AK Press allegations against Michael Schmidt

1024 posts / 0 new
Last post
Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Mar 11 2016 18:21
Anarcho wrote:
Red Marriott wrote:
But nor is the racism probably wholly unrelated to BF. Even Anarcho in his review of BF disagreed with its ridiculous partisan revisionism. Now the recent revelations about advocating a Boer-state, MS’s national-anarchism etc surely put BF’s revisionist crap about socialist nationalists like Connelly ‘being in the anarchist tradition’ in a different light; and surely that has some relation to MS’s expressed leaning toward a racialised categorising of nations?

I always thought their inclusion of James Connolly was driven by his well-known syndicalism rather than his Irish Nationalist tendencies. They also claimed de Leon. As for Connolly, I've never heard anyone claim he was a racist -- his support for Irish independence hardly suggests a "national-socialist" (proto-fascist) position. So I class this as clutching at straws.

I'm sure - before the recent revelations – that many people may've thought that

Quote:
their inclusion of James Connolly was driven by his well-known syndicalism rather than his Irish Nationalist tendencies.

But in light of those revelations - of MS's national-anarchist tendencies etc - to dismiss the likelihood that the nationalist Connelly was approvingly re-labelled an anarchist due to his left nationalism seems more like "clutching at straws".

Anarcho wrote:
Red Marriott wrote:
BF’s ridiculous partisan revisionism, inaccuracy and distortion of historical sources; this lack of integrity was present way before the present scandal which, arguably, should’ve been warning signals long before now.

Other than excluding Proudhon and including Connolly, de Leon, etc., I found Black Flame very good -- there are few serious mistakes (every book has mistakes or overeggs at times). That is why I was so surprised by the claims made against Michael Schimdt.

Claiming nationalists as anarchists seems about as serious a "mistake" as can be for the remaining integrity and definition of anarchism, as is the attempted minimising of it by those who claim to defend that integrity and its history – so we'll have radically to disagree on that. I've posted links to these threads previously where what I'd consider serious BF errors are shown;
http://libcom.org/forums/history-culture/new-historical-syndicalist-book...
http://libcom.org/forums/history-culture/books-italian-anarcho-syndicali...

Alan52's picture
Alan52
Offline
Joined: 14-09-15
Mar 12 2016 21:07
Red Marriott wrote:
Anarcho wrote:
I always thought their inclusion of James Connolly was driven by his well-known syndicalism rather than his Irish Nationalist tendencies. They also claimed de Leon. As for Connolly, I've never heard anyone claim he was a racist -- his support for Irish independence hardly suggests a "national-socialist" (proto-fascist) position. So I class this as clutching at straws.

I'm sure - before the recent revelations – that many people may've thought that

Quote:
their inclusion of James Connolly was driven by his well-known syndicalism rather than his Irish Nationalist tendencies.

But in light of those revelations - of MS's national-anarchist tendencies etc - to dismiss the likelihood that the nationalist Connelly was approvingly re-labelled an anarchist due to his left nationalism seems more like "clutching at straws".

.

Of course Connolly was no anarchist, and neither was Daniel DeLeon. To me, the mistake made in Black Flame was to overestimate the form of organisation (syndicalism) and underestimate the ideas which were dominant among the members (whether it was the 'Detroit IWW' / Socialist Trades & Labor Alliance or Ireland's ITGWU). There is always a battle of ideas and if anarchists don't win it another set of ideas will. People don't wander around with no ideas in their heads.

However the notion that anything in Connolly's legacy could, in any way, be seen as useful to the far right or helping to lead readers in their direction is laughable.

Connolly has been 'interpreted' by many writers to serve their own political positions (most famously by the CPGB's Desmond Greaves). His legacy, or at least parts of it, is claimed by almost the entirity of the Irish left and most trade union activists. Ditto with Irish republicans and nationalists.

But I have never seen any fascist or racist who wanted to be associated with the legacy of the man who declared the socialist of another country is a fellow-patriot, as the capitalist of my own country is a natural enemy.

There is a critical appreciation of Connolly from an anarchist-communist viewpoint, which deals with both his syndicalism & nationalism, on the Irish Anarchist History site.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Mar 13 2016 09:02
Alan52 wrote:
the notion that anything in Connolly's legacy could, in any way, be seen as useful to the far right or helping to lead readers in their direction is laughable.
Connolly has been 'interpreted' by many writers to serve their own political positions (most famously by the CPGB's Desmond Greaves). His legacy, or at least parts of it, is claimed by almost the entirity of the Irish left and most trade union activists. Ditto with Irish republicans and nationalists.
But I have never seen any fascist or racist who wanted to be associated with the legacy of the man who declared the socialist of another country is a fellow-patriot, as the capitalist of my own country is a natural enemy.

It's "laughable" that Connolly & De Leon should be considered anarchists but it happened in Black Flame. Just because something is "laughable" doesn't mean it's impossible. That those inclined towards national-anarchism should be similarly selective in their interpretation/appropriation of left nationalists like Connolly doesn't seem far-fetched to me. Nor do we know what stage Schmidt's politics was at during his contributions to BF; whether he was then more inclined towards a left anarcho-nationalist position which later mutated maybe nobody – perhaps not even MS – can be sure. But whether by design or not, a process of making connections between those claimed as anarchist and their nationalism as being a valid part of it would seem likely. Whether there was ever a plan of deliberate 'infiltration' or not, to dismiss the possibility of any connection between BF's accommodation of the nationalist Connolly within anarchism and MS's later national-anarchist declarations seems more "laughable".

"Laughable" as it may be, and despite the fact that the Makhnovists fought against Ukrainian nationalists, today there are Ukrainian nationalists who claim Makhno as a hero;

Quote:
Given the general drift to the right among Ukrainians, it is no surprise that Ukraine and eastern European countries have seen the spread of National Anarchism, in which the rejection of the state goes hand in hand with an attraction to nationalism of various degrees of radicalism, from a tendency to wear national costume to a denial of migrants’ rights.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/denys-gorbach/anarchism-in-makhn...

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
Mar 13 2016 09:57

Yes, l agree with you. ln E. Europe it is not a recent thing though, so it is hard to link it exactly to some "drift".

ajjohnstone
Offline
Joined: 20-04-08
Mar 14 2016 10:19

My own reservations on Connolly here

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2016/no-1339...

As i am oft to repeat, during the time of militant strikes by Edinburgh postal workers, we had one member who was a staunch Orangeman, not just in a lodge, but an independent expelled one at that. He was always on the walks in NI and eventually transferred there. But when it came to union activity he was as equally committed, a unit rep for a time. He had no issue with a banner of Connolly on the picket line, able to distinguish between Connolly the trade unionist and Connolly the nationalist.

Being Scotland the sectarian divide is hard to avoid in the work-place. I found myself describing part of the branch as the Orange Reds ... as distinct from the Blue Loyalists.

Also being Connolly's birth-place and home of Hibernian FC, the football ground was my first taste of Irish nationalism and the rebel songs.

Apologies for the off-topic ramble.

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
Mar 14 2016 10:58

ln the history of Polish syndicalism, there was historically a big question of nationalism, the situation here being as it was. And there were lots of disagreements about Pilsudski. Now, whether or not these things made sense in their time is one question. Quite another question are those who, in the here and now, like to claim Pilsudski to their socialist tradition or to highlight, as syndicalist today, the importance of Pilsudski or Sorel and try to use this to foster nationalist ideas in "the left".

This is not exactly off topic since it is obvious that the folks doing this have nationalist sympathies and also think it is legitimate to try to claim such people to make their movements more attractive to those with nationalist leanings.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Mar 14 2016 12:46

BTW, just to add that someone has sent me a link, apparently to the unpublished article by Schmidt about the EFF referenced in the original exposé, which is very bizarre, in which he bigs up "black racism" in South Africa and tries to argue the EFF are fascist: http://pastebin.com/2ZJ9EJ8P

xx
Offline
Joined: 26-06-15
Mar 14 2016 16:59
Steven. wrote:
BTW, just to add that someone has sent me a link, apparently to the unpublished article by Schmidt about the EFF referenced in the original exposé, which is very bizarre, in which he bigs up "black racism" in South Africa and tries to argue the EFF are fascist: http://pastebin.com/2ZJ9EJ8P

I think that's not a bad article at all - he clearly as a reasonable point linking the EFF to South American and global populism, and makes a very reasonable conclusion which is clearly more about the danger of the EFF's politics to African migrants rather than Whites, which indeed is the point he makes through out the article. I think the explicit fascism accusation is a bit flimsy, but certainly not strange and his point about most White South Africans being working class is correct, as is his point that the EFF do not propose anything that really threatens South African capital.

Mark.
Offline
Joined: 11-02-07
Mar 14 2016 18:05
Steven. wrote:
BTW, just to add that someone has sent me a link, apparently to the unpublished article by Schmidt about the EFF referenced in the original exposé, which is very bizarre, in which he bigs up "black racism" in South Africa and tries to argue the EFF are fascist: http://pastebin.com/2ZJ9EJ8P

I'd largely agree with what xx says above. In what way do you think the article is bizarre? I don't know that much about the EFF, so I'd find it hard to judge the claim of closeness to fascism, but I don't find the claim strange in itself. There's no shortage of nationalist movements in Africa that have led to something rather like fascism. Having leftist ideological roots isn't any bar to this.

IrrationallyAngry
Offline
Joined: 23-06-05
Mar 15 2016 20:09

The argument that Black Flame's treatment of James Connolly should be treated as some kind of indication of racist or far right politics is both bizarre and tendentious in the extreme.

Connolly was not an anarchist. He, like De Leon, was a Marxist syndicalist, a species closely related to anarcho-syndicalism but not the same thing. Both men get folded into Black Flame's anarchist tradition because of a desire to bolster the historical significance of anarcho-syndicalism by assimilating other radical syndicalisms to it. It needs no further explanation.

If we were going to look through Black Flame for the suspicious inclusion of "nationalists" or chauvinists we might be better advised to start with various anarchists who supported World War One or the various anarchists with a record of anti-semitic views. I suspect that for instance the support for their "own" side in World War One of Kropotkin and various French anarcho-syndicalists among many others might be more generally approved of by far right elements than Connolly's simultaneous opposition to the war and support for anti-colonial revolution.

William Everard
Offline
Joined: 26-01-16
Mar 15 2016 20:23

Seems there's some confusion in Montreal.

http://picpaste.com/pics/Feyd_2016-03-15-ozI0fT3r.1458072895.png

Quote:
"I've been asked to clarify that my Canadian publishers, Lux Editeur, have not taken a position for me and against my accusers, but have rather decided, after examining all the evidence on both sides, that although they have concerns about my past actions, they will not involve themselves in the debate, but will continue to distribute the French-language edition of Cartography of Revolutionary Anarchism. I apologise for misinterpreting their position. Meanwhile, I have just completed the extensive rewrite of Cartography (longer by 11,000 words) with the aim being its publication in Spanish, Portuguese, and Arabic."

Really shameful that they can recognise him as a fash and just brush it off... the "boys will be boys" rule must be in effect: http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Roy_Snyder

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Mar 16 2016 00:54
IrrationallyAngry wrote:
The argument that Black Flame's treatment of James Connolly should be treated as some kind of indication of racist or far right politics is both bizarre and tendentious in the extreme.
Connolly was not an anarchist. He, like De Leon, was a Marxist syndicalist, a species closely related to anarcho-syndicalism but not the same thing. Both men get folded into Black Flame's anarchist tradition because of a desire to bolster the historical significance of anarcho-syndicalism by assimilating other radical syndicalisms to it. It needs no further explanation.

I don't think any of that refutes what I said earlier, which is not quite how you interpret it;

Quote:
It's "laughable" that Connolly & De Leon should be considered anarchists but it happened in Black Flame. Just because something is "laughable" doesn't mean it's impossible. That those inclined towards national-anarchism should be similarly selective in their interpretation/appropriation of left nationalists like Connolly doesn't seem far-fetched to me. Nor do we know what stage Schmidt's politics was at during his contributions to BF; whether he was then more inclined towards a left anarcho-nationalist position which later mutated maybe nobody – perhaps not even MS – can be sure. But whether by design or not, a process of making connections between those claimed as anarchist and their nationalism as being a valid part of it would seem likely. Whether there was ever a plan of deliberate 'infiltration' or not, to dismiss the possibility of any connection between BF's accommodation of the nationalist Connolly within anarchism and MS's later national-anarchist declarations seems more "laughable".

I didn't say it was evidence "of racist or far right politics" but of a possible trajectory; a creeping nationalism that went from left to right (insofar as any nationalism is ever 'left') is hardly implausible given the later evidence re. MS. That Connolly's nationalism wasn't seen as problematic for his inclusion within the anarchist tradition is hardly irrelevant to the facts so far established (except maybe to 'anarchists' & co who're similarly soft on nationalism), no matter how much devotees of BF may like to pretend otherwise.

IrrationallyAngry
Offline
Joined: 23-06-05
Mar 16 2016 01:18
Red Marriott wrote:
That Connolly's nationalism wasn't seen as problematic for his inclusion within the anarchist tradition is hardly irrelevant to the facts so far established (except maybe to 'anarchists' & co who're similarly soft on nationalism), no matter how much devotees of BF may like to pretend otherwise.

Once more:

Connolly doesn't belong in the anarchist tradition because while he was part of a closely related tradition, Marxist syndicalism, he was not an anarchist. The explanation for his inclusion along with De Leon is straightforward and has nothing to do with his nationalism. The book amalgamates radical syndicalisms generally with anarcho-syndicalism.

If however we are to regard there as being something suspicious about the inclusion of people with nationalist views in the anarchist tradition in the pages of Black Flame, Connolly is far from the most egregiously nationalist figure included. Singling his inclusion out as evidence of creeping nationalism is bizarre when the book includes many people who had much more obnoxiously nationalist or ethnic chauvinist views. Like Kropotkin or Jean Grave at much the same time as Connolly. Is the inclusion of anarchists who supported their own ruling classes in the First World War also to be taken as evidence as a slide towards nationalism? Or those who expressed anti-semitic views? And if not, why not?

The whole Connolly issue is completely irrelevant and a distraction from the substantial allegations.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Mar 16 2016 01:26

If you insist on missing the point I'm making then let's leave it here.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Mar 16 2016 05:46

Yup s/he's defo missing your point, Red.

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
Mar 16 2016 06:46

About what Angry said, BF is quite awful in its revisionist take of anarchosyndicalism, which also just coincides a lot with the ideological biases of the authors. Which is towards reform syndicalism, including the other lines of syndicalism they attach "anarcho" to but l certainly would not. This is part of an ideological plan of that movement to promote these tendencies, nothing more.

l will not comment on the morals of the publishers in Montreal, however that book is quite a deal worse than BF in terms of accuracy.

William Everard
Offline
Joined: 26-01-16
Mar 16 2016 14:06
akai wrote:
l will not comment on the morals of the publishers in Montreal, however that book is quite a deal worse than BF in terms of accuracy.

Seems clear to me that supporting a known racist/fascist through book sales is morally bankrupt, and that AK was correct to pull Black Flame. But yes, I agree, Cartography is full of problems... not the least of which is a strong disdain for any current but platformism.

xx
Offline
Joined: 26-06-15
Mar 17 2016 19:38
William Everard wrote:
Seems there's some confusion in Montreal.

http://picpaste.com/pics/Feyd_2016-03-15-ozI0fT3r.1458072895.png

Quote:
"I've been asked to clarify that my Canadian publishers, Lux Editeur, have not taken a position for me and against my accusers, but have rather decided, after examining all the evidence on both sides, that although they have concerns about my past actions, they will not involve themselves in the debate, but will continue to distribute the French-language edition of Cartography of Revolutionary Anarchism. I apologise for misinterpreting their position. Meanwhile, I have just completed the extensive rewrite of Cartography (longer by 11,000 words) with the aim being its publication in Spanish, Portuguese, and Arabic."

Really shameful that they can recognise him as a fash and just brush it off... the "boys will be boys" rule must be in effect: http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Roy_Snyder

And yet the silence on AK's relationship with Adam Palfrey and Feral house as raised previously is deafening.

What a shame you haven't quite yet destroyed a dedicated progressive journalist's career before any charges against him are proven

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
Mar 17 2016 22:40

XX, can l ask for a clarification of your politics? Are you from this network with mostly Green and Labour Party folks seeking reform? Do you see Green and Labour Party folk as "progressive"? Just curious.

l agree that AK has sold a lot of shit, not only what you mentioned, so their actions on not consistant.

As far as anybody wanted to destroy a journalists' career, l guess that the press don't give a rats' ass. That doesn't been that anarchists should not care what is being passed off or printed on anarchist portals, etc.

William Everard
Offline
Joined: 26-01-16
Mar 18 2016 12:24
xx wrote:
And yet the silence on AK's relationship with Adam Palfrey and Feral house as raised previously is deafening.

What a shame you haven't quite yet destroyed a dedicated progressive journalist's career before any charges against him are proven

Worth mentioning that someone called out AK on facebook about Hakim Bey and they didn't respond to that... there isn't consistency. But AK has been responsive in the past; they dropped shit like Alex Jones long ago.

At any rate, are you seriously trying to blame me for Schmidt's self-destruction? He's made his own legacy and is an actual racist/fascist, still leading a bizarre double-life and hoping his boys will cover for him again, as they did 5-6 years ago.

"Before any charges against him are proven"? You're clearly blind to the evidence, which could not be clearer... does Schmidt need to actually shout "sieg heil" in range of your ears, or would you excuse that as "undercover journalism", temporary amnesia, or a plot by NIA spooks?

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Mar 18 2016 21:25
Khawaga wrote:
Yup s/he's defo missing your point, Red.

The responses above suggest it seemed more like an attempt to try to discredit those who dare to criticise MS/BF rather than a serious argument. But for anyone who genuinely didn't understand;

Irrational wrote:
If however we are to regard there as being something suspicious about the inclusion of people with nationalist views in the anarchist tradition in the pages of Black Flame, Connolly is far from the most egregiously nationalist figure included. Singling his inclusion out as evidence of creeping nationalism is bizarre when the book includes many people who had much more obnoxiously nationalist or ethnic chauvinist views. Like Kropotkin or Jean Grave at much the same time as Connolly. Is the inclusion of anarchists who supported their own ruling classes in the First World War also to be taken as evidence as a slide towards nationalism? Or those who expressed anti-semitic views? And if not, why not?

I don't find that a valid comparison, it's not about mere inclusion; unlike Connolly Kroptokin was a self-proclaimed anarchist for most of his life and historically one of the most prominent – so no surprise that he would be included in an anarchist history book. So not "bizarre" to not amalgamate Kropotkin and Connolly. Near the end of his life he then took the wrong 'lesser evil' position for WWI which even at the time was criticised by many as contradictory to anarchism.

Whereas Connolly was never an anarchist but always a nationalist – but BF's revisionism has claimed him as someone who can be defined an anarchist. It's argued above that this is due to his syndicalism (though it's agreed syndicalism isn't in itself necessarily anarchist). But I suggested that BF's choice to not see his nationalism as contradictory to defining him as anarchist is indeed a form of creeping nationalism within their defining of anarchism. (If anyone wanted to dispute that left nationalism is actually contradictory to anarchism then that's a different kettle of - rancid - fish.)

I don't see you can separate Connolly's consistent nationalism (his "precious racial and national history") from his socialist politics;

Quote:
In Ireland at the present time there are at work a variety of agencies seeking to preserve the national sentiment in the hearts of the people.
These agencies, whether Irish Language movements, Literary Societies or Commemoration Committees, are undoubtedly doing a work of lasting benefit to this country in helping to save from extinction the precious racial and national history, language and characteristics of our people.
Nevertheless, there is a danger that by too strict an adherence to their present methods of propaganda, and consequent neglect of vital living issues, they may only succeed in stereotyping our historical studies into a worship of the past, or crystallising nationalism into a tradition – glorious and heroic indeed, but still only a tradition.
Now traditions may, and frequently do, provide materials for a glorious martyrdom, but can never be strong enough to ride the storm of a successful revolution.
If the national movement of our day is not merely to re-enact the old sad tragedies of our past history, it must show itself capable of rising to the exigencies of the moment.
It must demonstrate to the people of Ireland that our nationalism is not merely a morbid idealising of the past, but is also capable of formulating a distinct and definite answer to the problems of the present and a political and economic creed capable of adjustment to the wants of the future. https://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1897/01/socnat.htm

Anarcho
Offline
Joined: 22-10-06
Mar 21 2016 17:21
Red Marriott wrote:
But in light of those revelations - of MS's national-anarchist tendencies etc - to dismiss the likelihood that the nationalist Connelly was approvingly re-labelled an anarchist due to his left nationalism seems more like "clutching at straws".

Again, clutching at straws -- BF included De Leon along with Connolly because of their syndicalism. Unless you are now claiming De Leon was a "Left nationalist" as well?

As many, including myself, argued when it was published both De Leon and Connolly were Marxists and so including them into the "broad anarchist tradition" was just silly -- in spite of their well-known syndicalist ideas.

Red Marriott wrote:
Claiming nationalists as anarchists seems about as serious a "mistake" as can be for the remaining integrity and definition of anarchism, as is the attempted minimising of it by those who claim to defend that integrity and its history – so we'll have radically to disagree on that.

The book claimed Marxists as anarchists, not "nationalists" -- Connolly was included because of his syndicalism just as de Leon was. As I indicated my blog:

Quote:
The first, minor, criticism is the claim that Daniel De Leon, Big Bill Haywood and James Connolly can be included in the broad anarchist tradition. They were Marxists! By no stretch of the imagination can they be considered anarchists. Yes, they were supporters of syndicalism but they were Marxists.

The reason why, for example, "we have described De Leonism as a form of syndicalism" is that "syndicalism was a type of anarchism" and "self-identification as a Marxist or an anarchist is less important than the content of the ideas adopted, and the ideas of the IWW are certainly within the ambit of the broad anarchist tradition" (p. 161). But that is confusing a tactic with a theory. Syndicalism is an anarchist tactic, and like other tactics can be utilised by non-anarchists. Thus we can have Marxist as well as anarchist syndicalists (although the irony of Marxists subscribing to the ideas of Bakunin rather than Marx should be noted). And I think that they themselves know this as they have to suggest that the Italian syndicalists who later became fascists were not really syndicalists. But they were, they just happened to be Marxist syndicalists who broke with key ideas of syndicalism!

And note that BF discusses the Italian Marxist-syndicalists who turned to nationalism in WWI and who later became fascists -- and rightly argued that they were not anarchists or syndicalists when they embraced nationalism. So the notion that BF included James Connolly due to his nationalism rather than his syndicalism is clutching at straws -- the book was wrong to include him within its "broad anarchist tradition" because, as so many have indicated, he was a Marxist albeit one who embraced syndicalist ideas.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Mar 21 2016 21:09

I've always known the official reason is that their syndicalism supposedly qualified them as 'anarchists' in BF - as I've acknowledged previously. (And yes, I'm aware of the history of Italian syndicalism; http://libcom.org/blog/anarchosyndicalism-against-fascism-response-recen... see comments below article.) That is not my point. Of course it's no surprise at all that Italian syndicalists who became fascists were excluded from anarchism by BF - despite their syndicalism – but that just shows the selectivity and inconsistency of BF. But you're ignoring the difference between Italian fascist nationalism and the left nationalism of Connolly. Unlike fascism, Connolly's is the kind of nationalism we tend to see some anarchists be soft on (esp. modern platformists; http://libcom.org/forums/organise/whats-your-quarrel-neo-platformism-060... ). That MS apparently later went much further rightwards is what broke the scandal. My suggestion is that there may be a development between the soft nationalism and MS's apparent later harder version of national-anarchism. (Which is not to imply that this is a typical occurrence among, eg, platformists. Though for such anarchoes it seems the problem with people like Connolly is not that they were nationalist but that they weren't anarchist...) That this simple point has provoked such a strong reaction from the book's defenders people can interpret as they wish.

We're all interpreting the likely motivations of MS & BF – a difficult task as the authors have hardly been the most open. I remain more convinced by my interpretation;

Quote:
Whereas Connolly was never an anarchist but always a nationalist – but BF's revisionism has claimed him as someone who can be defined an anarchist. It's argued above that this is due to his syndicalism (though it's agreed syndicalism isn't in itself necessarily anarchist). But I suggested that BF's choice to not see his nationalism as contradictory to defining him as anarchist is indeed a form of creeping nationalism within their defining of anarchism. (If anyone wanted to dispute that left nationalism is actually contradictory to anarchism then that's a different kettle of - rancid - fish.)

As for the "clutching at straws" claim, it implies I'm suddenly desperate to condemn BF. But in fact I've been pointing out the ridiculous revisionism of BF probably longer than anyone; http://libcom.org/forums/history-culture/new-historical-syndicalist-book...
http://libcom.org/forums/history-culture/books-italian-anarcho-syndicali...
It may be unsettling for anarcho-experts and 'historians' to find that the elements they glossed over in their praise of The Great Book have returned to haunt them. But continued attempts to gloss look even more unconvincing. The closing ranks in response to this scandal really isn't any better than the SWP's response to their own scandals. For those who claim to be defenders of the credibility of anarchism they couldn't really be doing it any worse damage.

Anarcho wrote:
And note that BF discusses the Italian Marxist-syndicalists who turned to nationalism in WWI and who later became fascists -- and rightly argued that they were not anarchists or syndicalists when they embraced nationalism.

Right. And that's why the Black Flame revisionist bullshit of including nationalists like Connolly within anarchism is so contradictory – and made even more damaging to any credibility when 'anarchists' try to excuse/gloss over it and absolutely deny any possibility that it could have any connection to later developments in this sorry tale. And yet Anarcho in earlier posts calls BF "an obviously anarchist book ... a good introduction to anarchism" – a book that embraces a nationalist like Connolly as an anarchist. No contradiction to see there at all folks... Unlike some others I've noted from the beginning that people "were not anarchists or syndicalists when they embraced nationalism".

William Everard
Offline
Joined: 26-01-16
Mar 31 2016 14:59

An accessible (though very incomplete) critique of BF, which is all the better for the suggestions of "intros to anarchism" at the bottom:

https://solarpunkanarchists.wordpress.com/2016/02/22/a-look-back-at-blac...

William Everard
Offline
Joined: 26-01-16
Apr 14 2016 16:35

Anarkismo commission apparently forming:
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/29106

Johnny - Anarkismo Editorial Group wrote:
No, it's not a lie

We're actually debating on a draft proposed by comrades from Brazil (which is inspired form their own internal ethical commission)

Mark.
Offline
Joined: 11-02-07
Apr 14 2016 16:49

Radio interview with Michael Schmidt - read what you want into it

http://www.chaifm.com/images/Podcasts/CrimeBusters/160321ACBSA%20MICHAEL...

William Everard
Offline
Joined: 26-01-16
Apr 14 2016 20:10
Mark. wrote:
Radio interview with Michael Schmidt - read what you want into it

http://www.chaifm.com/images/Podcasts/CrimeBusters/160321ACBSA%20MICHAEL...

listened to it a few days ago. He's very good at self-promotion, name-dropping etc. The last two posts on his blog are obvious pandering; an attempt to bury the admitted neo-Nazi writing by associating himself with a holocaust museum, prominent black activists, etc.

http://drinkingwithghosts.blogspot.nl

The takeaway we're supposed to have is "how can such a person be a skinhead??" The time for shock at the contrast between public and private persona is long over. The talk about who his books are published "alongside", as if that creates some association between himself and those authors, is not much different than the "I have black friends" strategy. The sentence about what's on his bookshelf is even more pathetic.

Oh, and any discussion about Schmidt's *publicly admitted racist and fascist writing* is all of a sudden a "defamation campaign".

Quick Edit --- Sometimes I wonder whether or not Schmidt is working with a PR person or has a list of talking points/prepared comments meant to distance himself from his Strandwolf persona. One example from the radio interview- he talks about "being one of the few whiteys to vote for the PAC in '94" (paraphrasing), in obvious contrast to his well-known vote for the FF+.

William Everard
Offline
Joined: 26-01-16
Apr 15 2016 14:54

...and now, the host of one of Schmidt's book launches posing with an antifa shirt, for the express purpose of Michael mentioning it in the blog post:


http://drinkingwithghosts.blogspot.nl/2016/04/launches-of-taste-of-bitte...

Of note, HSRC/Best Red (or someone) is publishing a South African version of BF. Supposedly, if those copies weren't just left over from previous print runs.

seahorse
Offline
Joined: 5-08-15
Apr 24 2016 07:07

Just 11 more posts (10 after this one) and we make it to 1,000! Will this be a new libcom record?

Mark.
Offline
Joined: 11-02-07
May 10 2016 17:14

Book launch/talk by Michael Schmidt. The sound is missing for the introduction so skip to 5:30 for the start of the talk.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VSlO4OdjIpE