# Anarchists and Lifestylism revisited…



## Top Dog (Jul 26, 2005)

*... bit of a rant here folks ... *  

Sometimes I cringe at the deep rooted conservatism and downright reactionary nature of some anarchists in their responses to, lets call them broadly, ‘alternative ways of living’. You get this often in the kneejerk and blanket labelling of various other people’s activity as ‘hippy’ or (the real bogey man) ‘middle class’. Uttering these terrible terms has the immediate effect of closing down the debate – the lines are drawn, the prejudices cast. 

Now there assuredly will be activities that are just daft, irrelevant or have no connection whatsoever to anyone else around them – and no desire to connect them. But often the dismissal of some events is amplified at such a volume to be completely out of proportion that which is being criticised. What’s more, it's often a dismissal that doesn’t even bother with any scrutiny of the content itself. All that is required is to take a look at the state of the people on the event to decide whether to give it their political 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down'. 

Does it need to be said that this is a very sorry state of affairs? By all means let’s criticise an activity if there are political problems associated with it, but those criticisms need to be explained for what they are, and what it is that makes them that way. 

Perhaps it’s because the activity does not fit some pre-conceived notion of what it is that working class people do. It may not be activity related to ‘work’ for instance, and so the logic goes, it cannot be anything other than alien to working class activity. Further still, the people involved in the activity may not even  look like working class people   , what they do (or don’t do) for a living might not be ‘working class’, what they wear, what they’re supposed to think might all be judged _incorrect_ (read: middle class). In short, they don’t possess all the _sociological_ attributes required by the anarchist, to judge whether it’s an activity worth participating in. While I find these preconceptions in themselves, insulting and patronising; more importantly they are completely wide of the mark in many respects. Both in their overall approach and in their dismissal of the idea that the object of a future revolutionary working class will be to abolish itself – and by extension to abolish its bourgeois identity, culture etc. 

Lets take for instance, the whole critique of ‘lifestylism’. This debate re-emerges every so often (as it has on u75 recently) and essentially argues against those that believe they can opt out of capitalist society simply by their activism or self-ghettoisation – ie. they imagine it’s somehow revolutionary to live in some kind of utopian idyll, meanwhile wars, famine, state repressions and the daily class struggle rages around them. It’s the ‘*I’m alright Jack’* mentality and it sucks. 

So let’s be very clear on this because it’s important: _it is *not* anti-capitalist simply to live on the margins of society and try to ignore capital’s existence._ Something more than that is required.

The problem here is that the stick is then bent far too far in the other direction. And so the panacea to hippy ‘lifestylism’ is often to adopt a kind of working class ‘lifestylism’ in the expectation that proles will better identify with you and your politics, if you look like _them_, talk like _them_, target your propaganda in the same way the tabloids might, for example.  

I’ve said it many times before, but its a little funny to me how many of the most vehemently anti-hippy types ive met, the ones that are charmed by a certain kind of urban prole (or lifestyle) actually come from backgrounds about as far removed from those social subjects that they fetishise. I don’t think that’s a great surprise to many, but it is important to acknowledge it, if it means a muddle-headed approach to understanding what revolutionary politics are about. Is it because they imagine it’s the sociological attributes that are the _essence_ of what it means to _be_ working class?

*Isn’t there on the other hand,  something to be said for the idea of creating and, if possible living, alternative realities in the here and the now?* 

The difference of emphasis on this question between the trots and the libertarians at last year’s European Social Forum was unambiguous and vast… 

The trot’s showcased one of their events as ‘*life after capitalism’ * while the libertarians presented the alternative event as ‘*life despite capitalism’*. The difference between these two conceptions is crucial. Trots will always argue that the future society is constructed after the military dimension has reached its conclusion, after the transition from socialism to communism, and that essentially we must continue to reproduce capitalism in all our daily exchanges, in all our social relationships until that point is reached. Because to do otherwise is idealistic or not based in the day to day material reality. 

This is a bullshit argument and for the anarchist or communist, one that is counter-revolutionary. Moving from one society to another requires the active participation of all involved in shaping their new world, hence the privileging of self-activity and direct action of the working class as the tools necessary to achieve our goal of a communist society. The means shape the ends. 

So my question is this: what is it that is so bad about attempting to create the future within the present?


----------



## montevideo (Jul 26, 2005)

good post _*womrade*_


----------



## Top Dog (Jul 26, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> good post _*womrade*_


.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jul 26, 2005)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> .


The Wombles have claimed you as one of their own!


----------



## Top Dog (Jul 26, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> The Wombles have claimed you as one of there own!


eek indeed. urgent disclaimer required...


----------



## rednblack (Jul 26, 2005)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> So my question is this: what is it that is so bad about attempting to create the future within the present?



nothing at all, trying to create workers or housing coops, or running genuinely accessable social/community centres either squatted or not - can be a good way of reducing the amount of stress and worry in your own life while experimenting with alternatives, if they are done right

the problems emerge if the way of living becomes the sole/main focus of your political activity and if it leads to isolation (either intentional/unintentional) from wider society/community


----------



## rednblack (Jul 26, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> The Wombles have claimed you as one of their own!



oi!  

hsg have already claimed him (whether he likes it or not )


----------



## Top Dog (Jul 26, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> nothing at all, trying to create workers or housing coops, or running genuinely accessable social/community centres either squatted or not - can be a good way of reducing the amount of stress and worry in your own life while experimenting with alternatives, if they are done right
> 
> the problems emerge if the way of living becomes the sole/main focus of your political activity and if it leads to isolation (either intentional/unintentional) from wider society/community


yep id agree with all of that


----------



## editor (Jul 26, 2005)

Top post Top Dog!


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jul 26, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> oi!
> 
> hsg have already claimed him (whether he likes it or not )


Why is no-one claiming me?


----------



## rednblack (Jul 26, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> Why is no-one claiming me?



i thought wildfire claimed you   

you could be claimed by hsg, but you'd have to move here first


----------



## sihhi (Jul 26, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> Why is no-one claiming me?



Cos narcos believe in self-identification or summat?


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jul 26, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> you could be claimed by hsg, but you'd have to move here first


Nah, you're alright.  I prefer Bloomsbury


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 26, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> nothing at all, trying to create workers or housing coops, or running genuinely accessable social/community centres either squatted or not - can be a good way of reducing the amount of stress and worry in your own life while experimenting with alternatives, if they are done right
> 
> the problems emerge if the way of living becomes the sole/main focus of your political activity and if it leads to isolation (either intentional/unintentional) from wider society/community




it's always been my impression that anarchists - or at least those who actually engage - are much less isolated from wider society/the community than almost all other leftist groups. perhaps due to a less dogmatic, theory-bound approach, anarchists are more willing/able to get stuck in (aforementioned community centres, exchange schemes, film groups, parties, drop in centres etc etc etc) than most of the rest of the left which seems to devote most of its time to infighting and bickering about what exactly was said at that meeting in 1921.


----------



## editor (Jul 26, 2005)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> ...than most of the rest of the left which seems to devote most of its time to infighting and bickering about what exactly was said at that meeting in 1921.


Don't bring up the 1921 meeting!


----------



## rednblack (Jul 26, 2005)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> it's always been my impression that anarchists - or at least those who actually engage - are much less isolated from wider society/the community etc etc.



yes you're right...(on the whole)


----------



## In Bloom (Jul 26, 2005)

<deleted>


----------



## LLETSA (Jul 26, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Don't bring up the 1921 meeting!





Bah!  If it hadn't been for that meeting the working class would have been in power for the past fifty years.  Possibly longer.

We might not even need the Workers' Defence Squads, let alone the Fifth International, had it not been for that 1921 meeting.


----------



## Herbert Read (Jul 26, 2005)

Alternative realities are fine as long as they are a means of exploration of possibilities and not an end to possibilities. I dislike the idea of green, organic, cooperative living in the present becoming a mode of operating at exclusion of all others. 
I my self buy into certain aspwects to appease my conscience, ecover, go veggie, recycling, public transport etc. 

I think that many people do live alternative life styles and do engage politically. 
I am anti hippy and anti 'wacky' anarchist. I recognise that people express them selves in different forms. But..........
It does not help me at work when im trying to explain self management within union meetings or to work mates. They laugh and point out 'the clowns on the telly at scotland.  ' 
not good if you are trying to build anarchist work based activity. You just get laughed at. Same with veganism, co-op living etc. Explaining about diversity is unity does not wash with the average working punter.

Building an alternative way of life can also build you barriers to engaging and is substituting for grass roots political activity.

Plus as anarchists we dont have a blue print for the future society, to think we can create it now is unwise and foolish. Alternative living is fine as long as people understand it is escaping from a harsh and unsettling reality and continue to engage with wider activity, not just against symbols but building a network or resistance to the mundane and harsh forms of everyday life.


----------



## jonH (Jul 26, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> Alternative realities are fine as long as they are a means of exploration of possibilities and not an end to possibilities. I dislike the idea of green, organic, cooperative living in the present becoming a mode of operating at exclusion of all others.
> I my self buy into certain aspwects to appease my conscience, ecover, go veggie, recycling, public transport etc.
> 
> I think that many people do live alternative life styles and do engage politically.
> ...



people are more likely to accept things if they do not have to participate, therefore alternative reality holidays might be the solution. people learn most when they're having fun.


----------



## Top Dog (Jul 26, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> Alternative realities are fine as long as they are a means of exploration of possibilities and not an end to possibilities. I dislike the idea of green, organic, cooperative living in the present becoming a mode of operating at exclusion of all others.
> I my self buy into certain aspwects to appease my conscience, ecover, go veggie, recycling, public transport etc.
> 
> I think that many people do live alternative life styles and do engage politically.
> ...


some fair points Herbert, but two questions:

1) leaving aside the 'clowns', more generally, how far would you seek to appease any workmates/union members who may hold some fairly conservative views? do you always stand with them or do you argue against them on certain points of principle - knowing that in doing so it sets you apart (possibily marginalising you) from the others

2) its true there is no blueprint for the future, but why should that stop us trying to transform parts of our own lives - for _ourselves_ - as working class subjects? Isnt postponing the idea til some point in the future really a leftist response, that throws up the alienated response that _we_ dont count because _we_ are politico's and not 'authentic' (untainted) members of the w/c? Or put another way, if you saw a working class council estate start to self organise with no apparent intervention from the left, you would applaud it wouldnt you? so why would some @'s then go on to suggest that organising our own lives differently is something entirely different, something more akin to hippydom than self activity?


----------



## knopf (Jul 26, 2005)

Because it was an example working class self-activity/organisation, not an example of the lifestyle choice of an individual? (Not addressed to me, I know, but it does seem like you answered your own question).

Rephrased for clarity. Didn't mean to suggest it was the whole working class, so I swapped my clauses round.


----------



## Top Dog (Jul 26, 2005)

knopf said:
			
		

> Because it was an example of the self-activity/organisation of the working class, not an example of the lifestyle choice of an individual? (Not addressed to me, I know, but it does seem like you answered your own question).


what the WHOLE of the working class? No, the example given was of a very small section within it. But working class militants feature as a very small sector within it as well dont they? <yes, i said *very* small before anyone else jumps in    >


----------



## knopf (Jul 26, 2005)

^^I rephrased my question 'cause I realise it was ambiguous.


----------



## Top Dog (Jul 26, 2005)

knopf said:
			
		

> ^^I rephrased my question 'cause I realise it was ambiguous.


the comparison with the example i cite still stands, i think


----------



## Herbert Read (Jul 26, 2005)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> some fair points Herbert, but two questions:
> 
> 1) leaving aside the 'clowns', more generally, how far would you seek to appease any workmates/union members who may hold some fairly conservative views? do you always stand with them or do you argue against them on certain points of principle - knowing that in doing so it sets you apart (possibily marginalising you) from the others
> 
> 2) its true there is no blueprint for the future, but why should that stop us trying to transform parts of our own lives - for _ourselves_ - as working class subjects? Isnt postponing the idea til some point in the future really a leftist response, that throws up the alienated response that _we_ dont count because _we_ are politico's and not 'authentic' (untainted) members of the w/c? Or put another way, if you saw a working class council estate start to self organise with no apparent intervention from the left, you would applaud it wouldnt you? so why would some @'s then go on to suggest that organising our own lives differently is something entirely different, something more akin to hippydom than self activity?



1) Some of my views are more traditional/conservative than what would be accepted by the 'radical' minority. This comes from my experience of life, immigrant community life and growing up on an estate. I do challange my self and my work mates but on the issue of clowns, tree houses, juggling etc i am definitely with my work mates! 
If you do want a socia reviolution and the sum total of my life and experiences tells me it will be a stuggle and involve destruction and death and upheaval. Alternative lifestyles can assist this but they can also act as a cocoon to reality. My anarchism is rooted im my community and workplace as well as interpersonal relationships. Its not a life style choice but a 'way of life' and organisation for me. I dont argue at people education comes through experience not lecture.

2) Im not postponing my life till after the revolution, im just not buying into alternative lifestyle. It makes me sick that you can be critiqued in the movement or scene (frankly whatever you want to call it) for not been 'radical enough'. If you are easily turned off it can seem exclusive and alien.

Any way good points TD


----------



## Wilf (Jul 26, 2005)

Good post TD.  

Risking the accusation of determinism I'd suggest that social and economic changes are being played out within domestic anarchism.  The decline of traditional forms of manual work; reductions in union membership - and with it a specific form of class conscousness (tied to the workplace) - is bound to be part of this.  I'm certainly not arguing 'were all middle class now' - but do think that the links between occupation, identity and politcs have got more complex.  and when you add in increases in the number of working class graduates feeling adrift from their original life +rise of environmentalism, your'e almost certain to have a situation where libertarians seek to explore new ways of living that only indirectly linked to class politics.  the question then of how anarchist activism links to working class communities is a crucial but complex one.

Guess theres also some real different views as to what the future should be like - should it be predominantly urban, industrial and high tech - or greener, decentralised and ecological.  Whichever way you go on this innevitably has an impact on what kind of struggle you engage in now.

although this debate has recently flared up over the g8, thats actually a bad example.  almost by definition, summit actions are bound to be abstracted out of day to day lives.  The real debate about whats going on should focus on the other 51 weeks of the year.  And in some ways, the problem is not dissent, green activism etc. its the relative weakness of social anarchism at the moment.  If we really had strong community campaigns and high levels of activism within the workplace, I don't think too many people would be concerned about the clowns.  Community/industrial based stuff is good - but sadly there just ain't enough of it at the moment.  In fact some of the interesting things that have taken place recently have been pretty much outside of @ism - the IWCA for example.


----------



## catch (Jul 26, 2005)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> While I find these preconceptions in themselves, insulting and patronising; more importantly they are completely wide of the mark in many respects. Both in their overall approach and in their dismissal of the idea that the object of a future revolutionary working class will be to abolish itself – and by extension to abolish its bourgeois identity, culture etc.



My main problem with 'lifestylism', is that personal lifestyle choices do not have the potential to cause social change, but are often put forward as being essential to it - you've made that point yourself.

By personal lifestyle choice, what we're really talking about is consumption, or consumerism. Emphasising the consumption of one commodity which is assumed to be politically (but more rightly culturally) superior over another - because it's vegan/organic/fair trade/'radical'/alternative is in essence to reinforce the idea that the market allows individuals to affect society through their buying choices. I think the 'middle class' terminology (which I refuse to use), comes from the idea that these lifestyle choices are in reality only available to people with a certain amount of disposable income, or time. Stuff like 'not shopping at supermarkets' or dietary choice etc. It's also associated with a certain kind of liberal moralism, that if you don't make these consumer choices then you're on the wrong side. In other words, I and anyone else I know who criticises lifestylism aren't criticising the activity itself - I buy some organic/fair trade stuff, and my taste in music/art is definitely in the radical camp - it's the attempt to put forward  consumerist behaviour as revolutionary or political activity that's the problem.

I handed a vegan, fairly AR-activist friend of mine a copy of Resistance a few months ago, and he said "But you're not even vegan!" - it's that kind of essentialism that I respond to mainly.

Whatever commodities I buy, however ethical they are in terms of environmental impact, or however much they represent oppositional/alternative cultures to some extent, their status as commodities made by wage labour remains, and ethical or 'radical' marketing often serves to mask the fundamental exploitation that occurs in their production. The fact that the same companies make them and sell them in the same shops is often ignored. The best/worst example of this is adbusters' no-logo-anti-corporate-stock-market-floated sneaker company.

Where people set up food co-ops, or co-operative gardens, or stuff like freecycle, or the kind of self-managed music/arts activity that I'm involved in myself, then it's still part of an 'alternative' milieu, but it's one that engages more directly with the productive process - it takes over at least elements of production and distribution on a self-organised basis, and can directly affect the material circumstances of the people involved positively. If those things (like housing co-ops for a pretty obvious example) become closed shops which only benefit small cliques of people, aren't viable for wide-scale involvement, and don't engage with society in general, then we go back to the 'lifestylist' critique again. There are also limits to initiatives like this within capitalism, so for them to be effective, they need to be engaging with/against the system, not fostering illusions that they're autonomous from/outside it. Also, the interactions between co-ops etc. with the rest of the market are no different to any other company - they're still selling commodities on the market, and simply listening to experimental music or choosing to buy workers' co-op bicycles and calling it political goes back to consumerism again. It can encourage and make a virtue of atomised passivity rather than collective action.



> I don’t think that’s a great surprise to many, but it is important to acknowledge it, if it means a muddle-headed approach to understanding what revolutionary politics are about. Is it because they imagine it’s the sociological attributes that are the _essence_ of what it means to _be_ working class?



Certainly there are elements of this in the anarchist movement, the most obvious examples being Openly Classist and Class War. An article by the IWCA that I saw recently (something like "middle-class parents forcing babies to learn Japanese in inner-london nurseries shock!"), also went down the same road. I don't think most people on here follow that line, or if they do sometimes it's tongue in cheek. Overall, it's the 'radical' attitude that any kind of traditional or popular taste is antithetical to a radical or revolutionary tradition, and that the prerequisite to social change is a change in taste/culture within the current economic system, rather than activity which challenges the economic system that makes a fetish of "working class culture" as something to be abhorred.

When you combine more than one lifestyle choice in terms of food/music/clothing etc. you end up with a subculture, and it's well documented that just about any subculture is an easy target for niche marketing and tends to reinforce superficial divisions between groups of people. Political groups can often become subcultural (and this goes in the hippy/crimethinc direction as well as the Ben Sherman/meat packing factory direction), and a lot of political activity that's criticised on here does fall into a subcultural category, and is defended as such to an extent.

I have no time for most pop music, most TV programs, most new films, and most fast food, but I think any change in the content of those things has, in the main, got to come from the conditions under which they're produced, not consumer demand - and the majority of lifestylist politics boils down to that.

Note the absence of clowns from this post. Oh shit.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 26, 2005)

> If those things (like housing co-ops for a pretty obvious example) become closed shops which *only benefit small cliques of people, aren't viable for wide-scale involvement*, and don't engage with society in general, then we go back to the 'lifestylist' critique again.



Just so it isn't just as if we're attacking "AR scum" etc 

In many ways established trade unions can be like this.
They are clique-y and if you try and question the nature of the clique and how it's operated ("because it's been that way since year X when I started here and I'm a rep"). The people that benefit most from them are the skilled nurses on higher grades etc etc. And they increasingly do a lot of middle-class tokenism witness major unions involvement with Make Poverty History.


----------



## Trouble (Jul 26, 2005)

sihhi said:
			
		

> Just so it isn't just as if we're attacking "AR scum" etc
> 
> In many ways established trade unions can be like this.
> They are clique-y and if you try and question the nature of the clique and how it's operated ("because it's been that way since year X when I started here and I'm a rep"). The people that benefit most from them are the skilled nurses on higher grades etc etc. And they increasingly do a lot of middle-class tokenism witness major unions involvement with Make Poverty History.



Very good post from Catch. 

Sihhi's complaints about Trade Unionism are nothing new, since the very nature of Trade Union struggle is for the most part on a reformist basis with Trade Union structurally tending to look for accomodation with capital rather than a role reversal. I would say that the MPH is less to do with Middle Class tokenism and more to do with a traditional reformist political strategy.

I am not sure about the comment that the people who benefit from them most are the skilled nurses on higher grades. I think the benefits of Trade UNionism are real and tangible for many workers in many areas. The reality is that some sections of the workforce are able (through a skills advantage or more importantly a skills shortage in the labour force) lever out of the employer more than others. An important element for socialist/anarchist struggle within Trade Unions is to attempt to break down the sectional interests of different groups of workers so that trade union struggle becomes less clique-y.


----------



## janis joplin (Jul 26, 2005)

i am definitely of the belief that change has to start right now, right here, and that no-one should be waiting for the mythical revolution.
i wish it could more often be related to how we interract with other people tho, rather than what we consume.
i have meant to far too many meetings populated by sexist, homophobic, arrogant "activists" with no idea how to cope with anyone a little bit different to them and their mates.
i have also too many times been sneered at by middle-class and rich people who are able to live more "purely" than i am, with less effort.
i hope that one day i will be part of a land co-op, and that we will do fabulous things without any leader.  i only want to do it tho in the right context though, and not become separatists or arrogant hippies.
i don't resent people who have more than me, but i do resent those amongst them that forget what a privileged position they're in.


----------



## rioted (Jul 26, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> these lifestyle choices are in reality only available to people with a certain amount of disposable income, or time.


They're not, though, are they?

There's more to life than as a unit of production. If you don't think so, stick to marxism.


----------



## jonH (Jul 26, 2005)

janis joplin said:
			
		

> i am definitely of the belief that change has to start right now, right here, and that no-one should be waiting for the mythical revolution.
> i wish it could more often be related to how we interract with other people tho, rather than what we consume.
> i have meant to far too many meetings populated by sexist, homophobic, arrogant "activists" with no idea how to cope with anyone a little bit different to them and their mates.
> i have also too many times been sneered at by middle-class and rich people who are able to live more "purely" than i am, with less effort.
> ...


Picnicker


----------



## Thora_v1 (Jul 26, 2005)

jonH said:
			
		

> Picnicker


What?  Why are your posts always so nonsensical?  It's starting to irritate me.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 26, 2005)

Trouble said:
			
		

> I am not sure about the comment that the people who benefit from them most are the skilled nurses on higher grades. I think the benefits of Trade UNionism are real and tangible for many workers in many areas. The reality is that some sections of the workforce are able (through a skills advantage or more importantly a skills shortage in the labour force) lever out of the employer more than others. An important element for socialist/anarchist struggle within Trade Unions is to attempt to break down the sectional interests of different groups of workers so that trade union struggle becomes less clique-y.



I should have put it better. In my UNISON experience at least, healthcare assistants and temporary nurses were bossed around by nurses who would be their union reps (if they were members) at the same time.
Similarly ordinary cleaners who get bossed around by a cleaning team-leader would have had (if they were members) a team leader as a rep.

Many did appreciate that the union was vaguely on their side doing the right thing in monthly meetings but it's not hard to see why there was not much interest in "joining up and being active". Nurses, physios, OTs etc were higher represented in UNISON lists compared to cleaners, waste porters etc.

The whole clique-y full-timer + in some reps attitude "aren't i grand here's leaflets we distributed" was part of the problem.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 26, 2005)

rioted said:
			
		

> They're not, though, are they?
> 
> There's more to life than as a unit of production. If you don't think so, stick to marxism.


Which lifestyle choices do you mean?

Buying 'fairtrade' chocolate, buying non-polluting cars etc etc would suggest it to me.


----------



## Ryazan (Jul 26, 2005)

janis joplin said:
			
		

> ii have also too many times been sneered at by middle-class and rich people who are able to live more "purely" than i am, with less effort.
> i



people that make their trousers out of old curtains?


----------



## jonH (Jul 26, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> What?  Why are your posts always so nonsensical?  It's starting to irritate me.


http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=122980  
this is a serious proposition and all the really turned on people i meet are into it
so dont get irritated get networking


----------



## sihhi (Jul 26, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> people that make their trousers out of old curtains?



Curtains!!   Hoi poloi in London can make haute-couture charm necklaces out of cat turds !


----------



## Ryazan (Jul 26, 2005)

Will make a note of mentioning that to the lads on' shift


----------



## rednblack (Jul 26, 2005)

jonH said:
			
		

> this is a serious proposition and all the really turned on people i meet are into it



pervs


----------



## LLETSA (Jul 26, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> Will make a note of mentioning that to the lads on' shift





Don't get 'em too wound up - they'll be getting the Stanley blades out again.


----------



## Ryazan (Jul 26, 2005)

I have known near my college town a decent advice centre for homeless people run by radicals, but why look like the Predator's mildly attractive sister?


----------



## Ryazan (Jul 26, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Don't get 'em too wound up - they'll be getting the Stanley blades out again.



I should keep them away from me, I might start self-harming due to the frustrations of alienation.


----------



## catch (Jul 26, 2005)

rioted said:
			
		

> They're not, though, are they?



Well, avoiding shopping in supermarkets is pretty hard to do if you live in a rural area where supermarkets have already gutted the village and town centres. In many cases they _are_ the local shop for a lot of people, and it'd involve many miles round trips to be able to get similar stuff if you went out of your way to avoid them - which invariably would mean owning a car for a start, and using more petrol. A lot of 'local' shops in urban areas are franchises/chains like costcutter, or increasingly "express" versions of the big supermarkets.  I appreciate my local independent shops for variety etc., but the workforce isn't necessarily better off either - wages can be lower, less flexibility with hours etc.

Fair trade and organic goods cost between 10% to 200% more than 'standard' food, depending on whether it's supermarket/farmers' market and the type of produce. Most people can afford to buy the odd one or two things, but if you try to buy most stuff from those ranges/borough market you're looking at a much bigger food bill every week. And again it depends on how close you live to places. Near me, I've got the choice of a very good street market (not organic, _maybe_ some localish produce), or Sainsbury's/ASDA/Lidl (some organic stuff, supermarkets) - to get organic food from a non-supermarket source I'm looking about a few miles across London and significant price hikes - the closest farmers' markets are small and very expensive ones in Stoke Newington/Broadway Market. The transport would be an additional cost, and outweighs some of the environmental impact of buying "local produce" if you travel 5 miles to get to it and back. Lots of organic food (and/or vegan food) is still highly processed as well, especially since it's become more popular.

Buying used clothes requires a decent amount of charity shops, and time to browse through them. Buying new 'ethical' clothing - fair trade, hemp etc. (which doesn't challenge capitalism, only the 'nasty' bits of it anyway) is often expensive, hard to find, and generally caters to certain tastes.

Should I keep going?



> There's more to life than as a unit of production. If you don't think so, stick to marxism.



Is there really? I'm not a Marxist by the way.


----------



## janis joplin (Jul 26, 2005)

catch - those are some of the things i was thinking about too.  things like having access to cash to buy land, having access to cash for a bike trailer, for a good/better education, not having to ever think about how you'll support your parents in old age, as well as being able to buy "ethical" foods and other products.  alternative therapies.  but above all, the confidence and articulacy that is trained/bred into certain classes in britain.
but on a personal level its not just about class or finance for me.  its also about being healthy, physically and mentally.  being confident and articulate and super-literate, thanks largely to your upbringing.  and sneering at/avoiding others who don't share the privilege.


----------



## janis joplin (Jul 26, 2005)

ps i am definitely not a marxist by the way!  but that doesn't mean i don't acknowledge class and financial differences between folk.  as well as race, sex, gender, sexuality, health, etc etc


----------



## montevideo (Jul 27, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> I'm not a Marxist by the way.



but you do a damn fine impression. 

Not a criticism by the way, just wish you'd realise you are, first & foremost, a marxist from which pedestal you seek to criticise particular anarchists you don't think authentic for their 'lifestyle' attributes. Just my opinion.


----------



## nosos (Jul 27, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> Not a criticism by the way, just wish you'd realise you are, first & foremost, a marxist from which pedestal you seek to criticise particular anarchists you don't think authentic for their 'lifestyle' attributes. Just my opinion.


a damn fine opinion it is too


----------



## Herbert Read (Jul 27, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> but you do a damn fine impression.
> 
> Not a criticism by the way, just wish you'd realise you are, first & foremost, a marxist from which pedestal you seek to criticise particular anarchists you don't think authentic for their 'lifestyle' attributes. Just my opinion.



from which pedestal do you crtiticise monte, old chap


----------



## kropotkin (Jul 27, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> but you do a damn fine impression.
> 
> Not a criticism by the way, just wish you'd realise you are, first & foremost, a marxist from which pedestal you seek to criticise particular anarchists you don't think authentic for their 'lifestyle' attributes. Just my opinion.


 Just a minute, monte.

Catch claims to be an anarchist/lib communist.

You then say that he is in fact *not* an anarchist ata ll, but a marxist, thereby putting him outside the camp you locate yourself within. You also apply to him exactly the same thing you seem to be criticising him for (i.e. determining what is a 'real' anarchist).

Do you see that you are doing this, or not?


----------



## Top Dog (Jul 27, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> By personal lifestyle choice, what we're really talking about is consumption, or consumerism. Emphasising the consumption of one commodity which is assumed to be politically (but more rightly culturally) superior over another - because it's vegan/organic/fair trade/'radical'/alternative is in essence to reinforce the idea that the market allows individuals to affect society through their buying choices [...] it's the attempt to put forward  consumerist behaviour as revolutionary or political activity that's the problem.


thats the deception in a nutshell. The only thing I would say in addition is that i think consumer boycotts _can_ have a part to play, but mainly if exercised in connection to thier links to the sphere of production or circulation, say a boycott of a particular company if it helps to reinforce a strike that its workers are engaged in for instance. But, yes, exercising our spending power in a different way, does nothing to attack the commodity society itself. Thats a tautology.

Im more interested in hearing views on other areas of life/politics that often get written off as 'lifestylist' or for being viewed as exterior to the class struggle, squatting lets say, or aspects of the informal economy. 

Also, yes, i _am_ interested in exploring what lies behind some people having _such_ strong reactions to things like the clowns. I dont feel strongly one way or the other about them - as i dont feel they have any kind of _political_ significance - at least not on the level by which their appearance seems to have provoked such venomous outrage here and elsewhere...


----------



## montevideo (Jul 27, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Just a minute, monte.
> 
> Catch claims to be an anarchist/lib communist.
> 
> ...



well not to get too bogged down in definitions (because this discussion may have legs) but yes i think catch is essentially an marxist. 'Libertarian marxism'  (in the terms & conditions expressed) is simply marx minus the state. I think catch hangs his politics from the pedestal of marx then attachs the various libertarian currents to fit that pedestal. Again not a criticism as such. Once he ditches the 'anarchsim' bit i think he'd be a lot more settled & satisfied with in his politics. 

I don't have a camp, neither am i part of a 'movement' or part of a 'scene'. I know many would disagree but i would certainly decline any invitation to be a part of such.


----------



## Random (Jul 27, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> I don't have a camp, neither am i part of a 'movement' or part of a 'scene'. I know many would disagree but i would certainly decline any invitation to be a part of such.



Like George Best would decline any invitation to become an alcoholic, you mean?


----------



## rednblack (Jul 27, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> I don't have a camp, neither am i part of a 'movement' or part of a 'scene'. I know many would disagree but i would certainly decline any invitation to be a part of such.



denial is not just a river in egypt young grasshopper


----------



## montevideo (Jul 27, 2005)

Random said:
			
		

> Like George Best would decline any invitation to become an alcoholic, you mean?



aye, an alcoholic simply being someone who drinks more than their doctor.



> denial is not just a river in egypt young grasshopper


----------



## rednblack (Jul 27, 2005)




----------



## Random (Jul 27, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

>



All for one, and one for all (but in a totally voluntary sense with no membership of an 'organisation' being implied).


----------



## catch (Jul 27, 2005)

Monte.

I agree, to the extent that I've read and understand it, with Marx's analysis of the commodity form as outlined in Capital, so did Bakunin for that matter - was he a Marxist as well? Libertarian communism was the stated objective of the FAI - were they Marxists?

If describing myself as a libertarian communist and agreeing with the majority of Capital makes me a Marxist, fine, but then I'll start calling you Newtonian or Aristotelian Monte. I'd love to hear your critique of Capital - since I assume you've rejected it in order to confirm your pure-blooded non-Marxist status?

I do not agree that the industrial proletariat are a revolutionary class as distinct from other sections of the working class (or in the terms of the debate as expressed at the time, toilers, including the peasantry, lumpen and declassé), nor do I subscribe to crisis theory in the way autonomist Marxists/'70's Italian types continue to, or very much else he or his epigones wrote. My main theoretical affection is for the anarchist-communist tradition , particularly Kropotkin and Bookchin, as it has been for some time. And although I've recently developed a degree of enthusiasm for people like Harry Cleaver, it's quite recent, I've been an anarchist since I was 14 ffs, just can't see the point of calling myself that when it associates me with the clowns.

It's true that I'm much more in agreement with libertarian marxists than non-communist anarchists, don't dispute that at all, doesn't make me a Marxist though.


----------



## catch (Jul 27, 2005)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> thats the deception in a nutshell. The only thing I would say in addition is that i think consumer boycotts _can_ have a part to play, but mainly if exercised in connection to thier links to the sphere of production or circulation, say a boycott of a particular company if it helps to reinforce a strike that its workers are engaged in for instance. But, yes, exercising our spending power in a different way, does nothing to attack the commodity society itself. Thats a tautology.


Yeah, boycotting places in co-ordination with strikes is fine with me. We shouldn't fetishise tactics - in favour of or against them.



> Im more interested in hearing views on other areas of life/politics that often get written off as 'lifestylist' or for being viewed as exterior to the class struggle, squatting lets say, or aspects of the informal economy.



I don't think squatting was exterior to class struggle in the post-war years, or possibly for quite a long time after that. As it stands though, it's again only a lifestyle option available to a pretty small number of people, generally young people with no dependents. Squatting itself isn't a problem, nothing against people who do it, but holding it up as revolutionary activity, or worse, criticising people who rent for "supporting the capitalist system...maaaan" is rightly pounced on as being a load of bollocks. The way that squatted spaces (especially squatted artistic/cultural spaces) can contribute to gentrification is another thing that has to be considered. I know that's happened in New York, not so sure about the UK - I guess it must have happened to an extent in Hoxton?



> Also, yes, i _am_ interested in exploring what lies behind some people having _such_ strong reactions to things like the clowns. I dont feel strongly one way or the other about them - as i dont feel they have any kind of _political_ significance - at least not on the level by which their appearance seems to have provoked such venomous outrage here and elsewhere...



because they have crap like this on their site?




			
				circa said:
			
		

> We are rebels because we love life and happiness more than 'revolution'. Because no revolution is ever complete and rebellions continues forever. Because we will dismantle the ghost-machine of abstraction with means that are indistinguishable from ends. Because we don't want to change 'the' world, but 'our' world. Because we will always desert and disobey those who abuse and accumulate power. Because rebels transform everything - the way they live, create, love, eat, laugh, play, learn, trade, listen, think and most of all the way they rebel.



Because they get Arts council grants (apparently) to study how to clown/protest. And because that's only a short step to becoming a an organisation like this - www.ruckus.org - professional protest consultants.


----------



## Random (Jul 27, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> Because they get Arts council grants (apparently) to study how to clown/protest



Yeah, and taking funding from THE MAN is, like supporting the SYSTEM, maaan.

See -- you do it too  

Being irritated by their style of prose is not a serious objection, so we're left with that one criticism you posted above, which you admit is based on a rumour.

I'd not do clowning myself, but I agree with TopDog that some people seem to get disproportionally pissed off about them.


----------



## catch (Jul 27, 2005)

OK the main thing I have a problem with is that they claim to be a new thing in terms or political activity - a new tactic - when in fact they're simply a different side of the black/pink/fluffy/spikey dead-end debate which does nothing to question the validity of spectacular protest itself. It's a kind of micro-micro change within largely closed system of set-piece engagements, is inward looking to the utmost, and it made me feel guilty when I watched the indymedia video and felt myself hoping the police would twat the most annoying ones over the head.

And taking state funding to protest against the state is just about where I draw the line in terms of dependency. My pay-check comes from the state, but that's based on me providing a service for them - working jobs in the education sector. If the service I provide is protesting against them, then that's a very different kind of service, one that anyone who'd like to seriously challenge the state ought to be very worried about.

Even with my own music stuff we try to fund it ourselves because to get funding usually requires aesthetic and organisational compromises with paid bureaucrats that we generally aren't prepared to make. It's not ruled out by any means, but there's a career path for "artists" (and clowning probably comes under it somewhere) in tailoring their activities to application forms. If your "art" is based on protest, or "artivism" or whatever, then that raises serious problems which cannot be resolved. I have about the same level of respect for arts-council funded artivists as I do for SWP full-timers.


----------



## catch (Jul 27, 2005)

Oh yeah. CIRCA's funding situation I'm not sure about - I'm not obsessed by them. But I have noticed this on the Space Hijackers' website:

"The Space Hijackers are proud winners of this years arts admin bursary for mid carrer artists."


----------



## Random (Jul 27, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> OK the main thing I have a problem with is that they claim to be a new thing in terms or political activity - a new tactic - when in fact they're simply a different side of the black/pink/fluffy/spikey dead-end debate which does nothing to question the validity of spectacular protest itself.



That seems to be a very inward-looking reason.  Is it really relevant to your political activity what various artists are 'claiming' to do?


----------



## sihhi (Jul 27, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> And taking state funding to protest against the state is just about where I draw the line in terms of dependency. My pay-check comes from the state, but that's based on me providing a service for them - working jobs in the education sector. If the service I provide is protesting against them, then that's a very different kind of service, one that anyone who'd like to seriously challenge the state *ought * to be very worried about.



Why necessarily *ought*- it depends on the source and conditions of that funding?



> Even with my own music stuff we try to fund it ourselves because to get funding usually requires aesthetic and organisational compromises with paid bureaucrats that we generally aren't prepared to make. It's not ruled out by any means, but there's a career path for "artists" (and clowning probably comes under it somewhere) in tailoring their activities to application forms. If your "art" is based on protest, or "artivism" or whatever, then that raises serious problems which cannot be resolved. I have about the same level of respect for arts-council funded artivists as I do for SWP full-timers.



Can you name names please- I don't know these "arts-council funded artivists"?


----------



## sihhi (Jul 27, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> But I have noticed this on the Space Hijackers' website:
> 
> "The Space Hijackers are proud winners of this years arts admin bursary for mid carrer artists."



Mate try not to take them so seriously- it'll start doing your head in. 

They like to have fun by having lunch on moveable tables in parking bays.
It's a hobby for them just like appearing on Robot Wars or perfume shopping is for others.
Nothing more nothing less.


----------



## catch (Jul 28, 2005)

The Space Hijackers I don't have any particular problem with at all - they seem pretty good natured. None of this affects either my political activity or much else very much, but I won't be associated with it. And it's worth spending a little bit of time arguing on here about it. I think a very important thing for revolutionaries to do is to look at how movements have become co-opted or destroyed by the state and capital, and that includes looking at current manifestations of that process.


----------



## janis joplin (Jul 28, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> but you do a damn fine impression.
> 
> Not a criticism by the way, just wish you'd realise you are, first & foremost, a marxist from which pedestal you seek to criticise particular anarchists you don't think authentic for their 'lifestyle' attributes. Just my opinion.



wow, don't think anyone's ever put me on a pedestal before!  i thank you   

i think i explained pretty clearly my problem was with people who are more advantaged looking down on people who have less advantages in life and not with the way they live their lives as such.

i don't have a problem with the circa lot raising lots of money through the arts council, but it does bug me when i hear them laugh at groups who raise money with more hard slog, and it particularly bugs me that they don't put on workshops to train others in how to put together successful funding proposals instead of quite so many clown workshops.  or do they only do workshops they get paid for?


----------



## Herbert Read (Jul 28, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> well not to get too bogged down in definitions (because this discussion may have legs) but yes i think catch is essentially an marxist. 'Libertarian marxism'  (in the terms & conditions expressed) is simply marx minus the state. I think catch hangs his politics from the pedestal of marx then attachs the various libertarian currents to fit that pedestal. Again not a criticism as such. Once he ditches the 'anarchsim' bit i think he'd be a lot more settled & satisfied with in his politics.
> 
> I don't have a camp, neither am i part of a 'movement' or part of a 'scene'. I know many would disagree but i would certainly decline any invitation to be a part of such.



I want libertarian communism and i am an Anarchist   


So you have left the wombles scene then


----------



## The Black Hand (Jul 28, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> Certainly there are elements of this in the anarchist movement, the most obvious examples being Openly Classist and Class War.



Does everything revolve around Class War, quite possibly 

AS far as sterotypical views of the working class... I can't remember anything crass that was used, and if you think swearing is 'unsophisticated' or stereotypical you're a bastard wanker fuker etc... I appreciate that not all the working class are from the rougher parts, but if you read the aims and principles of CLass War, it ALWAYS said we were PARTICIPANTS, and that means we knew we weren't the only part of the working class as we were enagaged in class struggles... Yes we were loud, but 'shy bairns get no broth'  Or is that too northern and working class for all you southerners to understand?!


----------



## Top Dog (Jul 28, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> I don't think squatting was exterior to class struggle in the post-war years, or possibly for quite a long time after that. As it stands though, it's again only a lifestyle option available to a pretty small number of people, generally young people with no dependents. Squatting itself isn't a problem, nothing against people who do it, but holding it up as revolutionary activity, or worse, criticising people who rent for "supporting the capitalist system...maaaan" is rightly pounced on as being a load of bollocks.


But _who_ here is criticising people who rent? I havent heard anyone do this (...yet). To accept that there are people in this milieu with some serious (inter)personal or mental health problems that mean they come out with irrational bullshit like some of the vegan/AR nonsense like in the eg.s you post is one thing.  But to extend their argument out, and seek to challenge it is to give their 'argument' some credence, which it just doesnt have. Ignore it. Its meaningless. One of the dangers of giving the time of day to loonies is that quite understandably you polarise your own opinion to disassociate yourself from them. But in doing so be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater...

I would actually challenge the assumption that squatting these days in solely a 'choice' for a 





> small number of people, generally young people with no dependents.


That is of course true for a very large part of the squatting community - in London in any case. But there also remain a dwindling community of long term squatters that have spent many years moving away from the periphery into their communities and becoming part of the fabric of a locality. And there are others still... where i work we get many people coming in with serious housing problems... we had a young colombian family come in last week for instance, who have been squatting for the past 9 months, bacause of their precarious immigration status. These arent isolated instances either. In fact we get quite a number of clients that tell us their housing workers within the local authority have 'unnofficially' and 'off the record' signposted them to the squatters advisory service for help with accomodation, where there was little else on offer - even though it is not ASS's job to provide squatted housing for people - and even when the local authority was failing in its statutory duties to house certain vulnerable groups.

But perhaps we're getting close to the nub of my original question. When you say that some people wrongly hold squatting up "as revolutionary activity", that leads me to ask the next question which is:

*what IS revolutionary activity?*


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2005)

I'm not really up on these labels, so I'd be interested in how you'd describe the political ethos of urban75:

Ignoring the obvious "hierarchical dictatorship" yawn-o stuff, we run a non-profit community website for free, the admin all donate their time for free, it's funded by those amongst the community who can afford/want to donate ensuring access to all, most of the major board decisions are taken collectively or with a level of consultation  (i.e. new forums etc, although banning remains at the mods discretion) and we regularly turn down fat advertising offers and sponsorship deals.

I know I'm deffo not an anarchist, but what political label might you slap on the site?

(Serious question, so no pissing about pretty-please)


----------



## blamblam (Jul 28, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> I'm not really up on these labels, so I'd be interested in how you'd describe the political ethos of urban75...
> 
> I know I'm deffo not an anarchist, but what political label might you slap on the site?
> 
> (Serious question, so no pissing about pretty-please)


I've not read the rest of this thread yet, but in answer to this, I spose I generally consider u75 as more of a DIY/independent community thing than a political site, but politically I'd consider it broadly libertarian/non-party left. What would you think of that?


----------



## jonH (Jul 28, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> I'm not really up on these labels, so I'd be interested in how you'd describe the political ethos of urban75:
> 
> Ignoring the obvious "hierarchical dictatorship" yawn-o stuff, we run a non-profit community website for free, the admin all donate their time for free, it's funded by those amongst the community who can afford/want to donate ensuring access to all, most of the major board decisions are taken collectively or with a level of consultation  (i.e. new forums etc, although banning remains at the mods discretion) and we regularly turn down fat advertising offers and sponsorship deals.
> 
> ...




nihilist
picnicker


----------



## Top Dog (Jul 28, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> I'm not really up on these labels, so I'd be interested in how you'd describe the political ethos of urban75:
> 
> Ignoring the obvious "hierarchical dictatorship" yawn-o stuff, we run a non-profit community website for free, the admin all donate their time for free, it's funded by those amongst the community who can afford/want to donate ensuring access to all, most of the major board decisions are taken collectively or with a level of consultation  (i.e. new forums etc, although banning remains at the mods discretion) and we regularly turn down fat advertising offers and sponsorship deals.
> 
> ...


i think the point is that maybe it shouldnt _have_ a political label. Labelling it would be where the problems begin... I think about it in this way... the reason i got into politics (anarchism), was because it was about _doing_, rather than _being_. So yes, u75 is DIY maybe, or is it anarchy _in action_   ? Maybe not, but its based on similar community/communistic values that are central to most anarcho's politics... whether the site lives up to that is another thing entirely


----------



## jonH (Jul 28, 2005)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> i think the point is that maybe it shouldnt _have_ a political label. Labelling it would be where the problems begin... I think about it in this way... the reason i got into politics (anarchism), was because it was about _doing_, rather than _being_. So yes, u75 is DIY maybe, or is it anarchy _in action_   ? Maybe not, but its based on similar community/communistic values that are central to most anarcho's politics... whether the site lives up to that is another thing entirely


Ultimately the site must die


----------



## rednblack (Jul 28, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> I'm not really up on these labels, so I'd be interested in how you'd describe the political ethos of urban75:
> 
> Ignoring the obvious "hierarchical dictatorship" yawn-o stuff, we run a non-profit community website for free, the admin all donate their time for free, it's funded by those amongst the community who can afford/want to donate ensuring access to all, most of the major board decisions are taken collectively or with a level of consultation  (i.e. new forums etc, although banning remains at the mods discretion) and we regularly turn down fat advertising offers and sponsorship deals.
> 
> ...



the fact that it is funded by those who can, or want to, and available to all who want to access it suggests communism (in an inperfect sense - because we cant have perfect communism in a capitalist society)

but the fact that it is essentially controlled by a unremovable 'leadership' (not a dig, i havent got a problem - i couldnt be arsed) means its not democratic more consultative, but then again as you often say - if people dont like the 'leadership' decisions they can always start another board and see if thats more difficult than putting up with occaisional decisions they're not happy with (the one example of that so far - utterly failed, though i think thats at least partly down to the personalities involved on both sides of the argument then any real flaws in their idea)

its a difficult one, because we still arent used to how this sort of community works, and we are still finding new forms of running them, i'd say its a consultative communist dictatorship - its a rubbish term, but only because there arent any real terms to describe it


----------



## rednblack (Jul 28, 2005)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> i think the point is that maybe it shouldnt _have_ a political label. Labelling it would be where the problems begin...



i'd agree with that...


----------



## kropotkin (Jul 28, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> i'd agree with that...


 I agree- I want mutual aid and solidarity and organising on a class basis- I don't need people flying black and red flags.

I believe communism develops naturally from this.


----------



## kropotkin (Jul 28, 2005)

TopDog, you seem to be criticising catch for misrepresenting "liftylists", which is entirely fair enough. I personally think that you have also misrepresented those you criticise "lifestylism"- especially with the comments about their class composition (but that is a little niggle- just loked like a standard lefty smear to me).

I too am very wary of polarisation- I don't think it helps anyone to characature opponents, so perhaps it would help here if we actually clarified exactly what we are talking about.

If "lifestylism" is not what catch was disagreeing with (criticisms which you clearly share), can you define it for the purposes of discussion? How far apart are you from those you are targetting this at?


----------



## JoeBlack (Jul 28, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> I'm not really up on these labels, so I'd be interested in how you'd describe the political ethos of urban75:



Utopian socialist?

As in the 19thC movements which were often based on individuals or small groups with resources setting up a colony that others could be part of providing they were willing to follow the rules laid down by those who owned the colony.  I don't know enough about the history of these movements to be more specific than that but the parallel is obvious.


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2005)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> i think the point is that maybe it shouldnt _have_ a political label. Labelling it would be where the problems begin...


Of course you're right there.

One of the reasons I started this site was the sheer frustration with the anti-CJB people I was dealing with, some of whom seemed more concerned with the label than anything else.

I hated the way that people seemed keen to box people into political areas: "aah, you're against this so you must also be against _this, this and this_...", so I wanted to find a place where I could articulate my political responses free from a fucking committee strangling my enthusiasm at birth.

I can remember the much tut-tutting that went on amongst the lefties and anarchos when I started the Football vs CJA campaign. 

Football wasn't deemed as 'cool' as road protesting/squatting, even though the Act was likely to affect more ordinary fans than anyone else.

It's hard to remember how uncool it was to be a footie fan in the early 90s!


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> its a difficult one, because we still arent used to how this sort of community works, and we are still finding new forms of running them, i'd say its a consultative communist dictatorship - its a rubbish term, but only because there arent any real terms to describe it


I rather like that!
I'll have a badge made immediately: "Editor, Consultative Communist Dictatorship" 

When I started these boards, I had lofty ideals about free speech and no censorship, but those dreamy notions were quickly crushed by a slew of racists, trolls and people hell bent on trashing the site.

I honestly don't believe you can run a fairly well-known board of this size that covers similar issues without some kind of strong moderation.

I wish it weren't true, but sadly there's just too many people out there who get their kicks out of breaking things they don't like and to many persistent nutjobs, racists, attention-seekers and fuckwits.


----------



## kropotkin (Jul 28, 2005)

This site does a fine job given the attacks it comes under. 
There are few substantive complaints, despite the friction of the last month or so.


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> This site does a fine job given the attacks it comes under.
> There are few substantive complaints, despite the friction of the last month or so.


Thanks for that.

It's quite timely, because I have to say that the mod team are lurching towards something of a crisis at the moment, with morale at an all time low.

But more of that later.


----------



## steeplejack (Jul 28, 2005)

sorry to hear that.

the atmosphere's been bad, but it;s been worse before and the site has got over it- keep it going.


----------



## rednblack (Jul 28, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Thanks for that.
> 
> It's quite timely, because I have to say that the mod team are lurching towards something of a crisis at the moment, with morale at an all time low.
> 
> But more of that later.



i'm going to start a thread about that in community, a serious one


----------



## Top Dog (Jul 28, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> TopDog, you seem to be criticising catch for misrepresenting "liftylists", which is entirely fair enough. I personally think that you have also misrepresented those you criticise "lifestylism"- especially with the comments about their class composition (but that is a little niggle- just loked like a standard lefty smear to me).


fair point. i assume you're referring to this bit: 





> its a little funny to me how many of the most vehemently anti-hippy types ive met, the ones that are charmed by a certain kind of urban prole (or lifestyle) actually come from backgrounds about as far removed from those social subjects that they fetishise. I don’t think that’s a great surprise to many, but it is important to acknowledge it, if it means a muddle-headed approach to understanding what revolutionary politics are about. Is it because they imagine it’s the sociological attributes that are the essence of what it means to be working class?


I think i know what you're getting at but its _not_ intended as a lefty smear. I'll elaborate more if you want, but first, _was_ this the section you have the problem with?   




			
				kropotkin said:
			
		

> If "lifestylism" is not what catch was disagreeing with (criticisms which you clearly share), can you define it for the purposes of discussion? How far apart are you from those you are targetting this at?


ive tried re-reading but i dont understand this bit... could you clairfy what you're asking and i'll have another go...


----------



## kropotkin (Jul 28, 2005)

sorry 

The OP was criticising a section of anarchists who are needlessly caustic towards another section. catch took up the mantle of defending a crtique of lifestylism, which turned out to be one you share.

Given that, it would seem that your definition might be different- so could you clarify exactly what you mean by "Lifestylism"?

It seems to me that the definiton you are using is so broad as to include loads of activity that no sensible person would have any qualms with. Perhaps the problem is that this is equally done on the other side, and lots of reasonable people get erroneously tarred with the mad brush?


----------



## kropotkin (Jul 28, 2005)

I've just seen your edit: yes, that was the section I was referring to. It also characterises criticisers of "lifestylism" as people who are removed from the "social subjects that they fetishise". 
a/ proof? Otherwise a smear
b/ this casts those who criticise lifestylists as fetishisers of what they percieve to be w/c attributes. Proof? Otherwise a smear.


----------



## Top Dog (Jul 28, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> sorry
> 
> The OP was criticising a section of anarchists who are neddlessly caustic towards another section. catch took up the mantle of defending an crtique of lifestylism, which turned out to be one you share.
> 
> Given that, it would seem that your definitions might be different- so could you clarify exactly what you mean by "Lifestylism"?


OK

First of all i should declare that im not really interested in a long discussion about a 'lifestylism', defined (very crudely) as: subtracting yourself from society, be it by living in a exclusive commune, consuming 'right on' products, essentially contenting yourself that, because you feel that you arent contributing to the problem, you are free (or relatively free); and all it takes is for everyone else to act like you and hey presto, the world changes. It is a topic that has been done to death in the last decade and broadly speaking most people on P&P would understand the critique... 

The main object of interest in the OP was broadly to ask: *what is it then, that constitutes revolutionary activity?* The context was that there has been much condemnation recently (eg. stirling*) of _any_ experiments with new ways of organising our social lives in the here and now. It gets written off as being a 'hippy' preoccupation... That i think demeans any social action that isnt perceived as being 'authentic' or 'mass'. That in turn would tend to suggest that some anarcho's see change as something that we must wait for (ie. be passive - a leftist malady), rather than something that we must stirve to eek out in our current lives (be active - in self activity). There are dangers in this as well of co-option or a return to ghettoisation (how could there not be, capitalism hasnt gone away?) but the critique doesnt even reach that level... it just gets discarded in a most reactionary and disturbing way...

It is also worrying that some anarchists have a problem with _difference_ - i mean who gives a fuck what people look like ffs!!! - its almost like they would prefer a kind of uniformed, blue-collar overall wearing proletariat over which to prosletyse... OK, an extreme caracature, i know, but do you see what im getting at?



			
				kropotkin said:
			
		

> It seems to me that the definiton you are using is so broad as to include loads of activity that no sensible person would have any qualms with.


well, i dont know about this... I have certainly encounteres some really reactionary shit irl from anarchists who dismiss anyone that doesnt fit their preconceived cultural, sociological notions of what working class (as a category) is... 

now i fear _im_ not making sense  

* but lets not use stirling as _the_ example here, because that event wasnt about organising social life in the real world, it was how to manage social life within the context of a political spectacle


----------



## Top Dog (Jul 28, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> I've just seen your edit: yes, that was the section I was referring to. It also characterises criticisers of "lifestylism" as people who are removed from the "social subjects that they fetishise".
> a/ proof? Otherwise a smear


well the proof is anecdotal isnt it? people you've met over the years, conversations you've had... it isnt 'provable' without naming names, which i dont think is appropriate on a public BB, but i can appreciate that this looks totally evasive    This doesnt mean that there arent people from _all_ social backgrounds that fetishise whatever their obsession is... its not the social background thats the problem. Simply that people DO fetishise sociological or cultural aspects of working class life that they're detached from, and that it is not necessary to 'intervene' into someone else's reality to be like 'one of them' - because it _is_ an intervention at the end of the day




			
				kropotkin said:
			
		

> b/ this casts those who criticise lifestylists as fetishisers of what they percieve to be w/c attributes. Proof? Otherwise a smear.


No thats not what i was saying. The one doesnt _automatically_ lead to the other... though it can!My point here was that fetishing (and living) the _idea_ of a working class culture is as lifestylist as any other identity self consciously adopted...


----------



## catch (Jul 28, 2005)

some stuff to respond to, but quickly on squatting.

All those points are fair regarding squatting, like I said I don't have any problem at all with the activity itself - either through choice or desperation, and it's had potential in the past and may do in the future to seriously challenge the housing question. 

A few people squatting a house may be doing so with the intention of dropping out. Or they may be doing it as a social response to a housing situation in an area, co-ordinating with other people to squat empty buildings in the area, making contacts with the wider community etc. etc. Again, there's nothing inherent in the activity itself, it's how it's done.

As to what is revolutionary activity, usually Kropotkin posts this if he hasn't already, but it's not a bad one:



> Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self -activity of the masses and whatever assists in their demystification. .


 As we see it


----------



## catch (Jul 28, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> AS far as sterotypical views of the working class... I can't remember anything crass that was used,



So working people don't ride on the 73 bus, eat rocket/balsamic vinegar etc.? It's more the crude stereotyping of the sociological middle class that I've noticed, leaving the working class with very little dietary choice or cultural activities left.


----------



## catch (Jul 28, 2005)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> No thats not what i was saying. The one doesnt _automatically_ lead to the other... though it can!My point here was that fetishing (and living) the _idea_ of a working class culture is as lifestylist as any other identity self consciously adopted...



Top Dog, do you think that's something I've done in posts on this thread/board? Are there other U75 posters that you think do that? If not, who's the criticism directed to?

I think the reactionary/dismissive nature of some posts, especially around the G8, is lazy arguing, not necessarily representative of the actual views of people.


----------



## Top Dog (Jul 28, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> As to what is revolutionary activity, usually Kropotkin posts this if he hasn't already, but it's not a bad one:
> 
> http://libcom.org/library/as-we-see-it-solidarity-group


i was waiting for the 'solidarity' definition to come up   Yes, of course, thats as good a definition as ive found as well.  But in the meaningful action bit in particluar, how how many times have you seen the first clause attempted irl? isnt it more often the case that the 'harmful activity' section is sadly realised?


----------



## Top Dog (Jul 28, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> Top Dog, do you think that's something I've done in posts on this thread/board? Are there other U75 posters that you think do that? If not, who's the criticism directed to?


easy tiger... im not directing the criticism at any particular posters... its more an attempt at getting some discussion going on what meaningful activity is, if you like - in a rather tame, devils advocate sort of way... so i make no apologies for generalisation here. 

But, as Attica's arrived on the scene, and to kick off the discussion... yeah i would put Class War in there as one of the 'perpetrators'   What say he?  

Moving towards a macro level, im looking at different political traditions... why is it would you say, that the italian workerist tradition has produced many critiques of the 'personal' in comparison to the anglophone anti-parliamentary tradition? Im thinking particularly of stuff from within the UK at the moment, rather than the US... Many of those legacies persist and continue to inform the approach of present day revolutionaries



			
				catch said:
			
		

> I think the reactionary/dismissive nature of some posts, especially around the G8, is lazy arguing, not necessarily representative of the actual views of people.


how is one to know that though? These are bulletin boards after all , not everyone knows eachother inside out. You can only take what is posted at face value... and this form of communication is difficult enough to convey irony or sarcasm as it is, without people adding to the difficulty by not bothering to say what they really mean...


----------



## catch (Jul 28, 2005)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> i was waiting for the 'solidarity' definition to come up   Yes, of course, thats as good a definition as ive found as well.  But in the meaningful action bit in particluar, how how many times have you seen the first clause attempted irl? isnt it more often the case that the 'harmful activity' section is sadly realised?



I think HI are genuinely trying to do the first bit. Although there's definitely a trap in the "doing things for them" that they/we're aware of and can be a risk when you're helping people sort stuff out.



> easy tiger... im not directing the criticism at any particular posters... its more an attempt at getting some discussion going on what meaningful activity is, if you like - in a rather tame, devils advocate sort of way... so i make no apologies for generalisation here.



Fair enough mate, I wasn't taking it personally, but thought it best to check!



> what say he?


I imagine it will involve E.P. Thompson? 


> Moving towards a macro level, im looking at different political traditions... why is it would you say, that the italian workerist tradition has produced many critiques of the 'personal' in comparison to the anglophone anti-parliamentary tradition? Im thinking particularly of stuff from within the UK at the moment, rather than the US... Many of those legacies persist and continue to inform the approach of present day revolutionaries



Well I'm only just beginning to check out the Italian workerist tradition at the moment, so can't answer that. I think when there's small numbers of conscious revolutionaries it's easy for individuals to retreat into the personal when the collective struggle seems like a lost cause, and that's certainly been the case in the UK for some time.

I'm only 24 so not quite at that stage yet.



> how is one to know that though? These are bulletin boards after all , not everyone knows eachother inside out. You can only take what is posted at face value... and this form of communication is difficult enough to convey irony or sarcasm as it is, without people adding to the difficulty by not bothering to say what they really mean...



Yeah, and the people I know who do that I tell off about it. That's why so many of my posts are really, really long and repeat points I've made elsewhere over and over again!


----------



## Top Dog (Jul 28, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> I imagine it will involve E.P. Thompson?


 There's the challenge then attica... lets have a post that doesnt feature the words 'Edward' or 'Thompson'   



			
				catch said:
			
		

> I think when there's small numbers of conscious revolutionaries it's easy for individuals to retreat into the personal when the collective struggle seems like a lost cause, and that's certainly been the case in the UK for some time.


 Except that i dont see these things as retreating! And certainly if we're talking about the italian tradition, these kinds of discussions were taking place throughout the period of class combativity of the late 60s/70s



			
				catch said:
			
		

> I'm only 24 so not quite at that stage yet.


 Tssh, young turk!   

 *<...doh, better watch my ass or i'll have RW accusing me of racism>*


----------



## catch (Jul 28, 2005)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> Except that i dont see these things as retreating! And certainly if we're talking about the italian tradition, these kinds of discussions were taking place throughout the period of class combativity of the late 60s/70s



We may be talking at cross purposes here. I think the stuff that we both agree is counter-productive activity is a sign of low class forces, and general isolation of revolutionaries - leading to activity which further reinforces that situation. It's also, to at least as great an extent, a sign of individuals/groups getting co-opted into Capital.

Arguing against it isn't a sign of low class forces, although it's necessary to offer alternatives that have a decent chance of being useful at the same time as pointing out what isn't.


----------



## Random (Jul 28, 2005)

The link isn't to the solidarity definition that has the 'meaningful activity' paragraphs.  It's to the longer 'as we see it' analytical statement.

Love

Random


----------



## Top Dog (Jul 28, 2005)

Random said:
			
		

> The link isn't to the solidarity definition that has the 'meaningful activity' paragraphs.  It's to the longer 'as we see it' analytical statement.
> 
> Love
> 
> Random


[high horse]oh but i'll think you'll find it is... article 7[/high horse]


----------



## Random (Jul 28, 2005)




----------



## catch (Jul 28, 2005)

Thought you'd gone for lazer eye treatment? Didn't it work? 
You're just preparing for when eyeglasses are banned by primmos after the revolution aintcha?


----------



## Random (Jul 28, 2005)

yes, the reference was actually to a primmo-vanguardist who went for eye treatement so as to be among the fittest after industrial collapse -- because the weakest will have to die off


----------



## haggy (Jul 28, 2005)

i came across this this afternoon and thought it was pertinent to the v interesting discussion on this site:

"... those whose identity is based on 'their opposition' to the world as it is, have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. To change the world it is necessary to abandon those character traits that aid survival in capitalist society."  (Stewart Home)

Home's referring to artists, specifically, but the point transfers easily to lifestyle anarchists (or pseudo-revolutionaries of all sorts, come to that).

the first point is fairly non-contentious, i think.

the second is more controversial:  i guess what it means - in the context of this debate - is that clowning, various forms of 'art terrorism', etc - are "character traits that aid survival in capitalist society".  moreover, these activities can and are co-opted very easily by mainstream consumer capitalism.  on the other hand, if you just get on with it cos you genuinely see the need to (ie, politcal activity is not something you do to stoke your ego or something you affect to provide yourself with an identity) then this is less easily co-opted.

the problem becomes one that TD has raised:  does this mean that imaginitive forms of political activity should be viewed with suspicion and only the tried and tested (and largely failed) 'mass' forms pursued?

i'd say no.  but you have to differentiate between activities that are barking or useless or self-serving and those that may engage people in different ways to the usual boring litany of meetings, demos, paper-selling, etc.  having said that, i still think there's something more constructive about a political public meeting than custard-pying a head of state, albeit the latter is far more entertaining, in a short-term, superficial kinda way.

another quote from Home:

"From health food to anarchism we are bombarded with a thousand and one alternative forms of misery: and while those who believe themselves to be 'different' and 'individual' cling desperately to their 'own' pseudo-brand of 'authenticity', there are others who recognise the social nature of (wo)mankind, the necessity of communist revolution and of a radical break with bourgeois values."


----------



## cats hammers (Jul 28, 2005)

Random said:
			
		

> yes, the reference was actually to a primmo-vanguardist who went for eye treatement so as to be among the fittest after industrial collapse -- because the weakest will have to die off



Are you sure that isn't a story one of us lot made up?

PLEASE let it not be....


----------



## Random (Jul 28, 2005)

jackwupton said:
			
		

> Are you sure that isn't a story one of us lot made up?
> PLEASE let it not be....



True...All too true  

Haggy -- Home and his friends don't really elaborate on what it means to "recognise the social nature of (wo)mankind, the necessity of communist revolution and of a radical break with bourgeois values," do they?  From what I know of Home's art-world posturing, it seem to me that he has also found his own 'brand of authenticity' that he clings to.


----------



## kropotkin (Jul 28, 2005)

Really? True- in real life-true?

please


----------



## Random (Jul 28, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Really? True- in real life-true?  please



Really true.  If you're lucky I'll introduce you and you can see if you can make them come out with it. 

Edit: now I feel like I've betrayed my people


----------



## haggy (Jul 28, 2005)

Random said:
			
		

> True...All too true
> 
> Haggy -- Home and his friends don't really elaborate on what it means to "recognise the social nature of (wo)mankind, the necessity of communist revolution and of a radical break with bourgeois values," do they?  From what I know of Home's art-world posturing, it seem to me that he has also found his own 'brand of authenticity' that he clings to.



you're right, they don't.  i like the quotes but realise that the content is compromised by the author - a wind-up merchant of the first order. in any case i guess there are as many interpretations of 'the social nature of (wo)mankind' and 'communist revolution' as there are revolutionaries...


----------



## Top Dog (Jul 28, 2005)

Random said:
			
		

> True...All too true
> 
> Haggy -- Home and his friends don't really elaborate on what it means to "recognise the social nature of (wo)mankind, the necessity of communist revolution and of a radical break with bourgeois values," do they?  From what I know of Home's art-world posturing, it seem to me that he has also found his own 'brand of authenticity' that he clings to.


indeed. there's nothing quoted here by Home except a rehashed (post)-situ critique of the militant... which is all well and good (i like the situ critique of the militant    ) but thats also in need of an overhaul

But I'll think about the points you make in the light of this and get back to you


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jul 29, 2005)

Topdog

in a former life I used to run the odd thread about how people of a certain cultural background not of their choosing (ie middle class) seemed disqualified from having anything much to say regarding radical politics.

To be a little placatery I think activists ought to be busy being activists instead of worrying too much what people think of their "lifestyles".

People of all political strands can come from all sort of backgrounds, though I daresay there are some occupations that wouldnt sit easy with anarchists, leftists or greens.


----------



## Top Dog (Jul 29, 2005)

taffboy gwyrdd said:
			
		

> Topdog
> 
> in a former life I used to run the odd thread about how people of a certain cultural background not of their choosing (ie middle class) seemed disqualified from having anything much to say regarding radical politics.
> 
> To be a little placatery I think activists ought to be busy being activists instead of worrying too much what people think of their "lifestyles".


i dont agree with either of these points, sorry taff


----------



## montevideo (Jul 29, 2005)

> Meaningful action, for revolutionaries, is whatever increases the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self -activity of the masses and whatever assists in their demystification.



but this doesn't really resolve anything, it just shifts the focus. How is it decided how confidence/etc of the masses has been increased & who decides this? Indeed who decides at what point action isn't going to increase the confidence/etc of the masses? Who decides, for example, how people choose to organise during the g8 is either meaningful or not & by what criteria do they judge its meaningfulness (in relation to increase in confidence/etc of the masses)?

The other example of hackney independent, who decides lobbying the council, or indeed asking the council to do something, as an increase in the confidence/etc of the masses?  Are there certain objective criteria that has to be in place before success can be determined? Again how is the criteria determined, by whom, & how is success gauged? 

The problem i have with some is not their activity as such (indeed the problem i have with some is their complete absense of activity as such) but their insistence on having the 'right' method & spending a disproportionate amount of time & energy telling others they have the 'wrong' method (whether it be in the way they do their hair, or the way in which they engage with the state giving a 'bad' media impression to the politics they consider theirs).

I'd much rather the af, for example, organise a solidarity demonstration for a 15 year old colombian anarchist as an expression of their anarchist activity than some 10,000 word essay piece about what anarchist activity constitutes.


----------



## catch (Jul 29, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> but this doesn't really resolve anything, it just shifts the focus. How is it decided how confidence/etc of the masses has been increased & who decides this? Indeed who decides at what point action isn't going to increase the confidence/etc of the masses? Who decides, for example, how people choose to organise during the g8 is either meaningful or not & by what criteria do they judge its meaningfulness (in relation to increase in confidence/etc of the masses)?



Solidarity produced quite a lot more literature than just that (half) paragraph, and I'd imagine you'll find some answers to those questions if you checked some of it out. They printed Mett's history of Kronstadt, stuff about May '68, the Ceylon uprising, Portugal '72 etc. etc. - haven't read all of it, but valuable lessons to be learned from all those experiences. Would you prefer they only organised demonstrations and refrained from the written word?

For me, the evaluation of what makes effective activity should be based on an honest appraisal of the effectiveness of specific activities that I and others participate in, or that occurred in the past, and through discussion of those activities with other revolutionaries. You seem to have a problem with this process occurring. If people think their activities are unfairly criticised, then they have every right to argue back - that's the point of debate. It's not as if I'm stopping anyone from doing any of these things.



> The other example of hackney independent, who decides lobbying the council, or indeed asking the council to do something, as an increase in the confidence/etc of the masses?



Yes, HI does engage in lobbying to an extent - anything intended to change policy rather than structure is lobbying, including most protests. You don't appear to have noticed me pointing out the dangers of this in my post above - these difficulties aren't ignored by HI, and they're discussed openly.



> Are there certain objective criteria that has to be in place before success can be determined? Again how is the criteria determined, by whom, & how is success gauged?



That's a lot of questions you've got there. I think there ought to be an objective - for me it's a self-managing society based on free association with production according to need - however that's not some final stage to be achieved, it's the process leading towards it that's important. There's an element of subjectivity when it comes to political activity, but the only way to get any kind of idea what to do is to have honest discussions like this about what and what isn't effective. Your posts on this subject seem to have no other purpose than to shut down discussion. I take it you disagree with the SWP on a number of points, or should we support any and all revolutionary activity even if we think it's harmful/counter-productive/waste of time etc. etc.?



> I'd much rather the af, for example, organise a solidarity demonstration for a 15 year old colombian anarchist as an expression of their anarchist activity than some 10,000 word essay piece about what anarchist activity constitutes.



So you're able to express an opinion on what kind of activity you think is important, and what isn't, that's a start anyway. I'm not aware of any collective 10000 word essays about anarchist activity by the AF - quite a lot of analysis and historical information by them though, or is that all a waste of time? Would you prefer we just kept banging our heads against a brick wall repeating mistakes that have been made generation after generation as we have to learn everything from scratch with no documentation left from earlier revolutions and revolutionaries?


----------



## Top Dog (Jul 29, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> but this doesn't really resolve anything, it just shifts the focus. How is it decided how confidence/etc of the masses has been increased & who decides this? Indeed who decides at what point action isn't going to increase the confidence/etc of the masses?


but can you improve on this without producing something that is entirely prescriptive? Such statements by their nature have to be left open for interpretation because its not setting out a political _programme_, merely tracing out some the considerations that might inform better political action. 






			
				montevideo said:
			
		

> The problem i have with some is not their activity as such (indeed the problem i have with some is their complete absense of activity as such) but their insistence on having the 'right' method & spending a disproportionate amount of time & energy telling others they have the 'wrong' method [...]
> I'd much rather the af, for example, organise a solidarity demonstration for a 15 year old colombian anarchist as an expression of their anarchist activity than some 10,000 word essay piece about what anarchist activity constitutes.


its always a choice between one thing or the other with you isnt it?   As you'll know ive made one or two critiques of the things the wombles have been involved in in the past myself, hoping it would lead to some consideration and response, and an opening up of discussion. Even if the response was to rebuke something said and to demolish the argument. Instead, nothing was forthcoming, and i detected at the time (i may be wrong here) just defensiveness and possibly hostility because people in your group felt agrieved... thats not a way to approach politics. Discussion IS important if we are all serious about being more effective (within our limitations and however 'effective' gets defined). 

_Its a process:_ action > evaluation > improvement > more effective action > evaluation > improvement


----------



## JoeBlack (Jul 29, 2005)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> _Its a process:_ action > evaluation > improvement > more effective action > evaluation > improvement



This is true but it is true within the group that are involved in the action.  External critiques are always going to be seen as at least somewhat hostile Which isn't to say that they shouldn't be made or that they automatically contain nothing of value but does suggest they need to be made in a much smarter fashion.

The distinct impression I have is that in the last 6 months there were two major strands in British anarchism

1. Those involved in the G8 protests who were involved in a 'action > evaluation > improvement > more effective action > evaluation > improvement' process (if almost certainly not a perfect one)

2. Those who's only apparent* major activity was to 'critique' those involved in that process. Maybe critique > critique > critique > critique > critique > critique

That particular set up is almost bound to lead to serious problems as it appears that group 2. view themselves as the (external) leadership for group 1.  In this case AKA the 'real' anarchists.

The other notable thing about this apparent relationship is how it parallels trotskyism.  Various small groups with 'serious politics' constantly circle whoever is the biggest (which simply means recruiting off the street the fastest) seeking to expose the fact that the politics of that group are bankrupt, centerist and going nowhere.

As it happens I think there was a value in the G8 protests.  But even if I didn't I wouldn't have approached the issue in the way many of those opposed to the protests did.  I'd have made a detailed critique of the summit protest process at the start but then left that to one side and looked at providing a positive counter example in both words and deeds that those being drawn into the process could have been made aware of.  And far from the sort of snippy undermining posts we've seen I'd have looked at ways to express solidarity with those who were putting the effort in - principally by being willing to do a little bit where this might have been important (eg postering/leafletting against the media scare frenzy right beforehand, arranging or helping to arrange a send off for those going, preparing a response in the events of arrests/repression).  Apart from being the right thing to do in itself this would almost certainly mean those going would have been much more willing to listen to and consider a critique of the process.

* I say apoarent because that is my impression from Dublin - it could well be that a lot of other stuff was being done in that period that I simply wasn't aware of.  But if this applies to me it probably also applies to many people in Britian and suggest a need for much better communication about what is being done.


----------



## montevideo (Jul 29, 2005)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> but can you improve on this without producing something that is entirely prescriptive? Such statements by their nature have to be left open for interpretation because its not setting out a political _programme_, merely tracing out some the considerations that might inform better political action. its always a choice between one thing or the other with you isnt it?   As you'll know ive made one or two critiques of the things the wombles have been involved in in the past myself, hoping it would lead to some consideration and response, and an opening up of discussion. Even if the response was to rebuke something said and to demolish the argument. Instead, nothing was forthcoming, and i detected at the time (i may be wrong here) just defensiveness and possibly hostility because people in your group felt agrieved... thats not a way to approach politics. Discussion IS important if we are all serious about being more effective (within our limitations and however 'effective' gets defined).



okay give me a reminder of these one or two things & i'll have another at responding. 




			
				Top Dog said:
			
		

> _Its a process:_ action > evaluation > improvement > more effective action > evaluation > improvement



couldn't agree more.


----------



## Top Dog (Jul 29, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> okay give me a reminder of these one or two things & i'll have another at responding.


for another thread / time... lets not derail this one


----------



## montevideo (Jul 29, 2005)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> for another thread / time... lets not derail this one



fair enough. But joeblack above has in a way answered the problems & reasons for defensiveness & hostlity. Astute observation i'd say.


----------



## Top Dog (Jul 29, 2005)

JoeBlack said:
			
		

> * I say apoarent because that is my impression from Dublin - it could well be that a lot of other stuff was being done in that period that I simply wasn't aware of.  But if this applies to me it probably also applies to many people in Britian and suggest a need for much better communication about what is being done.


id agree with alot of this Joe, but i think the divisions between the two are more blurred. There has been lots of criticism - but  much of it from people that _were_ playing a full part within the organising for the event as well. Imo its not principaly a division between _those that do _ and _those that do nothing _ but criticise. Thats too crude. 

There's those that do nothing, for sure; there's those that do _and critique _; and then there's those that just _do_ and have a great deal of hostility to anyone that offers critique because critique isnt _doing_, its wasting time, its boring, not practical etc.

And _that_ is very unhealthy


----------



## Random (Jul 29, 2005)

Good post Joe    Sums up a lot of what I was trying to explain to Chatch and jack about why their anti-G8 critique wasn't worth reading by G8 protest participants.


----------



## JoeBlack (Jul 29, 2005)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> id agree with alot of this Joe, but i think the divisions between the two are more blurred. There has been lots of criticism - but  much of it from people that _were_ playing a full part within the organising for the event as well.



Yes so they are part of group 1 - those criticising from within.  From following stuff it appears such people have not being getting a hostile reaction in general (there may be exceptions)

It's a problem I've noticed for quite some time with regard to the movement over there - indeed at times it appears that the only thing that holds group A together is the existance of group B to define themselves against - not a lot else appears to be going on.


----------



## cats hammers (Jul 29, 2005)

JoeBlack said:
			
		

> 2. Those who's only apparent* major activity was to 'critique' those involved in that process. Maybe critique > critique > critique > critique > critique > critique



Surely a part of this is that what we're doing is far less 'spectacular', and less (to be blunt) exciting than a big protest against the 8 leaders of the world.  For example, with WSM, I'd guess you've done at least as much on the bin-tax stuff in Dublin.  But most people have fuck all clue about this.  Same with a lot of the stuff 'our lot' have been doing.  Who outside local areas is really that interested in saving a local bus station, helping to make a local park available for kids, putting on a kids cinema, opposing the closure of an NHS walk-in centre, opposing a council housing stock transfer?  So yea, if we're doing these sorts of things, of course it's going to be less obvious to someone in Dublin than people who are nationally organising a big protest against the G8, isn't it?

And in terms of better communication, I really don't get where you're coming from?  In the areas it's important (ie, the areas our work affects and has relevance to) we get our stuff out - why do we need to be doing so beyond this?

(Trying to stay reasoned here, given we've answered this one countless times and repeatedly given examples of what we do in the past... )



> That particular set up is almost bound to lead to serious problems as it appears that group 2. view themselves as the (external) leadership for group 1.  In this case AKA the 'real' anarchists.
> 
> The other notable thing about this apparent relationship is how it parallels trotskyism.  Various small groups with 'serious politics' constantly circle whoever is the biggest (which simply means recruiting off the street the fastest) seeking to expose the fact that the politics of that group are bankrupt, centerist and going nowhere.



Genuine question - how exactly does this square with the fact that earlier criticisms you've made of us have attacked us for not particularly caring about working with other 'revolutionaries'?

and I have absolutly no clue where you get this 'trying to set ourselves up as a leadership' from.  If anything, a lot of us try and set ourselves apart from other anarchists.  I'm not particularly bothered about 'leading' a bunch of anarchists into community organising - but if we get attacked and denounced for 'doing nothing' because we aren't building towards the G8, then of course we're going to defend ourselves, and argue why we don't think it's the best use of time.


----------



## montevideo (Jul 29, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> Solidarity produced quite a lot more literature than just that (half) paragraph, and I'd imagine you'll find some answers to those questions if you checked some of it out. They printed Mett's history of Kronstadt, stuff about May '68, the Ceylon uprising, Portugal '72 etc. etc. - haven't read all of it, but valuable lessons to be learned from all those experiences. Would you prefer they only organised demonstrations and refrained from the written word?
> 
> For me, the evaluation of what makes effective activity should be based on an honest appraisal of the effectiveness of specific activities that I and others participate in, or that occurred in the past, and through discussion of those activities with other revolutionaries. You seem to have a problem with this process occurring. If people think their activities are unfairly criticised, then they have every right to argue back - that's the point of debate. It's not as if I'm stopping anyone from doing any of these things.
> 
> ...




but i'm not asking solidarity, i'm asking you, now. Of course they're not necessarily questions that could or should be answered but simply things to be considered. 

The hackney indpendent example is an interesting one for a number of reasons (not least you gave that particular group, & not the anarhist federation, as engaging in 'meaningful action'). Your criticism of 'lifestyle' anarchists is based on their action not being meaningful (ie not increasing the confidence/etc of the masses) & give the example of hackney independent as being, or at least attempting to do 'meaningful action'. Yet how does what hackney indpendent do increase the confidence/etc of the masses? This is a genuine question that you may like to consider. Why is their method of asking the council to do things increasing the self-activity or for that matter the autonomy of the masses? 

This would be my suggestion: you occpy haggerston pool, use that as your base to progress your campaign, invite clissold leisure centre campaign to use the facilities, depending on what the building space is like, do it up, use it for the youth club that you are campaigning for, you can borrow our kitchen, & our sound-system, put on events, serve food, maybe open a cafe space, the kids cinema naturally could happen there, you could serve hot food, ask for donations, use the building to have fundraisers, we've got some computers you could set up internet access, invite local residents to get involved in how the space is run, indeed, the space wouldn't be able to be run without the participation of the local residents, & from that base you approach hackney council in whatever way you see appropriate (about haggerston pool, about the youth club, about clissold leisure centre), whatever the outcome of that lobbying is almost immaterial if your desire is to increase the self-activity, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the confidence of the masses (in hackney area anyway). [I've no idea what the fuck the 'demystification of the masses' means so i'll leave that one].

If i was a hackney anarchist this is precisely what i'd be attempting to do.


----------



## catch (Jul 29, 2005)

JoeBlack said:
			
		

> This is true but it is true within the group that are involved in the action.  External critiques are always going to be seen as at least somewhat hostile Which isn't to say that they shouldn't be made or that they automatically contain nothing of value but does suggest they need to be made in a much smarter fashion.
> 
> The distinct impression I have is that in the last 6 months there were two major strands in British anarchism
> 
> ...



My only major activity in direct relation to the G8 protests was critiqueing, hands up for that one. However, I'm involved in other activity that you're well aware of, as is Jack, as are others who you appear to place in group 2. This other, positive, alternative activity been discussed at some length on this thread, which I assume you haven't read all the way through, especially since barely any of the thread has mentioned the G8 and most of it has been very constructive discussion, with very little sniping.

There's also a very large number of questions left unanswered on this thread, which you started yourself: http://www.libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5704

Especially the prospect of people who disagree with summit protests turning up only to leech off potential recruits, which was in effect what you suggested we do. I'm still waiting for clarification on that one.




> The other notable thing about this apparent relationship is how it parallels trotskyism.  Various small groups with 'serious politics' constantly circle whoever is the biggest (which simply means recruiting off the street the fastest) seeking to expose the fact that the politics of that group are bankrupt, centerist and going nowhere.



That's funny, because I hadn't noticed all that many "groups" involved in the G8 protests. Dissent was a network, not a group with distinct politics. Members of the AF took part (mainly as individuals though, the AF itself didn't participate as a block), and I'm a member of that group, does that mean I'm within the group or outside? A couple of people involved in HI went up as well, not as members of the group though. That's because we aren't Trotskyists. A fair few members of libcom based their criticisms of the protests on their involvement with summit protests beforehand, is past experience not allowable? Should I join the SWP and go on some paper sales so I can criticise from inside the group instead of "sniping from the sidelines"?




> As it happens I think there was a value in the G8 protests.  But even if I didn't I wouldn't have approached the issue in the way many of those opposed to the protests did.  I'd have made a detailed critique of the summit protest process at the start but then left that to one side and looked at providing a positive counter example in both words and deeds that those being drawn into the process could have been made aware of.


Positive counter example - you mean stuff like the Community Action gathering then? Or day-to-day stuff that builds solidarity and maintains a long term presence in an area without being all that visible or flashy.


> * I say apoarent because that is my impression from Dublin - it could well be that a lot of other stuff was being done in that period that I simply wasn't aware of.  But if this applies to me it probably also applies to many people in Britian and suggest a need for much better communication about what is being done.



You mean the communication you've been directed to on several occasions over the past few weeks but choose to ignore for the sake of polemic?


----------



## JoeBlack (Jul 29, 2005)

jackwupton said:
			
		

> Surely a part of this is that what we're doing is far less 'spectacular', and less (to be blunt) exciting than a big protest against the 8 leaders of the world.  For example, with WSM, I'd guess you've done at least as much on the bin-tax stuff in Dublin.  But most people have fuck all clue about this.



Well only because that is mostly in the past from a couple of years back.  If in 2003 you were reading our press, on our mailing list or reading our web site you'd have found a huge volume of bin tax stuff right down to reports from individual blockades.  It's all archived at http://struggle.ws/wsm/bins.html but you'll also get an idea of that from our (now redundant) news archive at http://struggle.ws/wsm/news.html

We only report a fairly small percentage of what we do but these reports do include a pretty representative sample of our work - and the purpose (in part) is so that those who are interested in the exciting stuff are exposed to the detail of the more routine local stuff as well.




			
				jackwupton said:
			
		

> Who outside local areas is really that interested in saving a local bus station, helping to make a local park available for kids, putting on a kids cinema, opposing the closure of an NHS walk-in centre, opposing a council housing stock transfer?



Actually I'd be vey interested to hear details of all these things precisly because its the sort of thing I might learn something from.  The web is awash with anarchist summit protest stuff - decent reports on that sort of activity are few and far between. (Even Monte would probably be interested). I do occasionally look at the CAG bit of libcom for precisely this reason although there is nor much you can glean from your minutes.




			
				jackwupton said:
			
		

> And in terms of better communication, I really don't get where you're coming from?  In the areas it's important (ie, the areas our work affects and has relevance to) we get our stuff out - why do we need to be doing so beyond this?



The fact that you have posted this clarification sort of means you already know the answer to this - if the non locals you are arguing with online are not aware of what you do then they may (with justification) assume you don't do much.  The purpose of posting such reports is not to drum up support but to provide examples for others.




			
				jackwupton said:
			
		

> (Trying to stay reasoned here, given we've answered this one countless times and repeatedly given examples of what we do in the past... )



Only in the form of this sort of list - you don't really have the sort of thing online that would enable me to judge whether these are issues you talk about a lot and do something badly once or whether they are ongoing activity.  I'm quite used to groups that talk a lot about activity that turns out to be quite phantom in reality.  I'm not saying this is the case - just that a list of we do x, y, z is no more than a claim without substantiating detail.




			
				jackwupton said:
			
		

> Genuine question - how exactly does this square with the fact that earlier criticisms you've made of us have attacked us for not particularly caring about working with other 'revolutionaries'?



I'm not sure what you mean here but I think I'm actually making the same sort of criticism here rather than something that contradicts this.




			
				jackwupton said:
			
		

> and I have absolutly no clue where you get this 'trying to set ourselves up as a leadership' from.  If anything, a lot of us try and set ourselves apart from other anarchists.



This is not at all contradictory.  I'm sure the Sparts for instance would say they are not at all interested in recruiting all 3,000 members of the SWP tomorrow but only interested in the tiny percentage that are worthwhile.  Likewise they certainly set themselves apart from other trots - as above the 'we are not like group b' behaviour all too often becomes a reason for existance.

My observation is based on how it appears.  I note a lot of energy going into critiquing something your not involved in - in fact a real obsession with doing so.  I presume you are rational so I presume there is a rational reason for doing so.  The obvious rational reason is that you hope your critique will have an influence on those reading it.  Having an influence on people is what leadership is (at least in the sense we use it 'leadership of ideas').  Also as you must be aware there are no shortage of trot groups who are quite open about doing something very similar as their main strategy.


----------



## Random (Jul 29, 2005)

JoeBlack said:
			
		

> My observation is based on how it appears.  I note a lot of energy going into critiquing something your not involved in - in fact a real obsession with doing so.



People independently keep on commenting on this, Jack.


----------



## JoeBlack (Jul 29, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> There's also a very large number of questions left unanswered on this thread, which you started yourself: http://www.libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5704



I don't see any unanswered questions there - just the same old questions being repeated rather than dealing with the answers you have been given.  




			
				catch said:
			
		

> Especially the prospect of people who disagree with summit protests turning up only to leech off potential recruits, which was in effect what you suggested we do. I'm still waiting for clarification on that one.



This in particular I must have addressed a thousand times.  

Your method (and the reason I'm not so interested in posting on libcom any more) is that of the SWP.  X said blah.  Y says something that sounds like blah.  Therefore x=y.  Repeat as needed and if you can get a few of your mates to repeat it as well.  The victim normally gets fed up trying to explain that no thats not what they mean before long - in particular when the only response they get is X said blah.  Y says something that sounds like blah.  Therefore x=y

I gave up going to marxism because if got fed up with that 'debate winning' method.

Or in short that wasn't what I suggested - and I'm really unimpressed that your response to this being explained on more than one occasion is simply to repeat it again.




			
				catch said:
			
		

> That's funny, because I hadn't noticed all that many "groups" involved in the G8 protests.



I should have been clearer - a group can be a formal or an informal thing. I'm not restricting the meaning to the national organisations.




			
				catch said:
			
		

> A couple of people involved in HI went up as well, not as members of the group though. That's because we aren't Trotskyists.



Once again the old X said blah.  Y says blah.  So x=y

Coupled with the incredible claim that only trotskyists are capable of collective agreement and action! 




			
				catch said:
			
		

> Positive counter example - you mean stuff like the Community Action gathering then?



A once off event - worthwhile but not a counter example in itself.




			
				catch said:
			
		

> Or day-to-day stuff that builds solidarity and maintains a long term presence in an area without being all that visible or flashy.



Sounds nice but not very specific (see my reply to Jack).




			
				catch said:
			
		

> You mean the communication you've been directed to on several occasions over the past few weeks but choose to ignore for the sake of polemic?



Huh? (As in I've no idea what your talking about)


----------



## cats hammers (Jul 29, 2005)

JoeBlack said:
			
		

> This is not at all contradictory.  I'm sure the Sparts for instance would say they are not at all interested in recruiting all 3,000 members of the SWP tomorrow but only interested in the tiny percentage that are worthwhile.  Likewise they certainly set themselves apart from other trots - as above the 'we are not like group b' behaviour all too often becomes a reason for existance.



Your whole argument is based on the assumption that we want to 'recruit' other activists to our way of thinking.  It's not.  We want to do stuff on a local level that builds working class self-confidence, organisation and that put simply 'makes a difference' in our local areas.

Our effort in terms of publicising what we do goes locally.  We only have so much time and people with which to do stuff, and telling other activists what we're doing is pretty low down on our list.

I'd say our reason for existance was to do stuff on a local level.  I certainly never considered arguing about G8 protests or whatever as part of 'CSG activity' (altho i can't really speak on behalf of CSG anymore, since I moved away), and I very much doubt anyone else in the group does, either.



> My observation is based on how it appears.  I note a lot of energy going into critiquing something your not involved in - in fact a real obsession with doing so.



Except that's totally untrue.  I put fuck all effort into critiquing G8 protests.  Where on Earth did you get that impression from, seriously?  It's not like I'm constantly starting threads on how balls the G8 is, really.  If anyone has the obsession, I'd venture it was you: an obsession with us NOT doing G8 protest.  Afterall, this thread was hardly even about G8 before you joined in. 

If I have any strategy behind it, it's that I'd rather not see 350 people arrested, £200,000+ wasted and people who'd otherwise be likely to be spending time doing other 'progressive causes' spend 18 months concentrating on something I personally believe is largely a waste of time.


----------



## JoeBlack (Jul 29, 2005)

jackwupton said:
			
		

> Our effort in terms of publicising what we do goes locally.  We only have so much time and people with which to do stuff, and telling other activists what we're doing is pretty low down on our list.



I should really give you a lecture here about the impossability of socialism in one city shouldn't I?

Leaving that aside an other reason is the one under discussion here - so that people like me don't get the impression you spend all your time on the net having a go at other anarchists while doing nothing yourself.

I'll even throw in a free local reason - local people also have internet access and having an archive of that sort of material online allows them to check you out and find out if your serious from your record.

And a second one - yesterday we found out about a wildcat action by Polish workers in Dublin because of an email sent to an eastern European list and forwarded to us by someone in Italy advertising the event.  This allowed some of our members to get along and contact people we may otherwise not have come across - details at http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1051 

Now OK Dublin if bigger than Colchestar but even so you probably don't have a regular publication you circulate to every inhabitant so the web might be a way locals can find out that you exist and are doing something worthwhile.




			
				jackwupton said:
			
		

> I put fuck all effort into critiquing G8 protests.  Where on Earth did you get that impression from, seriously?



Err from your posts on here and on libcom.  

It's all I have to go on remember.  I've just done a 'find all posts' on you to check this and if you do the same you'll find you post rather a lot on G8 threads including on threads that I never even posted on.  You've probably spent more time posting on the G8 in the last months then on any other topic.


----------



## gurrier (Jul 29, 2005)

jackwupton said:
			
		

> Your whole argument is based on the assumption that we want to 'recruit' other activists to our way of thinking.  It's not.  We want to do stuff on a local level that builds working class self-confidence, organisation and that put simply 'makes a difference' in our local areas.



Building working class self confidence => turning people into activists => recruiting people to your way of thinking => writing them off as wanky activists. 

Is the whole purpose of the exercise to increase the pool of people that you can critique?  

(very tongue in cheek, but I just don't understand why you think there is a difference between convincing 'activists' of your ideas and convincing non-activists of them.  Or have you convinced yourself that you're not trying to convince people of anything?  Not very convincing.)


----------



## cats hammers (Jul 29, 2005)

JoeBlack said:
			
		

> I should really give you a lecture here about the impossability of socialism in one city shouldn't I?



Don't be ridiculous.  I'm hardly under the impression that organisng against the closure of a local bus station is going to bring socialism.  It's a matter of organising where we can have some effect.



> Leaving that aside an other reason is the one under discussion here - so that people like me don't get the impression you spend all your time on the net having a go at other anarchists while doing nothing yourself.



Well given I've already said I'm not particularly interested in convincing other activists (I'll leave that to someone less abusive...!), that kinda invalidates that argument.



> I'll even throw in a free local reason - local people also have internet access and having an archive of that sort of material online allows them to check you out and find out if your serious from your record.



I'm sure we will at one point.  However, at the mo' we're wanting to do a physical newsletter as a first priority.  That'll probably go online as well, tho.  Tbh tho, I'm more worried about the action we do.  We're a small group, with only 10 or so activists (at a push), so there are limits as to what we do.  In practise, if we spent more time publicising our shit, it'd be less time "doing somethin'".  Altho I do kinda accept this criticism, we are pretty weak on publicising our stuff, but mainly 'cause it's just not a priority for us.



> Err from your posts on here and on libcom.
> 
> It's all I have to go on remember.  I've just done a 'find all posts' on you to check this and if you do the same you'll find you post rather a lot on G8 threads including on threads that I never even posted on.  You've probably spent more time posting on the G8 in the last months then on any other topic.



Can you find a SINGLE thread started by me on G8?

Anywhere.

Nope.  You can't (I just checked), none exist.

If G8 is what's being discussed, and myself, my comrades or people I have similar politics to are being attacked for not doing stuff on it tho, of course I'm going to respond.

It'd be like if I started posting loads all over that WSM supported the IRA, so you refuted this, and I then claimed this meant WSM are 'obsessed with the IRA'.

And anyway, checking on libcom (where I mostly post) from looking through my posts, there's actually a very low incidence of posts on G8, and a good number of those are direct responces to people attacking those who aren't into G8 protest.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 29, 2005)

JoeBlack said:
			
		

> Coupled with the incredible claim that only trotskyists are capable of collective agreement and action!



Well at least catch is right about that much.


----------



## JoeBlack (Jul 29, 2005)

jackwupton said:
			
		

> I'm sure we will at one point.  However, at the mo' we're wanting to do a physical newsletter as a first priority.  That'll probably go online as well, tho.  Tbh tho, I'm more worried about the action we do.  We're a small group, with only 10 or so activists (at a push), so there are limits as to what we do.  In practise, if we spent more time publicising our shit, it'd be less time "doing somethin'".



Well a minor suggestion - in the last couple of days in between the posts on this discussion I've been helping to put up these articles

TESCO exploiting Polish workers in Ireland
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1045

Polish Workers in Ireland refuse to break their back for their boss
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1051

Audio - Interview with Polish workers who took wildcat action in Tescos Dublin
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=1055

This hasn't taken any time at all from me doing local stuff because its time I would have otherwise used posting here.  That is pretty much how all of our material is online - the bulk of the work is done by members who are trapped at a desk in front of a computer for a certain bit of their lives anyway and might as well do something useful while they are there.  And 10 is quite a reasonable sized group.

The point of the socialism in one city thing is that there is fuck all long term use in only building something on a local basis.  There may be no local advantage to putting stuff online (although I think there is) but if it encourages others to copy or just learn from what you have done it is almost certainly worthwhile for this along 'come the revolution'.


----------



## cats hammers (Jul 29, 2005)

I'm busy doing the libcom library, instead!

Libertarian Communist Library

And I'm not CSG anymore, and none of the others spend so long on the 'net as I do.

I disagree about your 'socialism in one city' comment.

For a start, I think the work we do has value in itself.  I don't to have no fucking bus station or for the NHS walk-in centre to be moved out of town.  Doing work on these campaigns has value in of themselves.  There being a Bus Station in Colchester (in this example) for the next 4 is 'long term use' as far as I'm concerned.

and if this campaign has the effect of making others locally realise that if they organise against the shit the council tries to drop on them they can make a difference, why is that not valuable, but putting stuff on the internet for other activists, is?


----------



## kropotkin (Jul 29, 2005)

me too on the library front.
coming along nicely I reckon.


----------



## knopf (Jul 29, 2005)

http://libcom.org/library/philosophy-right-hegel

 

Errr.......... why?


----------



## JoeBlack (Jul 29, 2005)

jackwupton said:
			
		

> For a start, I think the work we do has value in itself.  I don't to have no fucking bus station or for the NHS walk-in centre to be moved out of town.  Doing work on these campaigns has value in of themselves.  There being a Bus Station in Colchester (in this example) for the next 4 is 'long term use' as far as I'm concerned.



By long term I was sort of building in the assumption about self-confidence etc and one thing leading to another and the great Colchester uprising of 2020 that was tragically crushed as the rest of the worlds workers stared in amazement.  But also public transport and health is not simply decided by the local council - or if it is and you do have an impact then national government takes this power away.  (Hey Nigel tell them about Liverpool)

And given all the stuff about not being ideological etc I kinda like the way you've prioritised ideology over local stuff when your online.  The internet as a Jackyll and Hyde potion I guess.


----------



## Top Dog (Jul 29, 2005)

JoeBlack said:
			
		

> By long term I was sort of building in the assumption about self-confidence etc and one thing leading to another and the great Colchester uprising of 2020 that was tragically crushed as the rest of the worlds workers stared in amazement.  But also public transport and health is not simply decided by the local council - or if it is and you do have an impact then national government takes this power away.  (Hey Nigel tell them about Liverpool)
> 
> And given all the stuff about not being ideological etc I kinda like the way you've prioritised ideology over local stuff when your online.  The internet as a Jackyll and Hyde potion I guess.


any chance the two of you might continue this really interesting diversion by PM?


----------



## kropotkin (Jul 29, 2005)

.


----------



## JoeBlack (Jul 29, 2005)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> any chance the two of you might continue this really interesting diversion by PM?



Woops sorry for stealing your thread - here's it back


----------



## catch (Jul 29, 2005)

sorry topdog!


----------



## catch (Jul 29, 2005)

knopf said:
			
		

> http://libcom.org/library/philosophy-right-hegel
> 
> 
> 
> Errr.......... why?



because we were handed the entire endpage.com archive about a week before the site was taken down, and therefore have a responsibility to make the material available. And it's quicker to put it all up than have long discussions about what we do and don't want to include. That took about 2 minutes to get onto the library, it would have taken longer to organise a vote, and there's about 2000 articles, so why not?


----------



## catch (Jul 29, 2005)

JoeBlack said:
			
		

> Woops sorry for stealing your thread - here's it back



arrggh. too late.

I'll delete my post, and put it on the libcom thread.

I'm also going to start a new thread on libcom about localism/workerism theoretical propaganda and what's in the middle. edit: here http://www.libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=64053#64053


----------



## cats hammers (Jul 29, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> because we were handed the entire endpage.com archive about a week before the site was taken down, and therefore have a responsibility to make the material available. And it's quicker to put it all up than have long discussions about what we do and don't want to include. That took about 2 minutes to get onto the library, it would have taken longer to organise a vote, and there's about 2000 articles, so why not?



Also, so it's easier for people to udnerstand Marx's critique of it.


----------



## janis joplin (Jul 30, 2005)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> i think the point is that maybe it shouldnt _have_ a political label. Labelling it would be where the problems begin... I think about it in this way... the reason i got into politics (anarchism), was because it was about _doing_, rather than _being_. So yes, u75 is DIY maybe, or is it anarchy _in action_   ? Maybe not, but its based on similar community/communistic values that are central to most anarcho's politics...



hear hear


----------



## catch (Jul 30, 2005)

> Why is their method of asking the council to do things increasing the self-activity or for that matter the autonomy of the masses?



The majority of things that HI do are not "asking the council".

What we normally do is go out and speak directly to people where they live - knocking on doors for surveys - and distributing the newsletter. In the case of surveys, this isn't asking the council to do things, it's asking working class people about their own concerns - what they think is wrong, what they'd like to see happen etc. etc. We then feedback the results of this in a newsletter - sometimes just back to the blocks we did the survey on, sometimes the whole area, meaning that people can see what others in their area are thinking about, hopefully feel less isolated, maybe start to act together to improve things. Recently, one person we surveyed said "this is the first time in 25 years anyone's asked me what it's like to live on this estate". The fact that there's been a large concentration of political activists living in Hackney for decades, and people are largely ignored by them, certainly doesn't increase self-confidence does it? Surveys can lead to anything from helping individuals with getting repairs done*, organising public meetings, simply putting different people in touch with each other, contacting the local press, and yes, sometimes dealing with the council if they're responsible.
* although we're trying to move towards a situation where groups of people with repairs issues act collectively by taking on the landlord (not always the council) together, with or without practical help from us.<<<

In the case of Haggerston Pool - a situation that existed for a while before I got involved with HI and one I've not been directly involved with -the most recent thing we did was help out with the Laburnum Street Party:
http://www.hackneyindependent.org/content/view/159/48/

This is organised by the community around Haggerston Pool - not by us, and we supported it by stewarding on the day, plus ran a stall (I personally didn't do anything 'cos I was in the middle of moving). As far as I know at no point have we tried to lead the campaign or bring it into HI, just support it with publicity and practical help where we can. Were we to squat haggerston pool and turn it into a social centre there's a number things that might happen:

1. We'd have to spend a lot of time making sure the place was secure and arrange for it to be occupied. Since most people in HI have families and/or jobs, this would take up all of our resources in terms of time (or more likely exhaust them). We'd therefore be unable to continue distributing our 8000 newsletters door-to-door, and wouldn't have time to do any surveys. Potentially breaking links with the communities we're active in.

2. The result of this would be that rather than going out and speaking to working class people where they lived, we'd be inviting them to come to us at the social centre. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't. Were it to work, point 1 would be at least partly ameliorated, but not necessarily.

3. Most importantly, it would mean us imposing a specific form of organisation, a specific tactic, on a campaign that runs independently of HI. And attempting to use that tactic to bring more campaigns (Blue Hut, Clissold etc.) into that particular political space we'd created. It might boost all those campaigns, it might mean the people involved got really pissed off at us for hijacking them and acting on their behalf without consultation. Again, it could go both ways, I don't want to suggest it'd always be bad.

4. Whatever happened, it's very unlikely we'd be able to get it working as a swimming pool directly (I have no idea what the condition of the place is like personally - never been there), even with a lot of community help, unless a load of construction workers, engineers and lifeguards gave significant amounts of time for free. So it'd be largely symbolic, and at best provide facilities/meeting space for a few things (but not necessarily any better than existing ones, and possibly with a lot more time and effort for the same result). 

If the result was we ended up with Haggerston Pool workers' and users' co-op with people around the world comparing it to the Zanon factory, that'd be great, it's also extremely unlikely, and would be an isolated event (like JoeBlack's 2020 Colchester uprising example), and therefore not allowed to last long.

To get it working as a pool again, realistically would mean getting funds from the council, so squatting becomes simply a more spectacular way of "asking the council", but one dressed up as direct action. This is my problem with the current state of direct action in general.



> & from that base you approach hackney council in whatever way you see appropriate



See that's the problem with your criticisms. If we approach Hackney Council, it's usually because people have asked us to help them get things sorted out, not because we love talking to them, or because we think they have any real power to change things long term. Either way, it's usually informed by either surveys or direct requests, not "whatever we feel is appropriate" - otherwise it runs the risk of substituting for the class, innit. If communities substantially disagree with our take on things, we'll often keep putting our arguments forward but we won't do things 'on their behalf' that they've clearly rejected when we've spoken to them.

I'd love it if HI was able to take on more campaigns, and more wide ranging ones, many of which would have nothing to do with the council, but at the moment we've got limited resources, and social housing and community facilities are decent things to concentrate on that provide real material benefits short term. Hackney Council are also incredibly shit, and attack working class people and public facilities whenever they get the chance, so they're an easy target as well.


----------



## Orbitspace (Jul 30, 2005)

*Critisism*

Well me Dears so the old age disent amoungest the Anarchists goes on!  Remember Berkman and Most?  I seem to remember a time when Anarchists were doers and not talkers and the world was bigger then the G8 summit.  May be the G8 is about getting activists talking more and doing less.  Honestly would a protest change anything? Give me an example and not the boring Poll Tax riot in Trafalger SQ, the only thing that changed was the title. For my part over the years I have learned that the world is to big to change in this way and it is the little battles that are winable which bring the greater rewards.  By winning elections and been representive of the people who elected you at least you empower the electorite with there own vision and not one that is enforced on them.
Amoungest other things I got a youth centre built, I did this by engaging with the community and took on the council through it's own methods.  I do not think throwing paint at the Town Hall would have had the same effect.  HI is not an Anarchist organisation and I am sure we could gain a lot of cudous by planting our selves in Haggerston Pool, I wish we had the resources to do it but we do not.  So if the Anarchists that want to plan a diversion for the summer want to do it then I will from time to time turn up to enjoy your success as you battle the police from your fortress.
We live in less liberated times and the 70s and 80's have gone from us, surley it is better to have battles we can win then ones we only dream of.
ps I was on Alex's side.




			
				catch said:
			
		

> My only major activity in direct relation to the G8 protests was critiqueing, hands up for that one. However, I'm involved in other activity that you're well aware of, as is Jack, as are others who you appear to place in group 2. This other, positive, alternative activity been discussed at some length on this thread, which I assume you haven't read all the way through, especially since barely any of the thread has mentioned the G8 and most of it has been very constructive discussion, with very little sniping
> 
> There's also a very large number of questions left unanswered on this thread, which you started yourself: http://www.libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5704
> 
> ...


----------



## montevideo (Jul 31, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> The majority of things that HI do are not "asking the council".
> 
> What we normally do is go out and speak directly to people where they live - knocking on doors for surveys - and distributing the newsletter. In the case of surveys, this isn't asking the council to do things, it's asking working class people about their own concerns - what they think is wrong, what they'd like to see happen etc. etc. We then feedback the results of this in a newsletter - sometimes just back to the blocks we did the survey on, sometimes the whole area, meaning that people can see what others in their area are thinking about, hopefully feel less isolated, maybe start to act together to improve things. Recently, one person we surveyed said "this is the first time in 25 years anyone's asked me what it's like to live on this estate". The fact that there's been a large concentration of political activists living in Hackney for decades, and people are largely ignored by them, certainly doesn't increase self-confidence does it? Surveys can lead to anything from helping individuals with getting repairs done*, organising public meetings, simply putting different people in touch with each other, contacting the local press, and yes, sometimes dealing with the council if they're responsible.
> * although we're trying to move towards a situation where groups of people with repairs issues act collectively by taking on the landlord (not always the council) together, with or without practical help from us.<<<
> ...




maybe i shouldn't have expected anything less. The more you explain the more your 'lifestyle' intent becomes apparent. A kind of hanger-on at hackney independent doesn't really make you qualified to answer what they feel they can do. Maybe i should've gone directly to the people actively involved with hackney independent. 

From what you've said i genuinely don't think you have a clue. You actually don't do anything & from the above you seem terrified of anything that expresses your 'politics' in a pactical real world way.


----------



## blamblam (Jul 31, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> maybe i shouldn't have expected anything less. The more you explain the more your 'lifestyle' intent becomes apparent. A kind of hanger-on at hackney independent doesn't really make you qualified to answer what they feel they can do. Maybe i should've gone directly to the people actively involved with hackney independent.


Catch - look at this post. What is the point of engaging with this? You've written thousands of words here, and that's the reply. It's nothing more than petty sniping and attempts at point scoring with an audience of no one.


----------



## ChrisBear (Aug 1, 2005)

hi

sorry to interject, well not really. lots of interesting posts on U75...and i really should work. but this looks too juicy.

So...

Anarchism is very enticing, decent, honest and so on. Like TD says Lifestyling does little if it isnt in combination with a lot of other efforts.

Trouble is that people are often rude/obnoxious and so on to each other within any `movement`. Even the neo-cons fight internally for example.

If one beleives in a soceity less hierarchical, more peaceful etc etc then we have to take every little chance going, whether it is done by an `anarchist` or by someone else. by design or accident.

An example...i dont really like the chap Galloway myself, he seems too egotistical, good down the pub etc but you get my drift. But i dont understand the obsession so mnay other leftys have dissing him. why bother?
is he worse than Labour, the Tories? yes i know parliament is a sham, but he is the least problem within it...ignore him if he pisses you off. who cares, he's just one part in a billion.

prioritise. galloway is not a priority is he? i cant see that myself.

so i dont like the lifestyler people really, or the clowns. but when you compare them - or even Bob Geldof and Bono - to the actions of the US Airforce or Northrupp Grumman or UTS who cares?

if people wanna live in a teepee and be a bit pious then ok...its a bit annoying....but its not a priority. if people wanna be in a Trade Union and not join a (insert anarchist group here) then so what...its not a priority.

priorities are about undermining a system of power that kills, that kills/has killed millions. not about differences between you and me and Galloway and XXX, YYY etc...

Also big power should be attacked, big stuff, the IMF, World Bank, G8, US govt, UK state, EU govts...

i dont get the infighting...the dissing...the amount of energy wasted...it shows a lack of discipline, if you have a row have it personally, indoors...get on creating your own thing, combine it with others, try and do you best...

stop judging each other, we have enough pharises as it is...


----------



## sihhi (Aug 1, 2005)

> prioritise. galloway is not a priority is he? i cant see that myself.


  
But no anarchists I know prioritises Galloway in any way- what they do is have a go at him when necessary to expose him for for the hopeless, cynical, Baathist fandago-shaker that he is.



> or even Bob Geldof and Bono - to the actions of the US Airforce or Northrupp Grumman or UTS who cares?


Geldof and Bono are just another wing to UTS. 



> Also big power should be attacked, big stuff, the IMF, World Bank, G8, US govt, UK state, EU govts...


Yes but *how* is the question.
Unless I'm mistaken you're just restating these things are bad??


----------



## Top Dog (Aug 1, 2005)

sihhi said:
			
		

> But no anarchists I know prioritises Galloway in any way- what they do is have a go at him when necessary to expose him for for the hopeless, cynical, Baathist fandago-shaker that he is.
> 
> 
> Geldof and Bono are just another wing to UTS.
> ...


a "fandango-shaker"   thats great im gonna use that everywhere


----------



## catch (Aug 1, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> maybe i shouldn't have expected anything less ... 'lifestyle' intent .. hanger-on ... doesn't really make you qualified...  i genuinely don't think you have a clue. You actually don't do anything & from the above you seem terrified of anything that expresses your 'politics' in a pactical real world way.



I'm disappointed that you're unable to express any arguments outside ad-hominem attacks in your posts Monte.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Aug 1, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> I'm disappointed that you're unable to express any arguments outside ad-hominem attacks in your posts Monte.




Sometimes life *is* disappointing catch. But if you want a few more of those ad-homenem attacks Monte is pitching up at the P&P meet up in October, swigging beer , spinning  daring do tales of European anarchism an whispering sonnets of lurve in that Esperanto accent to the women folk.


----------



## Top Dog (Aug 2, 2005)

haggy said:
			
		

> i came across this this afternoon and thought it was pertinent to the v interesting discussion on this site:
> 
> "... those whose identity is based on 'their opposition' to the world as it is, have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. To change the world it is necessary to abandon those character traits that aid survival in capitalist society."  (Stewart Home)
> 
> ...


Ive always been interested by Benjamin's points in the *Author as Producer*. Although discussing art, they are just as relevant to the sphere of politics. Essentially, the question of whether it is the _content_ (by itself) that makes it revolutionary; or is it how the activity is done that gives it possibilities to break out of reproducing social relations...? ie. _how_ things are done is as important (perhaps more so) as what is actually being said... A political newspaper or a group on a march might well have the correct political line on things, but their form of activity negates whatever revolutionary potential their words might have had to say.


----------



## pk (Aug 4, 2005)

ChrisBear said:
			
		

> i dont get the infighting...the dissing...the amount of energy wasted...it shows a lack of discipline, if you have a row have it personally, indoors...get on creating your own thing, combine it with others, try and do you best...
> 
> stop judging each other, we have enough pharises as it is...



Welcome to the boards dude.


----------



## The Black Hand (Aug 14, 2005)

Top DOg said: There's the challenge then attica... lets have a post that doesnt feature the words 'Edward' or 'Thompson'    


I must say that I am other things apart from a neo Thompsonian, you could say I am autonomist (Cleavor, Negri, etc) but what I do dislike are ideas without the class, that are not based on the class struggle as it actually has existed (and a second ago is in the past...)... "The Poverty of theory" correctly castigated some marxists for having no class (subjectivities/history), and it is something that is easy to see applies (to anarchists as well) today e.g. those who say 'we have to start again' are just elitist (and other things but I'll be diplomatic)... I owe a theoretical debt to Gramsci, Scraton, Lea, Ruggiero, and many more besides too... A lot not normally found within the orthodox ultra left/anarchist canon.

PS - did what you said Top DOg


----------



## xeirex (Aug 17, 2005)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> it's always been my impression that anarchists... than almost all other leftist groups.



Anarchists are not imho a leftist group.

http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/postlefta.htm


----------



## revol68 (Aug 17, 2005)

fuck off you gobshite, haven't you got Crimethinc books to be reading?


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 17, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> fuck off you gobshite, haven't you got Crimethinc books to be reading?


Fuck off - insurgent desire's an excellent website.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 17, 2005)

xeirex said:
			
		

> Anarchists are not imho a leftist group.
> 
> http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/postlefta.htm


 that essay says essentially nothing.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 17, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> Fuck off - insurgent desire's an excellent website.





> Loads of new essays uploaded to the site. Including enlarged Feral Faun and John Zerzan sections, a Fredy Perlman archive, new stuff in the Misc section and additions to the Species Traitor archive.



Yeah, brilliant


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 17, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Yeah, brilliant


Ok, say what you like about Zerzan, but Feral Faun was a brilliant writer.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Aug 17, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> Ok, say what you like about Zerzan, but Feral Faun was a brilliant writer.



This is an elaborate wind up right?




			
				Feral Faun said:
			
		

> I want to experience this vital energy again. I want to know the free-spirited wildness of my unrepressed desires realizing themselves in festive play. I want to smash down every wall that stands between me and the intense, passionate life of untamed freedom that I want. The sum of these walls is everything we call civilization, everything that comes between us and the direct, participatory experience of the wild world. Around us has grown a web of domination, a web of mediation that limits our experience, defining the boundaries of acceptable production and consumption.






			
				Feral Faun said:
			
		

> Chaos is a dance, a flowing dance of life, and this dance is erotic. Civilization hates chaos and, therefore, also hates Eros. Even in supposedly sexually free times, civilization represses the erotic. It teaches that orgasms are events that happen only in a few small parts of our bodies and only through the correct manipulation of those parts. It squeezes Eros into the armor of Mars, making sex into a competitive, achievement-centered job rather than joyful, innocent play.
> 
> Yet even in the midst of such repression, Eros refuses to accept this mold. His joyful, dancing form breaks through Mars' armor here and there. As blinded as we are by our civilized existence, the dance of life keeps seeping into our awareness in little ways. We look at a sunset, stand in the midst of the forest, climb on a mountain, hear a bird song, walk barefoot on a beach, and we start to feel a certain elation, a sense of awe and joy. It is the beginning of an orgasm of the entire body, one not limited to civilization's so-called "erogenous zones", but civilization never lets the feeling fulfill itself. Otherwise, we'd realize that everything that is not a product of civilization is alive and joyfully erotic.






			
				Feral Faun said:
			
		

> those who squat and steal as part of an insurgeent
> life, do so in defiance of the logic of economic property. Refusing to
> accept the scarcity imposed by this logic or to bow to the demands of a
> world they did not create, such insurgents take what they desire without
> ...



And this is from one of the least demented writers on the website.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 17, 2005)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> This is an elaborate wind up right?


Why would it be a wind up?


----------



## revol68 (Aug 17, 2005)

fuck me that's priceless!

post leftist anarchism, more like post fucking lobotomy!


----------



## montevideo (Aug 17, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> fuck me that's priceless!
> 
> post leftist anarchism, more like post fucking lobotomy!



what do you reckon your sswearing to post ratio is here? Pretty high i reckon.


----------



## Top Dog (Aug 17, 2005)

xeirex said:
			
		

> http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/postlefta.htm


only in america!   




.... numbnuts


----------



## revol68 (Aug 17, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> what do you reckon your sswearing to post ratio is here? Pretty high i reckon.



Peppering posts with swearing is contrary to popular myth  both big and clever.

what you reckon your post to cogent point ratio is?


----------



## montevideo (Aug 17, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> Peppering posts with swearing is contrary to popular myth  both big and clever.



to those small & angry enough to care, i expect you're right


----------



## Thora_v1 (Aug 17, 2005)

Revol is _very_ small.


----------



## revol68 (Aug 17, 2005)

tis true i am but a dwarf of a man lumbered with heavy weight of  post modern malaise and an overriding desire to live out my lack of assertiveness via the internet.

will some kind woman please take pity on me.


----------



## revol68 (Aug 17, 2005)

> Chaos is a dance, a flowing dance of life, and this dance is erotic. Civilization hates chaos and, therefore, also hates Eros. Even in supposedly sexually free times, civilization represses the erotic. It teaches that orgasms are events that happen only in a few small parts of our bodies and only through the correct manipulation of those parts. It squeezes Eros into the armor of Mars, making sex into a competitive, achievement-centered job rather than joyful, innocent play.



If this didn't engage in meaningless essentialist statements about civilization or hippy nonsense about fucking sunsets I might well agree with it's central thesis.

Please don't call me a hippy.


----------



## Herbert Read (Aug 18, 2005)

Chaos is me stamping on a hippies face!


----------

