> maybe... But the point which hasn't been widely discussed yet is that 'anarchy' has connotations PREDATING anarchism. its not the 'wrong' interpretation or a a smear, my point is that it actually means some nasty chaos shaboodle - in the dictionary.



No it doesn't. Every dictionary definition of anarchy I've seen supplies a couple of meanings. For example dictionary.com's definition (only because it's close to hand) - http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anarchy

Definition of anarchism - http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anarchism


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 28, 2005)

yes 2 meanings, fine. Iknew that, i meant that. 
 But still 2 meanings. And one of them is more common, and predates ours.


----------



## rednblack (Oct 28, 2005)

well tbh if people ask me what i believe in i often just say it's working class self organisation to get what we want, and then i explain what i mean by that (the anarchist explanation) and if they want to talk further i go into anarchism and or libertarian communism


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 28, 2005)

*talk further...?*

I bet you don't get past 'working class self organising' before they go talk to someone about footy instead


----------



## rednblack (Oct 28, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> I bet you don't get past 'working class self organising' before they go talk to someone about footy instead


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 28, 2005)

and i bet you'd made an effort to fit in with your england shirt n all 

...sorry


----------



## pilchardman (Oct 28, 2005)

It's not something to get too worked up about, really.  But I don't think we should hold our collective breath for anarchy to be dropped as a synonym for chaos.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Oct 28, 2005)

How about monte-ism?


----------



## pilchardman (Oct 28, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> How about monte-ism?


Golf?


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 28, 2005)

pilchardman said:
			
		

> It's not something to get too worked up about, really.  But I don't think we should hold our collective breath for anarchy to be dropped as a synonym for chaos.


but this is my point: its not that the term has been hijacked*, thats what the term _actually_ means! There is no basis for dropping the chaos meaning. The bigger, longer used and more widely used meaning is the chaos one. No one has said i'm wrong here. I'm waiting for butchers though 

*well it was - by anarchists!


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 28, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> How about monte-ism?


How about not kicking off on my thread?

Ta


----------



## pilchardman (Oct 28, 2005)

I'm not against words changing their meaning, you nice girl.


----------



## rednblack (Oct 28, 2005)

sometimes i prefer libertarian communism, because it says what we are for, rather than what we are against, it's a positive rather than negative statement, however i think communism does have far more negative conotations than anarchism at least in english speaking countries

maybe we need a new term altogether, working class self organisation is too long winded, working class action sounds too trot like...

it depends what mood i'm in, i'm sure i've talked about this with you before tax, what was the conclusion then?


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Oct 28, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> How about not kicking off on my thread?
> 
> Ta



*Your* thread? Property is theft pet.


----------



## pilchardman (Oct 28, 2005)

There must be words out there nobody uses any more.  Maybe we could just have one of those?


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 28, 2005)

hmmm. 

Er probably something like 'do rather than say, the media will gie us a label once we're making an impact*'. But TBH can't remember having a convo about it.

What do ppl think of the term autonomous whilst we're on it?





*and no matter what you do or try, from serial killers to social movements, the label the tabloids give you sticks and you'll end up using it yourself.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 28, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> *Your* thread? Property is theft pet.


you know, in even thought of that one myself. 

PS to the man who wrote that statement, small amounts of property are not theft; consider this thread my allotment/peasant cottage


----------



## rednblack (Oct 28, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> *and no matter what you do or try, from serial killers to social movements, the label the tabloids give you sticks and you'll end up using it yourself.



and it will always be shit, it's not like we're some corporate product that they might like if it presents itself in the right way, they will always try to make us look like cunts


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 28, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> sometimes i prefer libertarian communism, because it says what we are for, rather than what we are against, it's a positive rather than negative statement, however i think communism does have far more negative conotations than anarchism at least in english speaking countries
> 
> maybe we need a new term altogether, working class self organisation is too long winded, working class action sounds too trot like...
> 
> it depends what mood i'm in, i'm sure i've talked about this with you before tax, what was the conclusion then?




what's wrong with the term the levellers then ?

not the band but the concept that each person is treated on an equal or 'level' manner... ?


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 29, 2005)

*to RnB*

i know. But if its a good name, keep it. 

This does remind me of when Blair called one G8 riot an 'anarchist travelling circus' and then at the next one there was a banner with 'anarchist travelling circus' on it. This may have been the origin of the clowns , and as such is a autionary tale of when not to embrace the label.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 29, 2005)

erm the clowns have been around for at least 5 years that i can remeber ... the sythn circ which we were last at had a film by them playing as dwen tried to tell me about his essay


----------



## pilchardman (Oct 29, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> they will always try to make us look like cunts


Ain't that the truth.


----------



## rednblack (Oct 29, 2005)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> what's wrong with the term the levellers then ?
> 
> not the band but the concept that each person is treated on an equal or 'level' manner... ?



i quite like it, though it has a few too many conotations of crusties called jeremy

there's the national levellers association in japan (the real name of burukumin liberation league) who defend the interests of the japanese underclass

hmm yes, national levellers association...


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 29, 2005)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> what's wrong with the term the levellers then ?
> 
> not the band but the concept that each person is treated on an equal or 'level' manner... ?


''They were labelled 'Levellers' by their enemies, who claimed that they were intent on bringing all down to the lowest common level. This was a charge that they vehemently denied, but they adopted the name because it was how they were known to the majority of people.''

how relevant was that!!


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 29, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> i quite like it, though it has a few too many conotations of crusties called jeremy
> 
> there's the national levellers association in japan (the real name of burukumin liberation league) who defend the interests of the japanese underclass
> 
> hmm yes, national levellers association...


i like the concept although the original crusties were notiable protesters too but national?

levellers sans frontiers shurely


----------



## montevideo (Oct 29, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> *Your* thread? Property is theft pet.



you tell him chuck, all these southern upstarts, drinking our women, stealing our marrows.

Always described myself as a working class anarchist. Never had any problems with that other than from politicos & anti-socials to be fair. 

To taxamo: i lend you my copy of 'the haymarket tragedy'. Kinda puts things in perspective.


----------



## rednblack (Oct 29, 2005)

national confederation of workers?  (cnt)


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 29, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> ''They were labelled 'Levellers' by their enemies, who claimed that they were intent on bringing all down to the lowest common level. This was a charge that they vehemently denied, but they adopted the name because it was how they were known to the majority of people.''
> 
> how relevant was that!!


 

not just a purtty face ya know...

though i think that the misrepresenation then is as true as it ever was no?

the concept that any move away from the status quo will result in falling standards not raised ones, it's all about playing the fear card... you know not things could be better but thing's could be worse ... we even use that very phrase to ofset a bad situation...


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 29, 2005)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> erm the clowns have been around for at least 5 years that i can remeber ... the sythn circ which we were last at had a film by them playing as dwen tried to tell me about his essay


CIRCA are commonly called 'the clowns', and it is them i refer too. 'Clowning up' on demo's has been around for about 5 years... no more like 4. What demo's were you thinking of that had clowns in 2000? the statement by blair was in 2001 after gothenburg (thank you natasha walter).


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 29, 2005)

i was thinking of mark thomas actions with clowns in the late ninties the clowns on the poll tax CJB/CJA demos reclaim the street's clowns etc it's been a pretty fixed idea for some time


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 29, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> IMO, its easiest to call yourself an anarchist, the negative connotations of "communist" and "socialist" are far worse and would definately carry over to the use of "libertarian communist" or "libertarian socialist".  *At least if you say you're an anarchist, its a talking point, which allows you to explain what you actually think*.



Communist is too.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 29, 2005)

*to garf*

oh god really?


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Oct 29, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> you tell him chuck, all these southern upstarts, drinking our women, stealing our marrows.
> 
> Always described myself as a working class anarchist. Never had any problems with that other than from politicos & anti-socials to be fair.
> 
> To taxamo: i lend you my copy of 'the haymarket tragedy'. Kinda puts things in perspective.



Sounds better than the ' levellers '  which reminds me of that terriible band or a load of very earnest people dressing up for some historical re-enactment display.

How about some thing that describes what the aim is , like  er workers power?


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 29, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> Communist is too.


yes but it goes one way; 'they tried that in russia and it didn't work'

Still, it gerally goes one way with @

anarchist; 'oh like the sex pistols?'


----------



## rednblack (Oct 29, 2005)

chuck you cunt


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 29, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> oh god really?


who that too?


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 29, 2005)

*taxamo*

If people are prepared to get beyond the assumptions and prejudices, and let someone explain their beliefs to them then it is worthwhile doing so.

*"Stalin bad".  Well, your point is?*


----------



## pilchardman (Oct 29, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> Still, it gerally goes one way with @
> 
> anarchist; 'oh like the sex pistols?'


Howard Zinn said he told someone who stared at him and said: "But...that's impossible!"


----------



## rednblack (Oct 29, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> Still, it gerally goes one way with @
> 
> anarchist; 'oh like the sex pistols?'



not in my experience, and tbh i'd be surprised if it was in yours if you really think about it, seriously i bet its only crusties and punks who get that reaction

sure i've had people say what people can do what they want etc? but fuck it, just explain or better yet show them


----------



## montevideo (Oct 29, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Sounds better than the ' levellers '  which reminds me of that terriible band or a load of very earnest people dressing up for some historical re-enactment display.
> 
> How about some thing that describes what the aim is , like  er workers power?



you'd want the diggers then. Dirt first & all that. 

I'm thinking of starting a group called 'class angst'. We're gonna ride bikes & stop all the ordinary working class people of london getting home from their jobs at wetherspoons by riding round central, london stopping the traffic. Lifestyle & anti-social, a bit of a spectacular. I'm on a fucking winner.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Oct 29, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> chuck you cunt



Seriously though I think the  activity of pro working class community politics like the IWCA or the HI is more important than finding a name for the politics. (actually the title Hackney IWCA probably sounds better than Hackney Independent but I suppose their is a copyright issue.) The fact is is that that sort of activity actually involves local workers where as fringe anarchist groups/lib com groups/left revo groups don't.


----------



## pilchardman (Oct 29, 2005)

Class Actors.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Oct 29, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> you'd want the diggers then. Dirt first & all that.
> 
> I'm thinking of starting a group called 'class angst'. We're gonna ride bikes & stop all the ordinary working class people of london getting home from their jobs at wetherspoons by riding round central, london stopping the traffic. Lifestyle & anti-social, a bit of a spectacular. I'm on a fucking winner.



On fucking drugs more like


----------



## rednblack (Oct 29, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> The fact is is that that sort of activity actually involves local workers where as fringe anarchist groups/lib com groups/left revo groups don't.



except those anarcho groups that do, like hsg...


----------



## montevideo (Oct 29, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Seriously though I think the  activity of pro working class community politics like the IWCA or the HI is more important than finding a name for the politics. (actually the title Hackney IWCA probably sounds better than Hackney Independent but I suppose their is a copyright issue.) The fact is is that that sort of activity actually involves local workers where as fringe anarchist groups/lib com groups/left revo groups don't.



hang on a minute chuck what if you live in hackney but work in say, harrow, or dagenham? 

I'm up for ressurrectioning 'independent working peoples association', as long as we can throw bombs & make up our history, like.

Drugs? High on life mate, & our class!!!


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Oct 29, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> except those anarcho groups that do, like hsg...



Hibee's Socialist Group?


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 29, 2005)

*"high on our class"*

You aren't working class though.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 29, 2005)

i have no experience. i don't describe myself as anything, i am strictly trying to find out what it is i want to do, and when i know it, i'll read the label.


...apart from the other day when someone asked me where i stood on the politcal spectrum. I asked them first and they chortled and said something about being 'probably further to the left than most people here' (here being a students union booksale  ). Turned out they were old labour after more questioning. Resisted the temptation to say i was in the BNP  Should have.
I ended up saying a little about what i had come to believe, and they looke kind of politely worried. I borrowed a pound off them for a copy of 'The Reprieve' by Sartre. So it wasn't all bad.


----------



## montevideo (Oct 29, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> You aren't working class though.



I wish i was though. How cool would that be?


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 29, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> On fucking drugs more like


OI! I am kicking you off my peasant small holding NOW!


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 29, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> I wish i was though. How cool would that be?



Cool?


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Oct 29, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> hang on a minute chuck what if you live in hackney but work in say, harrow, or dagenham?
> 
> I'm up for ressurrectioning 'independent working peoples association', as long as we can throw bombs & make up our history, like.
> 
> Drugs? High on life mate, & our class!!!



You would be able to join them both although you would have to spend your time dodging the cycle protest and the clowns .

If you want to put  forward as an option throwing bombs and making up history I will have a word with the facilitator.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 29, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> I am the only prole in the village.


Yes Ryan, yes you are.


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 29, 2005)

I live in a town.  And I am not a marxist.


----------



## montevideo (Oct 29, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> You would be able to join them both although you would have to spend your time dodging the cycle protest and the clowns .
> 
> If you want to put  forward as an option throwing bombs and making up history I will have a word with the facilitator.



put a motion forward at your local branch meeting. Have it passed by 3 quarters majority vote & then we'll think about it. Chair's decsion is final. You know the score.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 29, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> Cool?


yeah. I wanna be like common people. I wanna d what ever common people do. I wann sleep with common people... Common people... Like you


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 29, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> yeah. I wanna be like common people. I wanna d what ever common people do. I wann sleep with common people... Common people... Like you



"you laugh along with the common people, but don't realise they are laughing at you, with all the stupid things you do, cos you think poor is cool".


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 29, 2005)

'and' not 'with'.

psyche!


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 29, 2005)

Pulp were ace.


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 29, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> 'and' not 'with'.
> 
> psyche!



Despite the error, it sums you up quite nicely though don't it.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Oct 29, 2005)

How about 'newhumanist socialism' ?  Quite catchy I think.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 29, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> Despite the error, it sums you up quite nicely though don't it.


damn ryan, didn't know what you were getting at there! I only posted the fucking song myself so you didn't have to!

Yes ryan, i think poor is cool. I have cut my hair and got a job, i pretend i never went to school (by never talking about politics or books on message boards with you), i smoke fags and play some pool too. I try and shag working class people i meet in supermarkets all the time.

Ryan we've had this conversation.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 29, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> Pulp _were_ ace.


don't like the new stuff? 
I liked This is Hardcore, haven't got the weird newer one with 'trees' on it.


----------



## kasheem (Oct 29, 2005)

'Anarchists' have historically been the tool of the dominating classes. (Useful idiots) Look at that maniac Bakunin, supposedly the hero of the movement. If he isn't the definition of fascism I don't know what the hell is. Check out the parallels... Nietzche -> Anarchism and Nietzche and Nazi Germany. Look at some of the people in the early NSDAP party. Lots of anarchists and 'green localism' types there. 'Small is beautfiul' is a classical ultra-conservative idea. So is 'rebirth through destruction'. 

If people are interested I can expand on this.


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 29, 2005)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> don't like the new stuff?
> I liked This is Hardcore, haven't got the weird newer one with 'trees' on it.



This is Hardcore has got Party Hard on it.  I like that album, mind you it is 7 years old.  A Different Class was probably their most successful and well known one, but their older albums, like Masters of the Universe is good stuff aswell.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 29, 2005)

kasheem said:
			
		

> 'Anarchists' have historically been the tool of the dominating classes. (Useful idiots) Look at that maniac Bakunin, supposedly the hero of the movement. If he isn't the definition of fascism I don't know what the hell is. Check out the parallels... Nietzche -> Anarchism and Nietzche and Nazi Germany. Look at some of the people in the early NSDAP party. Lots of anarchists and 'green localism' types there. 'Small is beautfiul' is a classical ultra-conservative idea. So is 'rebirth through destruction'.
> 
> If people are interested I can expand on this.


 i've had a quick flick through your posts, and the answer is a polite no


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 29, 2005)

I don't understand.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 29, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> This is Hardcore has got Party Hard on it.  I like that album, mind you it is 7 years old.  A Different Class was probably their most successful and well known one, but their older albums, like Masters of the Universe is good stuff aswell.


Its just 'Different Class' sorry.

I don't have anything older than 'His n Hers' - if i send you a black CD and postage do you have a CD burner on ur compy? You can send it to my flat above a shop that i'm renting


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 29, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> I don't understand.


sorry this keeps happening: i'm replying to the person before you, and in the time i take to reply, you post. Gis a sec.


----------



## catch (Oct 29, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Seriously though I think the  activity of pro working class community politics like the IWCA or the HI is more important than finding a name for the politics... lib com groups groups don't.



Funny that, as one third of the libcom group does stuff with HI.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 29, 2005)

kasheem said:
			
		

> <snip> Lots of anarchists and 'green localism' types there. 'Small is beautfiul' is a classical ultra-conservative idea. So is 'rebirth through destruction'.
> 
> If people are interested I can expand on this.


 Oh do ... please


----------



## catch (Oct 29, 2005)

kasheem said:
			
		

> If people are interested I can expand on this.



unlikely 
edited 'cos Bernie's proved to be the exception that proves the rule.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 29, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> unlikely.
> 
> edited 'cos Bernie's proved to be the exception that proves the rule.


  I'm interested to see what he has to say. I'm always up for an interesting challenge, maybe I'll learn something.


----------



## lostexpectation (Oct 29, 2005)

*astonishing*

Oh yeah, and quite a few anarchist bookshops, and even mainstream bookshops, sell TAZ. I'd guess it's one of the better selling 'anarchist' publications of the past 25 years.[/QUOTE]


I've never met an anarchist so obsessed with that book as you are catch


----------



## soulman (Oct 29, 2005)

> Oh yeah, and quite a few anarchist bookshops, and even mainstream bookshops, sell TAZ. I'd guess it's one of the better selling 'anarchist' publications of the past 25 years.




_I've never met an anarchist so obsessed with that book as you are catch_

I haven't read it. What's it about?


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 29, 2005)

soulman said:
			
		

> _I've never met an anarchist so obsessed with that book as you are catch_
> 
> I haven't read it. What's it about?


Kiddy fiddling and fascism


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 29, 2005)

That sounds interesting.  Is it the peados who are facist or the kids.


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 29, 2005)

kasheem said:
			
		

> 'Anarchists' have historically been the tool of the dominating classes. (Useful idiots) Look at that maniac Bakunin, supposedly the hero of the movement. If he isn't the definition of fascism I don't know what the hell is. Check out the parallels... Nietzche -> Anarchism and Nietzche and Nazi Germany. Look at some of the people in the early NSDAP party. Lots of anarchists and 'green localism' types there. 'Small is beautfiul' is a classical ultra-conservative idea. So is 'rebirth through destruction'.
> 
> If people are interested I can expand on this.


So you're going to completely ignore

P-J Proudhon;
Peter Kropotkin;
Buenaventura Durruti;
The angry brigade and;
The Haymarket martyrs
among others, then?

And since when was Nietzche an anarchist?


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 29, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> So you're going to completely ignore
> 
> *P-J Proudhon*;
> Peter Kropotkin;
> ...



Not too fond of women's rights tho....


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 29, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> Not too fond of women's rights tho....


No, bit of a twat in general, what with the anti-semitism (IIRC), but could hardly be described as a "useful idiot" for the status quo.  There again, neither can Bakunin, really.  Kasheem's just being a bit of a cock, for the hell of it, methinks.


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 29, 2005)

I am intrigued by this facism peado thing tho.  What are on about with that then?


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 29, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> I am intrigued by this facism peado thing tho.  What are on about with that then?


Basically, TAZ is a book written by the "anarchist" theorist Hakim Bey, who peppers his work with his attempts to rationalise paedophillia as morally acceptable and has expressed fascist sympathies.  An all round cunt, really.


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 29, 2005)

Okay.  Does he see "child loving" as being culturally specific or something, as if the moral indignation of it is somehow something else to be stripped down as part of capitalist society?


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 29, 2005)

soulman said:
			
		

> Really?
> 
> For a lot of people the word communism is closely linked with the USSR. Hardly a correct use of the real political definition. Also socialism has been linked with 'national socialism', again a distinctly different definition.



What is the real poltical definition?


----------



## soulman (Oct 29, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> What is the real poltical definition?



Of communism?


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 29, 2005)

Yes.


----------



## soulman (Oct 29, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> Yes.



Communism is the shortfall, the lack of complete political and economic liberty, a marker on the way to anarchism.


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 29, 2005)

Took you a while for that one sentence, Maybe you would do better working in a supermarket?

How is that so then, a marker towards anarchism?.  I mean it is not just say Marxism that pushes towards changing social relations, but you could say the earlier Methodist influenced stuff from Robert Owen was aiming for communism.  The French Utopian Socialists, the nihilism of people like Nechaev.   And 20th century Marxism has had a few ups and downs, twists and turns; arguments of how best to bring about sociaism and then realise a communist, communistic society.  Revisionism in Germany for example, Stalinism, the whole Bolshevist shebang with Marxism-Leninsim, Mao, the Red Khmer.   How did Makhno differ from say that Buddhist/revolutionary,anarcho,weirdo warrior bloke in civil war era central Asia in terms of realising a communist society?  How far can lifestyle anarchism go with a definition towards changing people's views of the society in which they live, and what to do to change it?  

What is the _real_ poltical definition of communism?


----------



## soulman (Oct 29, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> Took you a while for that one sentence, Maybe you would do better working in a supermarket?



yes I was doing something else too.



> How is that so then, a marker towards anarchism?.  I mean it is not just say Marxism that pushes towards changing social relations, but you could say the earlier Methodist influenced stuff from Robert Owen was aiming for communism.  The French Utopian Socialists, the nihilism of people like Nechaev.   And 20th century Marxism has had a few ups and downs, twists and turns; arguments of how best to bring about sociaism and then realise a communist, communistic society.  Revisionism in Germany for example, Stalinism, the whole Bolshevist shebang with Marxism-Leninsim, Mao, the Red Khmer.   How did Makhno differ from say that Buddhist/revolutionary,anarcho,weirdo warrior bloke in civil war era central Asia in terms of realising a communist society?  How far can lifestyle anarchism go with a definition towards changing people's views of the society in which they live, and what to do to change it?



Yes a marker towards anarchism. Without political and economic liberty communism is merely a milestone.



> What is the _real_ poltical definition of communism?



I've told you mine, now what's your political definition of communism?


----------



## soulman (Oct 29, 2005)

soulman said:
			
		

> I've told you mine, now what's your political definition of communism?






			
				ryazan said:
			
		

> How is that so then, a marker towards anarchism?. I mean it is not just say Marxism that pushes towards changing social relations, but you could say the earlier Methodist influenced stuff from Robert Owen was aiming for communism. The French Utopian Socialists, the nihilism of people like Nechaev. And 20th century Marxism has had a few ups and downs, twists and turns; arguments of how best to bring about sociaism and then realise a communist, communistic society. Revisionism in Germany for example, Stalinism, the whole Bolshevist shebang with Marxism-Leninsim, Mao, the Red Khmer. How did Makhno differ from say that Buddhist/revolutionary,anarcho,weirdo warrior bloke in civil war era central Asia in terms of realising a communist society? How far can lifestyle anarchism go with a definition towards changing people's views of the society in which they live, and what to do to change it?



Is that it. The best you can come up with?

I'm asking what your political definition of communism is. It's not a difficult question.


----------



## absinthe (Oct 29, 2005)

I think this desire and need for a convenient, neat and all-encompassing label is a bit like teenagers arguing in the NME letters pages about what pigeonholes to stick bands in. Add a few 'I liked them before you even heard of them' types, and you end up with a load of sixth-form fluff.

I don't want to be part of any neat label - the next step is a set of rules and dogma which you have to follow.

I think you'll find that most people who don't type shit on the internet think this way too.


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 29, 2005)

soulman said:
			
		

> I've told you mine, now what's your political definition of communism?



I was in bed.

Well, I am not going to dream about the rising of the Golden Age, and socialist states  to create the new men needed to move towards the end of your fantastic journey. But, my definition, which is not political, is a system of social organisation where property is held in common ownership, and the wherewithall to use and produce from this is held in common ownership.  And nobody has the ability to appropriate away from this, the land or other propety that has come from somebody elses labour. Communism isn't nesescarily pointed out by just abolishing property for the sake of it, but  property that has aquired from another person's work, and is owned by another, and which has never come from the owners productive labour. Produced such property themselves.  Now, that is pretty vague isn't it.  Like yours.   Is what you mean by communism to do with bearded Russkies, or disgruntled farmers tilling the Manor?  I am certainly not using mine as a synonym for Marxism.  I can't.

I can't give you the _real _ political defiinition of comunism, how can I?  What is real poltically for starters, and in what way?  You have told me yours, but you are confident that that is the real political definition of communism, even if it that small sentence might and inevitably will lead to controversy by those who have their own definitions to peddle.  That's not it though is it, a slight change of words, and instead of _the_ real poltiical definition, it becomes _your_ real politiical definition.  

I am interested by your response though.  What is meant by a marker?  If it is a milestone, then when do you measure this part of the wonderful journey to anarchism as being communism?  What is liberty, how does an anarchist define such a word? as a Nazi I am sure has a very different definition of what liberty is.  How do you spot the difference between communism and anarchism?  Are you referring to socialism?


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 29, 2005)

absinthe said:
			
		

> I think this desire and need for a convenient, neat and all-encompassing label is a bit like teenagers arguing in the NME letters pages about what pigeonholes to stick bands in. Add a few 'I liked them before you even heard of them' types, and you end up with a load of sixth-form fluff.
> 
> I don't want to be part of any neat label - the next step is a set of rules and dogma which you have to follow.
> 
> I think you'll find that most people who don't type shit on the internet think this way too.



Get your rat out.


----------



## catch (Oct 29, 2005)

lostexpectation said:
			
		

> I've never met an anarchist so obsessed with that book as you are catch



I've only discussed it on here about three times ever, admittedly two of them were this week. I always knew it was a bit shit, but read bits of it after Poet said how much he liked it, then discovered it was worse than shit. I don't think I'm obsessed though.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Oct 29, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> Funny that, as one third of the libcom group does stuff with HI.



and the majority?


----------



## catch (Oct 29, 2005)

soulman said:
			
		

> Communism is the shortfall, the lack of complete political and economic liberty, a marker on the way to anarchism.



Like Ryazan says I think you've got Communism/communism and Socialism/socialism mixed up a bit there.

Communism for me is the tendency towards self-management and mutual aid in present society. It's the potentiality of a society in resources are distributed "from each according to their ability; to each according to their need". And yeah I'd include people like Robert Owen as part of that movement, given the context they were operating in.


----------



## blamblam (Oct 29, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> _
> "All, moreover, used the term "anarchist" to characterize their political beliefs. Initially, as Parsons relates, the anarchist label had been fastened upon the Internationalists [International Working People's Association] by their opponents, who had sought to stigmatize them as enemies of "law and order". Before long, however, the Internationalists defiantly adopted it as a badge of esteem. "We began to allude to ourselves as anarchists" Parsons writes "and that name, which was at first imputed to us as a dishonour, we came to chrish and defend with pride""_
> 
> from paul avrich's 'the haymarket tragedy' (quoting 'authobiographies of the haymarket martyrs'


God you're full of shite. Like when you claimed you were the successor of the Haymarket Martyrs cos they - like you - _embraced any and all methods_ at creating anarchism or whatever you want to call it. Also a strange invention of yours. Speaking of Hakim Bey - are his methods included in your "any and all methods" monte?

FWIW I've read first hand the autobiographies of all of the 8 Martyrs and near-martyrs, and not a single one of them "chose to call themselves anarchists precisely because of the negative reputation the american press had conferred upon the term." Most of them adopted it, as I said, because they were socialists who came to reject statism, and became anarchists. Your quotation doesn't demonstrate anything otherwise.

In Bloom - Proudhon was a nob!


----------



## catch (Oct 29, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> and the majority?


Don't live in Hackney  
You can't back up the original statement can you? I'm not going to give you a breakdown of all their political activity.


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 29, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> Like Ryazan says.........


----------



## catch (Oct 29, 2005)

fwiw I think your posts on the past couple of pages have been excellent.   
I'd love to see more like it (and less "you're middle class").


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 29, 2005)

I know, I have grown tired of that now.  My bird is middle class, she has shown me the way.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Oct 29, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> Don't live in Hackney
> You can't back up the original statement can you? I'm not going to give you a breakdown of all their political activity.



tbh I didn't mean the lib com group I meant generally the fact that most social anarchists/lib coms ,what ever that rare breed is called tend, to be like the rest of the revo left and obsessed by their own incestuous world. The discussion was about what do 'we' call  ourselves and my earlier point was that what is being done is far more important than what the name is.

I know what Rednblack does but I have never got the sense what lib.com does.Why is it a secret?


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Oct 29, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> I know, I have grown tired of that now.  My bird is middle class, she has shown me the way.



Obviously a good example of  social mobility under capitalism  Ryazan. Last time I read anything about her she was working in a massage parlour and your description of her parents flat gave me the impression that it wouldn't be on Location,Location , Location.


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 29, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Obviously a good example of  social mobility under capitalism  Ryazan. Last time I read anything about her she was working in a massage parlour and your description of her parents flat gave me the impression that it wouldn't be on Location,Location , Location.



She is Russian Intelligentsia.  Not quite as materially well off as an English shelf-stacker, but brainier, and with more status than some other people over there.  Her family live in Ryazan, and their flat is better than some I have stayed in Russia.  Now, please leave out the east European prostitute gags, they aren't funny Chuck.  She works as a masseuse independantly when not studying, and visits people's homes to do so only seeing women (usually ill or infirm), for obvious reasons.  It can be dangerous in Moscow for a young woman in such a line of work when men are involved, depsite it being good money.  Why is she a masseuse?  Work opportunities are not that great in the land of cabbage soup and drug resistant tuberculosis.


----------



## catch (Oct 29, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> I know what Rednblack does but I have never got the sense what lib.com does.Why is it a secret?



OK the libcom group is the people who run libcom.org. That's it - it's just the name of the group that runs the website. We don't do anything else as an organised group, but we're involved in different things as individuals, some of which overlap. I'm not going to post up details of what everyone's involved with individually unless asked to, and I'm sure most of them will see this discussion anyway.

As to whether libcom.org has anything to do with "pro-working class politics" itself:
I'd like to see it provide media and communications infrastructure for "pro-working class" community and workplace groups. A central point from which to distribute news on issues happening around the country - fights against housing stock transfers, strikes, etc. so that the struggles can be circulated to wider and wider audiences.

It should also act as a place where people wanting to set up such groups in their own location can have access to newsletters, surveys and general advice. It's already acted as a place where people who live relatively close to each other have met via the site and got involved with things. The idea from my point of view is to link actual things happening on the ground to wider analysis of national and international trends, similar events in the past (we've got an increasing archive of stuff including the dockers, Detroit automobile workers etc. etc.), and revolutionary history.

So people involved in isolated disputes can make links with others around the country, or next door, look at similar stuff from the past, and look at how it fits in with working class history over the past few hundred years. I often find out about stuff near me a while after it's all finished, and for example found out about Hackney Independent through either this forum or ours. It's been moving rapidly over the past year towards a resource that actually does this.


----------



## blamblam (Oct 29, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> I know what Rednblack does but I have never got the sense what lib.com does.Why is it a secret?


We run a website. But I can't tell you its name.

Other than that we're just involved in whatever as individuals, generally stuff that affects us. [a couple of bits about small stuff other libcom people are involved in removed after seeing catch's post, above] I'm involved in a very small thing to try to get some unpaid back pay for me and a colleague, etc....Nothing big like, but there's not all the much any one person can do, it's not worth killing yourself over.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Oct 29, 2005)

icepick said:
			
		

> We run a website. But I can't tell you its name.
> 
> Other than that we're just involved in whatever as individuals, generally stuff that affects us. [a couple of bits about small stuff other libcom people are involved in removed after seeing catch's post, above] I'm involved in a very small thing to try to get some unpaid back pay for me and a colleague, etc....Nothing big like, but there's not all the much any one person can do, it's not worth killing yourself over.



Small is beautiful  (Thinks diplomatically). I thought the point about libcom was that it was collective or at least collaborative rather than what 'any one person can do' or is that to much platformism?


----------



## catch (Oct 29, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Small is beautiful  (Thinks diplomatically). I thought the point about libcom was that it was collective or at least collaborative rather than what 'any one person can do' or is that to much platformism?



The website is collaborative (although it's run pretty loosely), doesn't mean I'm going to let icepick vote over which beer I get to drink does it?


----------



## blamblam (Oct 29, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Small is beautiful  (Thinks diplomatically). I thought the point about libcom was that it was collective or at least collaborative rather than what 'any one person can do' or is that to much platformism?


yeah it's not a political organisation, just a bunch of people who run a website. The website's a collaborate effort, but we don't  get involved in other economic or political struggles together though, as a general rule.


Oh and only Carlsberg for you catch, mwah-hah-hah-hah-haaaah


----------



## soulman (Oct 29, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> I was in bed.
> 
> Well, I am not going to dream about the rising of the Golden Age, and socialist states  to create the new men needed to move towards the end of your fantastic journey. But, my definition, which is not political, is a system of social organisation where property is held in common ownership, and the wherewithall to use and produce from this is held in common ownership.  And nobody has the ability to appropriate away from this, the land or other propety that has come from somebody elses labour. Communism isn't nesescarily pointed out by just abolishing property for the sake of it, but  property that has aquired from another person's work, and is owned by another, and which has never come from the owners productive labour. Produced such property themselves.  Now, that is pretty vague isn't it.  Like yours.   Is what you mean by communism to do with bearded Russkies, or disgruntled farmers tilling the Manor?  I am certainly not using mine as a synonym for Marxism.  I can't.



That sounds very idealistic to me. Do you think it will work in practice or degenerate into something like a workers state? 



> I can't give you the _real _ political defiinition of comunism, how can I?  What is real poltically for starters, and in what way?  You have told me yours, but you are confident that that is the real political definition of communism, even if it that small sentence might and inevitably will lead to controversy by those who have their own definitions to peddle.  That's not it though is it, a slight change of words, and instead of _the_ real poltiical definition, it becomes _your_ real politiical definition.



If you can't give a _real_ political definition of communism then why ask other people to? Unless of course you were trying to be a smartarse, and failing. That small sentence seems to have you thrown you a bit. Do you disagree with it?   



> I am interested by your response though.  What is meant by a marker?  If it is a milestone, then when do you measure this part of the wonderful journey to anarchism as being communism?  What is liberty, how does an anarchist define such a word? as a Nazi I am sure has a very different definition of what liberty is.  How do you spot the difference between communism and anarchism?  Are you referring to socialism?



I don't consider anarchism to be a fixed destination in the way you appear to see communism.  I see it as a  constantly evolving form of voluntary social organisation. So communism or any other political ideology will always be only a milestone. Again I can only give you _my_ definition of liberty. I see it as the freedom to live my life as I choose, without impinging on the liberty of others.


----------



## soulman (Oct 29, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> Like Ryazan says I think you've got Communism/communism and Socialism/socialism mixed up a bit there.
> 
> Communism for me is the tendency towards self-management and mutual aid in present society. It's the potentiality of a society in resources are distributed "from each according to their ability; to each according to their need". And yeah I'd include people like Robert Owen as part of that movement, given the context they were operating in.



Ryazan didn't say that catch and I don't think I've got them mixed up at all. They're both political ideologies.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 29, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> Like Ryazan says I think you've got Communism/communism and Socialism/socialism mixed up a bit there.


whats the difference again? used to know this one.


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 29, 2005)

soulman said:
			
		

> Ryazan didn't say that catch and I don't think I've got them mixed up at all. They're both political ideologies.



The definition I gave was not idealistic in any standout way, it was just as vague as yours, and can't be placed into some trot analysis either.  You do seem to be a little confused as to what communism is.  I think you are referring to Socialism, which although could be seen as something that is to do with democratic reformism, but could also be seen as an intermediate stage between capitalism and Communism, something which the USSR failed at, miserably.

It seems you are confusing yourself.  You at first talk of a _real_ poltical definition, as if it is something that has transcended just one person's uninformed opinion.  And then, it becomes _your _ definition.  Quite a shift there.  I don't like to repeat myself, but.....You're one sentence did not mention anything about communism being one thing that evolves over time, but rather alludied to a fixed period in I guess some kind of future revolutionary development.  I was asking you when this would be, and how you would distinguish this from anarchism.  Socialism can be seen as a sperate poltical ideology, as can Communism from anarchism.  I was illustrating in an eariler post that even Communism in a Marxist sense has competing ideas on how to realise it's goals, but communism, as a word, although perhpas dominated by Marxists in the 20th century, is not exclusiviely Marxist.  the word communism can be applied to different movements that foresaw a society based on communal principles and mutual aid.  You seem to think that communism is some stage on the way to anarchism.  I fear you may have become confused about the Marxist view that Socialism in various layers and stages will lead to the building of a Communist society.

The reason I can't give you a _real _ poltical defintion is because I personally don't have the arrogance to even suggest that I do.  I am not a communist and have not been seduced by any political dogma, and as I have illustrated, the communists have been pretty quarrelsome over how to implement the groundwork for Socialism.   There are many realities, poltical or otherwise, not one indissoluable one.
The definition I gave was not particularly striking, and could be adopted by people who are not Marxist.  I was asking you for a defintion, because you quite confidently spoke of one as exisiting, and so asked you about it.  When there is a little criticism, or inquisitiveness about it, you clam up.


----------



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

communism and Communism are generally assumed to be two totally different things, communism as the free association of people as the goal of revolutionaries, and Communism as the perversion of that under the ussr.

but let's not let conventional usages get in the way, eh?


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 29, 2005)

Of course.  All Marxists are Bolshevik aren't they.

Hence me using the capitalised C in the appropriate way.


----------



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

Ryazan said:
			
		

> Of course.  All Marxists are Bolshevik aren't they.


no they aren't.

and there's you saying you've read a bit about the soviet union, elsewhere. 

luckily i was rarely taken in.


----------



## 888 (Oct 29, 2005)

kasheem said:
			
		

> If people are interested I can expand on this.



No thanks.


----------



## 888 (Oct 29, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> that Buddhist/revolutionary,anarcho,weirdo warrior bloke in civil war era central Asia



Who?


----------



## soulman (Oct 29, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> The definition I gave was not idealistic in any standout way, it was just as vague as yours, and can't be placed into some trot analysis either.  You do seem to be a little confused as to what communism is.  I think you are referring to Socialism, which although could be seen as something that is to do with democratic reformism, but could also be seen as an intermediate stage between capitalism and Communism, something which the USSR failed at, miserably.



It's a good definition of a sort of utopian socialism or communism (I use socialism/communism to mean the same thing rather than the marxist concept of stages) but it's idealistic in that it supposes that everyone will embrace the gift economy. Now if they don't what happens then. Do you make people accept it, impose it by force, hard labour for the dissenters? As I see it that's the danger of political ideologies.

Anarchism on the other hand, at least as I see anarchism, is freedom from all ideologies. People choosing for themselves how best to meet their own needs. Some might choose a moneyless gift economy, some might prefer to try a different way of organising. People can experiment to see what works best for themselves. 

As for the talk of a _real_ political definition I didn't bring that phrase in to this thread. I simply replied in kind to another poster who used it. TBH I didn't give it much thought at the time but when you called me on it it was obvious that all I can offer is _my_ definitions of things, which is just what I've done.


----------



## catch (Oct 29, 2005)

My idea of communism is to make it pointless to engage in wage labour (to buy things using money you have to earn it), not to "ban" people from doing so. Obviously those with entrenched interests in everyone else having to do wage labour and buy commodities will have to be prevented from imposing it on everyone else, but the point is to remove the incentive to work for anyone else or use money as a mediator of social relations.


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 30, 2005)

icepick said:
			
		

> In Bloom - Proudhon was a nob!


So was Bakunin.  That's pedestals for you, people tend to fall off of them.

Proudhon wrote some interesting stuff, as well as some shit stuff, and he certainly couldn't be described as being co-opted by the establishment, as kasheem insists all anarchists are eventually.


----------



## LLETSA (Oct 30, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> She is Russian Intelligentsia.  Not quite as materially well off as an English shelf-stacker, but brainier, and with more status than some other people over there.  Her family live in Ryazan, and their flat is better than some I have stayed in Russia.  Now, please leave out the east European prostitute gags, they aren't funny Chuck.  She works as a masseuse independantly when not studying, and visits people's homes to do so only seeing women (usually ill or infirm), for obvious reasons.  It can be dangerous in Moscow for a young woman in such a line of work when men are involved, depsite it being good money.  Why is she a masseuse?  Work opportunities are not that great in the land of cabbage soup and drug resistant tuberculosis.





Being part of the Russian intelligentsia doesn't make you part of the middle class.  In fact, what we know as a middle class in western society has yet to emerge in Russia (and might not emerge at all.)

She was Jewish for a while as well, I seem to remember.  

And wasn't this 'young woman' thirty-odd at one time?  Depends on your definition of young, I suppose.


----------



## hibee (Oct 30, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> fwiw I think your posts on the past couple of pages have been excellent.
> I'd love to see more like it (and less "you're middle class").



Ryazan does post some very good stuff when he wants to, I'd like to read a lot more of that about than his own personal biography which, whether rightly or wrongly, doesn't ring true for a lot of people.


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 30, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Being part of the Russian intelligentsia doesn't make you part of the middle class.  In fact, what we know as a middle class in western society has yet to emerge in Russia (and might not emerge at all.)
> 
> She was Jewish for a while as well, I seem to remember.
> 
> And wasn't this 'young woman' thirty-odd at one time?  Depends on your definition of young, I suppose.



Of course, my post was humour.  "she has shown me the way".  But my point is she does have more status and opportunity than some other groups of people I can think of in the ex-USSR.  

She is partly Jewish.  On her mother's side they come from Belarus.


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 30, 2005)

hibee said:
			
		

> Ryazan does post some very good stuff when he wants to, I'd like to read a lot more of that about than his own personal biography which, whether rightly or wrongly, doesn't ring true for a lot of people.



If you are on about my proletarian credentials.  I eat corned beef toasties (with brown sauce) and drink tea from a cracked mug.    As I have said, my life is quite open for people to obseve should they want to; they can live with me for a week or so.


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 30, 2005)

888 said:
			
		

> Who?



I don't remember his name.

He was a leader of some horsemen, like an armed group in central Asia.  Gave the Reds a run for their money during the civil war.


----------



## LLETSA (Oct 30, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> She is partly Jewish.  On her mother's side they come from Belarus.





What, do they only have Jews in Belarus?


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 30, 2005)

Did I say that?


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Oct 30, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> If you are on about my proletarian credentials.  I eat corned beef toasties (with brown sauce) and drink tea from a cracked mug.    As I have said, my life is quite open for people to obseve should they want to; they can live with me for a week or so.



You are in Morecambe aren't you? I'll take two weeks in August, this sort of 21st Century mono observation could catch on.

I wasn't making jokes about this russian girlfriend of yours you touchy  miserablist, it was you that said she worked in a massage parlour.


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 30, 2005)

Not in a massage parlour, works as a massuese in people's homes.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Oct 30, 2005)

Point taken. August still on??


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 30, 2005)

If you want.

Ripped carpets, nicotine stained walls, cat fluff and lots of swearing and door banging though.  Could you handle it?  Not to mention the microwave meals and Jeremy kyle on the telly.


----------



## oisleep (Oct 30, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> cat fluff



how do you survive! sounds terrible


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 30, 2005)

Well, working class people are dirty, we never use the hoover, nor do we wash the curtains and such like.  my pet cat makes a mess aeverywhere.


----------



## oisleep (Oct 30, 2005)

your caricature does get a bit dull you know


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 30, 2005)

I am joking about my dirtiness.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Oct 30, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> If you want.
> 
> Ripped carpets, nicotine stained walls, cat fluff and lots of swearing and door banging though.  Could you handle it?  Not to mention the microwave meals and Jeremy kyle on the telly.



Reminds me of that joke about the stockbroker who took early retirement, downsized and went to live in the remote Scottish highlands,


----------



## hibee (Oct 30, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> If you are on about my proletarian credentials.  I eat corned beef toasties (with brown sauce) and drink tea from a cracked mug.    As I have said, my life is quite open for people to obseve should they want to; they can live with me for a week or so.



I couldn't care less about your proletarian credentials. The genuineness or otherwise of all this is only an issue becuase you've made it one. The way you post you'd think you were the only working class person on the boards. Stick to the politics, you can be good at that.


----------



## rednblack (Oct 31, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> If you are on about my proletarian credentials.  I eat corned beef toasties (with brown sauce) and drink tea from a cracked mug.    As I have said, my life is quite open for people to obseve should they want to; they can live with me for a week or so.



micheal portillo maybe interested  


i agree with hibee and lettsa by the way, you've got some good political points to make...


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 31, 2005)

I believe Portillo got paid over £20,000 to play at being poor for a week.  Perhaps he should have given that to the mother and her children he annoyed with his naivity.

Cheers for the comment though.


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 31, 2005)

I missed all the fun last night.  So the poster absinthe was really ernestolynch?


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 31, 2005)

soulman said:
			
		

> It's a good definition of a sort of utopian socialism or communism (I use socialism/communism to mean the same thing rather than the marxist concept of stages) but it's idealistic in that it supposes that everyone will embrace the gift economy. Now if they don't what happens then. Do you make people accept it, impose it by force, hard labour for the dissenters? As I see it that's the danger of political ideologies.



The ideal I suppose is the end result of the building work beforehand, the organisational changes before the state of affairs described by my short definition of what communism is.  My point was that my definition can not be pigeon holed really into any specific poltical strand because of it's vagueness.  It is how to bring about this state of affairs that will colour that definition, put more meat on it's bones so to speak.  And that would be through socialism, in my opinion, of some kind.  If you talk about people not accepting it, then that is a good question.  But my definition, in my mind is the end result, of which I can not go any further into.  Even "experts" and Marxist revolutionary thinkers of the last century were hazy and ambiguous about the future society they believed could be brought about by their efforts in Socialism building a new society.  And I would guess that the state, and it's role in this transformation is of controversy too.  If you go along the road of state Socialism, and you have for example a world where most countries, lands, have undergone Marxist revolutions, there is no guarantee that the groups in power in their respective areas will agree on how to build for the future both economically and culturally.  How to build a new morality, culture in a world of revolutions, consisting of hundreds of diverse peoples, histories, developments, languages, social mores.....With huge difficulty and tension. Even Kalinin, when not shagging teenage ballerinas, saw that when writing about education in a Socialist society.

Take the Khmer Rouge.  Orwell, into the bowel of hell with that society.  One of the cruelest ironies of that nightmare, was that you had a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist group, filled with not only it's own sense of resentment at it's self-conscious dependancy on a seperate county (Vietnam) during it's formative years, a group whose success relied a large part on events happening outside of it's influence; but placing people into a huge social experiment, to *free * them, by Leninist methods, it's leaders educated and familiar with western culture and politcs, at the same time forbidding the people from using any similar knowledge and education or aquiring it from "outside" influences as it would be damaging to the freedom of their lives and future.  Probably no society in the last century went so far in such a short space of time- abolishing banks and money (except for outside trade with agricultural produce they could sell to foreigners in exchange for money or equipment), placing people into huge farming collectives. In some ways abolishing the family.  No walk up to Communism, but a leap.   Enforcing this (with paranoia about the Vietnamese and the Soviet Union aside) was nothing to do with protection of people from harmful things to the revolution, but protecting the CPK from the people.


I can give you a vague definition, but I can't give the answers of how to bring things to that.  I can't.  I have not chosen any movement, or social/poltical ideology through a need for more self-education and understanding, and secondly a suspicion of various political views and ideologies, ways of socially organising.  I have too many questions that fill my head now.  But I can understand other people's attempts at it, and let that inform me also on what I will choose to take part in.  I am not a communist, although the subject interests me greatly.  I am not an anarchist.  But I am willing to acknowledge that there are myriad ways, thoughts, ideas, writings, methods of how to make society based on mutual aid.  How that is done........

That is why I was interested by your confidence in asserting a real political defintion of communism.


----------



## LLETSA (Oct 31, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> If you want.
> 
> Ripped carpets, nicotine stained walls, cat fluff and lots of swearing and door banging though.  Could you handle it?  Not to mention the microwave meals and Jeremy kyle on the telly.





Seems pretty par for the course as Morecambe B&B's go.

Petit bourgeois landlordism.


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 31, 2005)

I don't have a heroin addiction though.


----------



## audiotech (Oct 31, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> I don't have a heroin addiction though.



All those pensioners stood in bus shelters with bingo tickets in their hands is a myth then?


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 31, 2005)

I don't know, but there are quite a few young men and women with scripts in their hands wating outside the chemists and doctors sugery.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Oct 31, 2005)

wow 

I started an 8 page thread


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 31, 2005)

oisleep said:
			
		

>


----------



## oisleep (Oct 31, 2005)




----------



## Ryazan (Oct 31, 2005)

Russian women are   

But, that said, I am not aiming to derial this thread.


----------

