DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

NEFAC and "rise"

1118 posts / 0 new
Last post
OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
May 31 2007 19:57
NEFAC and "rise"
Quote:
MJ wrote:
Flint wrote:
Clarification, as of 5/26/2007 US NEFAC meeting, Rise is now a supporter of NEFAC. Unanimous with 2 abstentions, I believe. His politics in regards to Venezuela as discussed.

(Further clarification, supporters aren't expected to agree with us the way members are.) Hey has anyone told him?

I'm assuming that you meant "his politics in regard to Venezuela was discussed."...

No one objected to the fact that he considers Venezuelan anarchists to be agents of the US State Department?

Were his politics in regards to Nepal, and the fact that he supports the Maoist guerilla, also discussed?

This is pretty fucking disappointing. When I've critiqued his politics before, the response of NEFACers on here was a pretty fucking mute disagreement, coupled with a defense that he had only written a couple of articles in NEA and done a speaking tour, and was not formally affiliated.

FFS I disagree with Wayne Price on lots of things but I doubt that if there were anti-Hizbollah anarchists he would launch a slander campaign against them.

"Rise" does not just have "politics in regards to Venezuela", he wants to see the repression of the anarchists active there, because they are critical of Chavez.

If "theoretical and tactical unity" and "leadership of ideas" have any validity as concepts, accepting "rise" as a formal affiliate of your organization throws a lot of doubt onto either those ideas, or your organization.

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
May 31 2007 19:58

This is a response I was going to submit on the "progressive labor party" thread, but decided a new thread would be appropriate.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
May 31 2007 20:09
OliverTwister wrote:
No one objected to the fact that he considers Venezuelan anarchists to be agents of the US State Department?

I did, actually.

Quote:
FFS I disagree with Wayne Price on lots of things but I doubt that if there were anti-Hizbollah anarchists he would launch a slander campaign against them.

So Wayne's "pro-Hezbollah" now?

Quote:
"Rise" does not just have "politics in regards to Venezuela", he wants to see the repression of the anarchists active there, because they are critical of Chavez.

...and I know I for one would argue against him becoming a full member based on some of the statements he's made. However, he applied to be a supporter. The requirements are a fair bit looser.

Quote:
If "theoretical and tactical unity" and "leadership of ideas" have any validity as concepts, accepting "rise" as a formal affiliate of your organization throws a lot of doubt onto either those ideas, or your organization.

Yeah, yeah... heard it all before. I don't think anyone is gonna be too devestated when we don't get your Xmas card this year. Thanks for the concern though.

MJ's picture
MJ
Offline
Joined: 5-01-06
May 31 2007 20:19

oh nooo somebody doesn't like nefac?

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
May 31 2007 20:23
Quote:
The requirements are a fair bit looser.

trousers 'round ankles sorta loose?

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
May 31 2007 20:24
OliverTwister wrote:
If "theoretical and tactical unity" and "leadership of ideas" have any validity as concepts, accepting "rise" as a formal affiliate of your organization throws a lot of doubt onto either those ideas, or your organization.

If it makes you feel better, I'd vote against you rejoining.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
May 31 2007 20:32

Come to think of it, hey Oliver aren't you still a NEFAC supporter? I mean, Rise has said some things that I find politically objectionable, but you've outright slandered us, spread lies, and have been... well, less than supportive towards our group in the past. If I cared enough to start putting our support network to purity tests I'd most likely argue for dropping you as a supporter over him, considering he is actually supportive of our group. But like I said, the requirements of "supporter" are looser than "member". We've had people who are anarcho-syndicalists, left-communists, social ecologists, etc. who have been supporters. Basically people who are in our general orbit of thought, even if they aren't close enough to us politically to become full members. Hope that clears things up a bit.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
May 31 2007 20:55
Mike Harman wrote:
Quote:
The requirements are a fair bit looser.

trousers 'round ankles sorta loose?

So what sort of purity tests does your group have for people who can't or don't want to join but are willing to send some money and distribute your publications?

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
May 31 2007 21:01

"send money and distribute publications" - people can do that anonymously, without our knowledge (well, we'd know about the money after they sent it hopefully). They can do that for any organisation with a paypal account or postal address that publishes on the net or in print as well.

However, being a "supporter", decided by majority vote in a meeting of the organisation, isn't quite the same thing, but of course you know that.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
May 31 2007 21:21

Uh yeah... like I said, people in our general orbit of thought. If we allow social ecologists or anarcho-syndicalists or (non-anarchist communist) redskins to be supporters I can't see what's so objectionable about a libertarian communist who has some conflicting positions with us in a few areas of thought. But obviously, once again, people on Libcom clearly have a much better grasp of how we should maintain our group, so what do I know?

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
May 31 2007 22:11
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
Uh yeah... like I said, people in our general orbit of thought. If we allow social ecologists or anarcho-syndicalists or (non-anarchist communist) redskins to be supporters I can't see what's so objectionable about a libertarian communist who has some conflicting positions with us in a few areas of thought. But obviously, once again, people on Libcom clearly have a much better grasp of how we should maintain our group, so what do I know?

I was kind of thinking we should change what we are doing and go to a one-guy-and-a-newsletter approach. It's the only way to achieve 100% ideological unity. The tactical unity will also be 100% (even if the activity is actually zero!)

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
May 31 2007 22:19
Flint wrote:
I was kind of thinking we should change what we are doing and go to a one-guy-and-a-newsletter approach. It's the only way to achieve 100% ideological unity. The tactical unity will also be 100% (even if the activity is actually zero!)

How many people are there in NEFAC at the moment by the way? You realise you're statement could be made by someone in the Democrats, or even the Greens about NEFAC without a word changed right?

So is supporting Maoists in Nepal and suggesting anarchists in Venezuela be repressed are just like 99.5% ideological unity then? A tiny difference that only nitpickers and pedants would notice?

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
May 31 2007 22:38
Mike Harman wrote:
Flint wrote:
I was kind of thinking we should change what we are doing and go to a one-guy-and-a-newsletter approach. It's the only way to achieve 100% ideological unity. The tactical unity will also be 100% (even if the activity is actually zero!)

How many people are there in NEFAC at the moment by the way? You realise you're statement could be made by someone in the Democrats, or even the Greens about NEFAC without a word changed right?

So is supporting Maoists in Nepal and suggesting anarchists in Venezuela be repressed are just like 99.5% ideological unity then? A tiny difference that only nitpickers and pedants would notice?

Hey, you don't like who we have as members and supporters, get your own group, purge as you like.

If you want to argue with Rise, I suggest you encourage him to come back to this forum. I've reviewed enough of the threads to be of the opinion that most folks are distorting his opinion, much as they do to Wayne. I didn't participate in those threads then, so I won't do so now. I'm sorry if this upsets you. I can PM you rise's email address if you like.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
May 31 2007 22:48
Flint wrote:
Hey, you don't like who we have as members and supporters, get your own group, purge as you like.

If you want to argue with Rise, I suggest you encourage him to come back to this forum. I've reviewed enough of the threads to be of the opinion that most folks are distorting his opinion, much as they do to Wayne. I didn't participate in those threads then, so I won't do so now. I'm sorry if this upsets you. I can PM you rise's email address if you like.

If you don't want to answer my questions, that's fine. The record stands.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
May 31 2007 22:50
Mike Harman wrote:
Flint wrote:
I was kind of thinking we should change what we are doing and go to a one-guy-and-a-newsletter approach. It's the only way to achieve 100% ideological unity. The tactical unity will also be 100% (even if the activity is actually zero!)

How many people are there in NEFAC at the moment by the way? You realise you're statement could be made by someone in the Democrats, or even the Greens about NEFAC without a word changed right?

So is supporting Maoists in Nepal and suggesting anarchists in Venezuela be repressed are just like 99.5% ideological unity then? A tiny difference that only nitpickers and pedants would notice?

I'd say maybe about 89.5% (I'm okay with anyone over 85% being a supporter of our group, but that's just me)

So, yeah... once again, what's your group's criteria for supporters? Please enlighten your cousins across the pond on how we could better ensure displine in our ranks and be able to achieve the level of organizational effectiveness you've reached in Britain.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
May 31 2007 23:10

The only group I'm in is libcom atm. We don't have an official category of 'supporters'. I think we're quite effective though.

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
May 31 2007 23:13
Mike Harman wrote:
The only group I'm in is libcom atm. We don't have an official category of 'supporters'. I think we're quite effective though.

Why haven't you banned Rise?

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
May 31 2007 23:22

This is a website, not a revolutionary organisation, in case you'd not noticed.

However, in the interest of answering simple questions:

In general, we don't ban people for their politics (although if politics are shit enough it can be indistinguishable from trolling so there's a fine line around which we don't tread that deftly).

We also don't ban people who's last post was five weeks ago.

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
May 31 2007 23:34
Mike Harman wrote:
This is a website, not a revolutionary organisation, in case you'd not noticed.

However, in the interest of answering simple questions:

In general, we don't ban people for their politics (although if politics are shit enough it can be indistinguishable from trolling so there's a fine line around which we don't tread that deftly).

We also don't ban people who's last post was five weeks ago.

So just so I'm clear, you find that not being an a revolutionary organization makes you effective; but you also would like other revolutionary organizations to have a tighter ideological requirements on their membership than you can muster for your own non-organization?

revolutionrugger
Offline
Joined: 23-03-06
May 31 2007 23:44

I agree with the eurotrash. I'm sick of NEFAC's sniveling embrasure of practicality, realpolitik, and a firm grounding in local conditions. One day my newsletter will espouse a position so pure, so uncompromised that the proletariat will instantly recognize itself as both the subject AND object of knowledge and the pure spirit of HISTORY will descend out of the sky on a golden trumpet and we will all instantly sublimate into energy beings. Except YOU and your filthy compromised organization. And when that day comes you'll be sorry, oh yes, you'll be sorry.

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Jun 1 2007 00:01

For the record, I'm no longer in a NEFAC supporter collective. So, you'll have to wait until you get my application for individual supporter status to vote me down.

And the issue of Rise's support for Venezuela, and slander campaign against the CRA, began when I was still a supporter of NEFAC and a died-in-the-wool Platformist. I didn't know much about the CRA but I knew that supposedly revolutionary anarchists, who consider anarcho-syndicalists to be too theoretically muddled, should not be supporting states and encouraging the repression of other anarchists.

As I recall, SRB, you were in that discussion, which was on myspace but which I've linked to and quoted extensively on this board in the past; and your response was not to challenge Rise's support for Venezuela but to excuse it by saying that the CRA are "synthesists".

Since then you've challenged his views on Chavez, but you've also maintained the distance by noting that he was not formally affiliated to NEFAC.

The fact is, you all have accepted as a "supporter" someone who has led a slander campaign against Venezuelan anarchists accusing them of being agents of the US State Department - and when pressed, the closest he came to a recantation was to say that "maybe they aren't actually on the payroll - but they might as well be."

Kevin Keating
Offline
Joined: 8-10-06
Jun 1 2007 00:05

So, NEFAC now has some kind of formal political relationship with a supporter of the capitalist state in Venezuela?

Can someone please clarify this -- say, by posting this individual's comments regarding the Chavez regime?

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jun 1 2007 00:07
Flint wrote:
So just so I'm clear, you find that not being an a revolutionary organization makes you effective; but you also would like other revolutionary organizations to have a tighter ideological requirements on their membership than you can muster for your own non-organization?

Clarity is lacking. I think libcom is effective at what it does, with lots and lots of room for improvement. Within the libcom group we have quite a high level of agreement, although when we do disagree on things we're quite prepared to do so in public and in depth.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Jun 1 2007 02:21
Kevin Keating wrote:
So, NEFAC now has some kind of formal political relationship with a supporter of the capitalist state in Venezuela?

Can someone please clarify this -- say, by posting this individual's comments regarding the Chavez regime?

Awesome. I can't wait to see this shocking news of our counter-revolutionary backsliding wheatpasted all around San Francisco.... hahahaa!! Before I was fairly ambivilent about Rise being a supporter. But now that I know just how repugnant he is to people like Catch, Oliver, and now Kevin Keating... shit, I might just end up asking the guy to marry me.

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Jun 1 2007 02:26
Mike Harman wrote:
Flint wrote:
So just so I'm clear, you find that not being an a revolutionary organization makes you effective; but you also would like other revolutionary organizations to have a tighter ideological requirements on their membership than you can muster for your own non-organization?

Clarity is lacking. I think libcom is effective at what it does, with lots and lots of room for improvement. Within the libcom group we have quite a high level of agreement, although when we do disagree on things we're quite prepared to do so in public and in depth.

You sound like Chuck0.

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
Jun 1 2007 04:14

Libcom, help!

Two different NEFACers, one francophone and one anglophone both posted this article without commentary in their myspace bulletins! NEFAC clearly has an infection! Help us cut the cancer out!

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Jun 1 2007 04:32
Flint wrote:
Libcom, help!

Two different NEFACers, one francophone and one anglophone both posted this article without commentary in their myspace bulletins! NEFAC clearly has an infection! Help us cut the cancer out!

Yeah, I dunno. Even the hardline Commies around my work think Chavez fucked up and are critical of the media crackdown and repression (regardless of what the underlying motive is). The consensus is that its not only an abuse of power, but also that he's foolishly playing into the hands of the reactionaries who will use this as a pretext to further build a popular opposition movement. I was a little surprised to see anarchists I know and respect forwarding around apologist articles about it quite honestly...

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Jun 1 2007 04:33
OliverTwister wrote:
For the record, I'm no longer in a NEFAC supporter collective. So, you'll have to wait until you get my application for individual supporter status to vote me down.

And the issue of Rise's support for Venezuela, and slander campaign against the CRA, began when I was still a supporter of NEFAC and a died-in-the-wool Platformist. I didn't know much about the CRA but I knew that supposedly revolutionary anarchists, who consider anarcho-syndicalists to be too theoretically muddled, should not be supporting states and encouraging the repression of other anarchists.

As I recall, SRB, you were in that discussion, which was on myspace but which I've linked to and quoted extensively on this board in the past; and your response was not to challenge Rise's support for Venezuela but to excuse it by saying that the CRA are "synthesists".

Since then you've challenged his views on Chavez, but you've also maintained the distance by noting that he was not formally affiliated to NEFAC.

The fact is, you all have accepted as a "supporter" someone who has led a slander campaign against Venezuelan anarchists accusing them of being agents of the US State Department - and when pressed, the closest he came to a recantation was to say that "maybe they aren't actually on the payroll - but they might as well be."

Don't know what to tell ya. Add it to the list of things that are wrong with NEFAC? (I've lost count myself)

Next?

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
Jun 1 2007 04:44
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
Yeah, I dunno. Even the hardline Commies around my work think Chavez fucked up and are critical of the media crackdown and repression (regardless of what the underlying motive is). The consensus is that its not only an abuse of power, but also that he's foolishly playing into the hands of the reactionaries who will use this as a pretext to further build a popular opposition movement. I was a little surprised to see anarchists I know and respect forwarding around apologist articles about it quite honestly...

Purge!
(is there really any such thing as a hardcore communist unitarian? I didn't think unitarians were hardcore anything?)

Smash Rich Bastards
Offline
Joined: 24-03-06
Jun 1 2007 04:49
Flint wrote:
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
Yeah, I dunno. Even the hardline Commies around my work think Chavez fucked up and are critical of the media crackdown and repression (regardless of what the underlying motive is). The consensus is that its not only an abuse of power, but also that he's foolishly playing into the hands of the reactionaries who will use this as a pretext to further build a popular opposition movement. I was a little surprised to see anarchists I know and respect forwarding around apologist articles about it quite honestly...

Purge!
(is there really any such thing as a hardcore communist unitarian? I didn't think unitarians were hardcore anything?)

You realize if we purge 'em it sets a precedent for booting anyone who posts dumb shit around MySpace, right?

(p.s. I don't think you really understand the nature of my job.)

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
Jun 1 2007 04:51
Smash Rich Bastards wrote:
Flint wrote:
Purge!

You realize if we purge 'em it sets a precedent for booting anyone who posts dumb shit around MySpace, right?

oh.
I suppose that would wipe out at least half the organization.
Maybe more if I could read french.