-criticism on letterbombs and propaganda of the deed-

118 posts / 0 new
Last post
Birthday Pony's picture
Birthday Pony
Offline
Joined: 11-12-11
Jan 23 2012 22:07

LBird,

You're still pigeon-holing me into an atomistic view of society which--if you were comprehending what I've been saying you would realize--I don't have.

I'm comfortable saying that capitalism is greater than the individuals within it and a result of individual behavior within its context. How that necessarily contradicts itself is not at all evident on the basis of what you've said.

And you didn't answer to the deterministic concern of viewing capitalism as independent of the individuals within it. How exactly can we have any effect on capitalism if our actions are simply a result of it? And what does that determinism really say about any notion of a libertarian existence?

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Jan 23 2012 23:55
Birthday Pony wrote:
How exactly can we have any effect on capitalism if our actions are simply a result of it? And what does that determinism really say about any notion of a libertarian existence?

I'll put my two pennorth in here. Saying the problem is the social relationship rather than individual capitalists or politicians is in no way deterministic.

Sure, we are 'free' (for want of a better word) to act as we wish. but that 'freedom' exists within the current social and economic framework, namely, capitalism. So, our options are always limited by the capitalist system. In a libertarian communist society, our options would also be limited, but by a free communist social and economic system which would allow greater personal development and would restrict not only authoritarian practices but would make exploitative relations impossible.

On terrorism, it's a predictable response from the 'All About Me' tendency, i.e. from people with no understanding that we're dealing with a complex social relationship and with very little concept of class or movement solidarity. It's precisely that complex social and economic relationship that needs attacking but it can't be damaged by a few individuals. It can only be effectively attacked by a politically conscious mass working class revolutionary movement.

Now people who do what they can to build such a movement are the real heroes in my book, mainly because it's hard work, generally unglamorous and it's also a long term project that requires staying power from committed revolutionaries.

I don't deny that in times of accelerated class struggle, there will necessarily be revolutionary violence. At the minute though, the level of class struggle is relatively low and the level of class consciousness is even lower. Individual violence by billy-no-mates 'revolutionaries' who want to shoot their political load ultra-prematurely in the face of some individual politician or boss is a complete waste of time.

There's currently no mass working class movement that wouldn't be alienated by that kind of thing and it would only drive a greater wedge between working class revolutionaries and the wider class. It's also counter-productive in so far as it would only bring big shit down on a movement that is still embryonic and really needs a bit more nurturing.

Anyone who wants to bring shit down on our still tiny movement that isn't yet anywhere near strong enough to defend itself from the state and currently has only minimal roots in the class, I would see them as an enemy.

no.25's picture
no.25
Offline
Joined: 14-01-12
Jan 24 2012 03:44
HorrorHiro wrote:
Did you read the rest of that post? And do you not believe that people should be able to live free of laws and oppressive/repressive state's/governing bodies? Then what kind of Anarchist are you exactly? And my point still stands, wouldn't you be going against the movement yourself if you imposed yourself on said murderous individual? I'm not trying to prove you wrong or anything with that last question I'm seriously wondering if that would qualify as going against the movement, I mean I personally would do everything in my power to stop this person (depending on who he killed, like if he was gonna go on a killing spree that consisted of rapists and other killers then I'd probably encourage him.)

I'm going to interject here.

Whatever and however honorable that individual's motives may be, when they act alone without consulting their organization, they alienate themselves from said organization. Therefore, it is them who go against the movement. Regarding laws, surely in a Libertarian-Communist society, there will be laws determined by the community/confederation through means of democracy? You seem to have a predilection for individualism, and there may be communes with very little structure which you may prefer, but once these communes infringe upon human rights and other communes, action will have to be taken against them. Individuals alone are not arbiters of justice, and while rape is indeed a vile crime, I do not support individuals who designate themselves as agents of vigilante justice. I can't speak for anyone else on that issue.

You can take out as many of the bourgeoisie as you want, but as long as the social relations which enable private ownership over the means of production to exist, one fuck will just be replaced with another fuck. In a theoretical revolution, expropriation and democratically managed production and consumption would negate these social relations. If the bourgeoisie didn't attempt to resist expropriation, there would be no need to liquidate them, not that I think that is a realistic prospect or anything. Does that make sense?

tastybrain
Offline
Joined: 11-11-07
Jan 24 2012 04:08
HorrorHiro wrote:
I completely agree with Ambrose, who exactly gets to dictate how fellow Anarchist try to help the movement? Simply because you disagree with it? In these modern times we have to look at means for reaching our goals from more than 1 perspective.

There's not a doubt in my mind that violence is necessary for the movement to move forward, maybe not right now but it most certainly will be. But I don't think any sort of organized violence against the state and or it's forces should happen without a concrete revolutionary force.

HorrorHiro, why are you commenting on this thread? This is an internal debate amongst advocates of anarcho-communism as to the tactics most suitable for bringing about that goal. As you have made abundantly clear in this thread, you are not in any way a part of "the movement". Sorry.

Birthday Pony's picture
Birthday Pony
Offline
Joined: 11-12-11
Jan 24 2012 07:46

Just so you know, I'm not responding to the violence part because we all pretty much agree that now is not the time and letterbombs are fucking dumb.

Serge Forward wrote:
I'll put my two pennorth in here. Saying the problem is the social relationship rather than individual capitalists or politicians is in no way deterministic.

It's not, but LBird is suggesting that looking at individual action at all is atomistic, and that we cannot take into account the actions of individuals in analyzing capitalism. I simply don't know how that's possible.

Quote:
Sure, we are 'free' (for want of a better word) to act as we wish. but that 'freedom' exists within the current social and economic framework, namely, capitalism. So, our options are always limited by the capitalist system. In a libertarian communist society, our options would also be limited, but by a free communist social and economic system which would allow greater personal development and would restrict not only authoritarian practices but would make exploitative relations impossible.

My concern is more with analyzing the system rather than pondering different ratios of positive or negative freedom in a bunch of different potential societies. What I'm saying is that capitalism is something that is acted on, performed, by people, every day, internally and externally. We're offered reinforcement for acting in accordance to capitalism, and punishment for deviating. The reward and punishment do not fall out of the sky from some capitalist Zeus. Both are carried out by people. To deny the role of the individual in this process is to deny them their conscience and will.

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Jan 24 2012 09:01
Birthday Pony wrote:
I'm comfortable saying that capitalism is greater than the individuals within it and a result of individual behavior within its context.

The problem is that ‘individual behaviour’, while ‘free’ to some extent, is also both circumscribed and directed by social relationships. In other words, as ‘individuals’ we sometimes can do just what we want, we sometimes are prevented doing what we want and we sometimes do what society tells us to do (often unconscious of the fact). For us as Communists, surely the bit we are interested in is not our freedom to eat or shit when we like, but the parts of our lives where we are blocked or manipulated by the social relationships within which we find ourselves from birth. The sources of this are beyond ‘individual’ considerations.

Birthday Pony wrote:
And you didn't answer to the deterministic concern of viewing capitalism as independent of the individuals within it.

You seem to be suggesting that if we discuss ‘individuals’ and the extent of their lack of ‘freedom’ we are somehow being ‘deterministic’. Clearly, there is some ‘determination’ of individuals’ behaviour in all societies, and there will be in a Communist society, but the more we are aware of those ‘deterministic’ features of our existence, the better for us when we discuss our future social arrangements.

Birthday Pony wrote:
And what does that determinism really say about any notion of a libertarian existence?

Well, I’d say that our awareness of this social fact can only make our ‘libertarian existence’ the stronger for recognising it! We need to ensure that our social structure is ‘libertarian’, not just pretend that ‘individuals are free’, in a bourgeois sense. Surely this is what class consciousness is all about, and how the human race ‘comes to consciousness’ of its social existence by democratically controlling the social structure within which, inevitably for a social animal, we will always find ourselves.

Furthermore, I can only strongly endorse Serge’s supportive sentiments:

Serge Forward wrote:
I'll put my two pennorth in here. Saying the problem is the social relationship rather than individual capitalists or politicians is in no way deterministic.
Sure, we are 'free' (for want of a better word) to act as we wish. but that 'freedom' exists within the current social and economic framework, namely, capitalism. So, our options are always limited by the capitalist system. In a libertarian communist society, our options would also be limited, but by a free communist social and economic system which would allow greater personal development and would restrict not only authoritarian practices but would make exploitative relations impossible.

I hope the above from the both of us helps clear up the misunderstanding with Birthday Pony.

Birthday Pony wrote:
... but LBird is suggesting that looking at individual action at all is atomistic, and that we cannot take into account the actions of individuals in analyzing capitalism.

The ‘actions of individuals’ places the focus in the wrong area: the real focus of our interest, especially in dealing with the issue of ‘terrorism’, is the social structure of capitalism, which, yes, in some way, determines the actions of individuals. ‘Class’ is of far more importance than ‘individual’. Both are ideological constructs, and which we choose to use to help understand our society will betray our social conditioning: unexamined ‘bourgeois socialisation’ or consciously-chosen ‘Communism’.

It’s our ‘coming to consciousness’ of the elements of our social determination that in fact liberates us, and allows us to analyse, act upon and change that social structure.

I’m a Libertarian Communist, not a Libertarian Individualist, and this is displayed by my social, not individual, concerns.

Birthday Pony wrote:
To deny the role of the individual in this process is to deny them their conscience and will.

To deny the role of society in the makeup of the individual is to deny them their social consciousness. ‘Conscience and will’ are at least partially social attributes, as is the power to indulge our ‘conscience and will’ freely in any sense. We have to make sure that social power works for us all. Focusing on ‘individuals’ does not do that: in fact, it conceals it.

soc's picture
soc
Offline
Joined: 21-04-11
Jan 24 2012 10:55

@Serge Forward:
About bringing shit down to the movement. While I agree largely what has been said about the uselessness of individual crusade against individual capitalists or their pets, I'm quite concerned about refusing the solidarity with anarchists who are on this path. I suppose we are on the same track regarding that capitalism can not be abolished through taking out politicians, fat cats, cops etc.. Having said that, I can still see why people turn to such a desperate, spectacular, but in the final analysis useless actions, and thus recognize them comrades (if they are indeed hold the same basic idea about capitalism). It is so, because if I have a better look on our "movement", I can see a largely harmless bunch of groupings, there's nothing in it that in any level challenges capitalism at this moment in time.
So to say, that only massive working class organization can bring down the system, while it is probably true, is not encompassing by any means today. Also, it seems like that some anarchist thinks that all groups that commits violent acts against prominent bastards, have an individualist analysis. People who resort to the "propaganda by deed" have often the conclusion, that only mass working class organisation can stand up against exploitation, and alienation, but seeing the lack of this organisation, they think that their actions would reach the masses of the working class and encourage them in to action. It is far too easy to denounce them as vanguardist at this point, but I think the picture is more complex than that.

Vanguardism is the fetish of professional revolutionaries who would know better than others, how the revolution will come about, and who regard themselves as the one and only possible leader of successful uprising. It isn't perceived only as a tactic, that is, if a group of anarchists would find creative way to subvert capitalism in their particular situation, and it is easy to apply these ways in other places simply because the situation resembling to theirs enough, but putting in to the heart of the communist organisation, as a way of salvation. Now I would say that some armed factions do not insist that their tactics would bring about the revolution directly, or that they would substitute the every class struggle of workers by killing some fat cats. They perceive their actions as one of the multitude of tactics practiced by revolutionaries and as a contribution for putting communism forward.

That is to say, it is imperative to challenge their views and their tactics, but you only can do that if you recognise them as comrade not as an enemy. As for the bringing the repression down... I have written above, so I don't want to repeat again, but repression will come down to you any time if your org looks threatening in any way. You can use the most peaceful, even legal ways to disrupt capitalist reality, with strikes, or whatever, but repression would still find you. In fact, plenty of working class individuals, while not being openly anti-capitalist, does not harm anyone in status quo, and still experiences the repression on a daily basis. There's no reason to being hostile against comrades on the grounds that they bring police repression on you indirectly. This argument is on the slippery slope to the lefty/liberal argument against anarchist in general. "We're just fighting for this or that right and the presence of these anarchists bring the police repression on us. Please officer, make sure that our ranks will be pure from these troublemakers!"

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Jan 24 2012 12:45
soc wrote:
I'm quite concerned about refusing the solidarity with anarchists who are on this path...

I think you're making a political mistake, soc, to feel that you have to line up with self-declared 'fellow-Anarchists'. The political path that those supporting terrorist acts are on, is not the same political path that we Libertarian Communists are on, whether they call themselves 'Anarchists' or not.

For the same reason, there are plenty of 'Communists' or 'Marxists' whom I would reject, because though they might share the same ostensible ideas as me, according to 'titles' at least, I don't agree with them politically, perhaps about 'vanguardism' or 'electoral capture of the state', or somesuch.

soc wrote:
That is to say, it is imperative to challenge their views and their tactics, but you only can do that if you recognise them as comrade not as an enemy.

Well, 'Anarchist-terrorists' or 'Marxist-terrorists' who blow up workers (and they do, whatever their alleged 'targets') are part of the 'enemy', in my book.

They are as much a friend, and as open to our democratic, collective persuasion, as are some bosses. Of course, we should try, with both.

But, 'comrades'? No, that's a step too far... you can't blow up a social relationship, as we all keep reiterating.

soc's picture
soc
Offline
Joined: 21-04-11
Jan 24 2012 13:57

I'm a bit puzzled with your analogy between 'electoral capture of the state' and killing individual capitalists. The former is definitely a strategy, removing the necessity of revolution, which isn't necessarily true for the latter. To put it simply, those who advocate the strategy of parliamentarian participation, they definitely seek for mass support, even worse, mass action and acceptance for their own strategy, while armed factions do not need massive organisation to set in motion their own agenda.

As for the (lack of) democratic process and collective persuasion. As I pointed out above, at this very moment, we can't say that the anarchist movement has any effective revolutionary base, in terms of massive organisations. If there are no crowds involved in revolutionary organisations, they have no power for collective persuasion. Anarchists show up on middle of center political demonstrations, to show their flags, distribute their propaganda, a few times they get involved in workplace struggles which brings little to no gain in terms of the communism, neither in propaganda. That's basically all there is. These are the times when people loosing their patience and for a good reason. All lively looking movement goes down fast and die in passivity when it comes to revolutionary goals. There's nothing inherently good in (direct) democracy either. Who's democratic decision is applied to terrorists? Or, as a matter a fact, to you, or me? The masses'? The majority of people does not give a shit about either revolutionary unions, or terrorist cells.

Democracy, when it comes to communism is completely meaningless word, I think. Political action can not be translated to only one specific political form. Let's say, you are organising a strike at the toilet factory. It is clear that many people need toilet, so you are forcing your own agenda on them, against their needs. Even if you hand out toilets for free for the "customers", you put the production process in jeopardy, as the lack of income eventually will shut down the necessary raw materials, energy and other stuff that you need to make toilets. So, you either wait until the Big General Strike indefinitely with your own demands... or make a step even if you know that it would hurt people (they can't get their toilets), even working class people, and many would not agree with your goals. Like it or not, class war isn't that pretty. It's a war within an otherwise more and more integrated society, and disruption of its circuits (let it be strike, sabotage, or outright violence) is coercion, and not necessarily through democratic process.

Back to our topic. I think there are virtually nobody on this forum who would oppose to strike campaign against bosses, who scrap the health and safety equipment of their factory, because it places workers' health or even their life in immediate danger. Similarly, there are politicians, individuals who are personally responsible for unsustainable misery, and death or thousands, or even millions of people. Taking out their person could disrupt the normal functioning of the system, therefore it isn't anything different from organising strikes and perhaps it would be necessary to resort to killing the individual in some circumstances. That won't bring about communism however. None of these in themselves. If anything will, a revolution would consist of all these in a concerted effort.

HorrorHiro's picture
HorrorHiro
Offline
Joined: 27-09-11
Jan 24 2012 15:22
no.25 wrote:
HorrorHiro wrote:
Did you read the rest of that post? And do you not believe that people should be able to live free of laws and oppressive/repressive state's/governing bodies? Then what kind of Anarchist are you exactly? And my point still stands, wouldn't you be going against the movement yourself if you imposed yourself on said murderous individual? I'm not trying to prove you wrong or anything with that last question I'm seriously wondering if that would qualify as going against the movement, I mean I personally would do everything in my power to stop this person (depending on who he killed, like if he was gonna go on a killing spree that consisted of rapists and other killers then I'd probably encourage him.)

I'm going to interject here.

Whatever and however honorable that individual's motives may be, when they act alone without consulting their organization, they alienate themselves from said organization. Therefore, it is them who go against the movement. Regarding laws, surely in a Libertarian-Communist society, there will be laws determined by the community/confederation through means of democracy? You seem to have a predilection for individualism, and there may be communes with very little structure which you may prefer, but once these communes infringe upon human rights and other communes, action will have to be taken against them. Individuals alone are not arbiters of justice, and while rape is indeed a vile crime, I do not support individuals who designate themselves as agents of vigilante justice. I can't speak for anyone else on that issue.

You can take out as many of the bourgeoisie as you want, but as long as the social relations which enable private ownership over the means of production to exist, one fuck will just be replaced with another fuck. In a theoretical revolution, expropriation and democratically managed production and consumption would negate these social relations. If the bourgeoisie didn't attempt to resist expropriation, there would be no need to liquidate them, not that I think that is a realistic prospect or anything. Does that make sense?

It makes sense, but it doesn't mean much of anything to me due to my individualist ideals and the fact that I'm not a communist. I am an Anarchist however and I believe that the human race can evolve beyond the need of enforced laws, that defeats the Anti-Authoritarian aspect of Anarchism.

HorrorHiro's picture
HorrorHiro
Offline
Joined: 27-09-11
Jan 24 2012 15:26
tastybrain wrote:
HorrorHiro wrote:
I completely agree with Ambrose, who exactly gets to dictate how fellow Anarchist try to help the movement? Simply because you disagree with it? In these modern times we have to look at means for reaching our goals from more than 1 perspective.

There's not a doubt in my mind that violence is necessary for the movement to move forward, maybe not right now but it most certainly will be. But I don't think any sort of organized violence against the state and or it's forces should happen without a concrete revolutionary force.

HorrorHiro, why are you commenting on this thread? This is an internal debate amongst advocates of anarcho-communism as to the tactics most suitable for bringing about that goal. As you have made abundantly clear in this thread, you are not in any way a part of "the movement". Sorry.

Are you implying that Anarcho-Communism has it's own movement outside of the general Anarchist movement(s)? And I thought this thread was about critiques of using violence against the state.

HorrorHiro's picture
HorrorHiro
Offline
Joined: 27-09-11
Jan 24 2012 15:31
HorrorHiro wrote:
no.25 wrote:
HorrorHiro wrote:
Did you read the rest of that post? And do you not believe that people should be able to live free of laws and oppressive/repressive state's/governing bodies? Then what kind of Anarchist are you exactly? And my point still stands, wouldn't you be going against the movement yourself if you imposed yourself on said murderous individual? I'm not trying to prove you wrong or anything with that last question I'm seriously wondering if that would qualify as going against the movement, I mean I personally would do everything in my power to stop this person (depending on who he killed, like if he was gonna go on a killing spree that consisted of rapists and other killers then I'd probably encourage him.)

I'm going to interject here.

Whatever and however honorable that individual's motives may be, when they act alone without consulting their organization, they alienate themselves from said organization. Therefore, it is them who go against the movement. Regarding laws, surely in a Libertarian-Communist society, there will be laws determined by the community/confederation through means of democracy? You seem to have a predilection for individualism, and there may be communes with very little structure which you may prefer, but once these communes infringe upon human rights and other communes, action will have to be taken against them. Individuals alone are not arbiters of justice, and while rape is indeed a vile crime, I do not support individuals who designate themselves as agents of vigilante justice. I can't speak for anyone else on that issue.

You can take out as many of the bourgeoisie as you want, but as long as the social relations which enable private ownership over the means of production to exist, one fuck will just be replaced with another fuck. In a theoretical revolution, expropriation and democratically managed production and consumption would negate these social relations. If the bourgeoisie didn't attempt to resist expropriation, there would be no need to liquidate them, not that I think that is a realistic prospect or anything. Does that make sense?

It makes sense, but it doesn't mean much of anything to me due to my individualist ideals and the fact that I'm not a communist. I am an Anarchist however and I believe that the human race can evolve beyond the need of enforced laws, that defeats the Anti-Authoritarian aspect of Anarchism.

And can explain what you mean by "organization"?

soc's picture
soc
Offline
Joined: 21-04-11
Jan 24 2012 15:35

HH: This is an anarcho-communist website. Enough said...

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Jan 24 2012 15:54
HorrorHiro wrote:
Are you implying that Anarcho-Communism has it's own movement outside of the general Anarchist movement(s)?

I should fucking hope so. There's some right wankity wank shite in what calls itself the 'anarchist movement'. I'd rather talk to a despised trot than some of the eejits that call themselves anarchists.

Soc, I might understand why people choose to go on the terroristic path but whatever their good intentions, it's still unjustifiable and puts them in the enemy camp. I also think the analogy between electoralism and terrorism is a good one as both are based on the passivity of the masses in the face of professional politicians or 'real' revolutionaries that are somehow separate from the rest of us.

Also, apologies if I'm misreading you but, at least on the surface, you seem to be suggesting some kind of substitutionism, i.e. substituting the 'movement' for the class. The fact that the class struggle anarchist movement is so feeble is partly linked to the low level of class rebellion at the moment and no amount of us running round is going to change that. We are working in conditions not of our own making, and while it will need the wider working class to fundamentally change those conditions (the capitalist social relationship), revolutionaries nevertheless have an important role to play in participating in ongoing struggles, organising, while at the same time promoting revolutionary ideas and effective tactics and strategies within those struggles.

soc's picture
soc
Offline
Joined: 21-04-11
Jan 24 2012 16:36

I have a slightly different perception of electorialism and terrorism in this respect. Though I find the word terrorism here a bit too controversial. Where I electorialism exploiting the low level of class rebellion, and perhaps even worse because it's trying to reduce the class war to delusional activity of voting, (anarchist!) terrorism is rather a result of the disorganized, fragmented working class. While I would not support either, I see terrorism as a side effect of revolutionary impatience. At least, that's what I could read out of the manifestos and the history of anarchist combatant groups.

Serge Forward wrote:
Also, apologies if I'm misreading you but, at least on the surface, you seem to be suggesting some kind of substitutionism, i.e. substituting the 'movement' for the class.

Yes, and no. I risk to play with the words a bit, but in my idea of communism, the class would be destroyed through the process where working class people loosing their "working class"-ness by joining to the communist movement. And by joing to the communist movement I mean, they do, whatever in their capabilities to sabotage capitalism, and reach out for others who do the same.

Now this:

Serge Forward wrote:
We are working in conditions not of our own making

Frankly, in my understanding, this is the biggest tragedy. It's like catch 22. We can't dictate the conditions without massive working class revolt, but massive working class revolt can't come from defensive political attitude. The traditional working class methods offer too little gains for enormous effort, and these gains are channeled easily to consolidate them in to reformism.

This discussion however deviated from the letter bombs big time, so it probably deserves its own topic. I already ran forward (or rather backward) to check on my ideas about active struggle (voluntarist perspective) and determinism, as historical necessity of struggle.

no.25's picture
no.25
Offline
Joined: 14-01-12
Jan 24 2012 17:14
HorrorHiro wrote:
that defeats the Anti-Authoritarian aspect of Anarchism.

Yeah, sure, if you perceive yourself as some entity abstracted from and unaccountable to society. Would you happen to enjoy punk music? Shit like this is why I tend to call myself a Libertarian-Socialist when attempting to convey my ideology to others who aren't familiar with it. "If there was no government, wouldn't there be chaos?" "What if I told you to fuck off?"

tastybrain
Offline
Joined: 11-11-07
Jan 24 2012 19:06
HorrorHiro wrote:
Are you implying that Anarcho-Communism has it's own movement outside of the general Anarchist movement(s)? And I thought this thread was about critiques of using violence against the state.

Ding ding ding...we have a winner!

As some nice people have already attempted to explain to you, (such as Rob Ray), historically the movement known as "anarchism" has also been communist. Period. "Anarchist" only began to mean something other than "anarcho-communist" when right wing fuckheads started attempting to opportunistically attach themselves to the "anarchist" label. Nowadays we have a bunch of silly people (like your good self) running around claiming to be anarchists and not communists, although I would say these people are still the minority of self described "anarchists".

Since arguing over who the "real" anarchists are is silly (although of course the anarcho-communists would win the argument if it was a debate about the history of the term), we anarcho-communists have taken the high road and come up with the more specific term (anarcho-communist) to differentiate ourselves from the massive fucking wastes of life calling themselves "anarcho-capitalists", "anarcho-nationalists" (!!!!), etc etc.

So if your conception of an "anarchist" is "any fuckhead who happens to describe him/herself using that term" (like this dipshit), then the answer to your question "are you implying that Anarcho-Communism has it's own movement outside of the general Anarchist movement(s)?" is a massive fucking YES. In no way am I part of the same movement as Rothbard and the gold-obsessed anti central banking weirdos. If you view "anarcho-capitalism", "anarcho-nationalism", etc, as being obvious oxymorons, as I do, and tend to think they are not in fact anarchist, then no, we don't have a movement separate from anarchism, because any decent anarchist should also be a communist.

Yes, this is a thread about violence, but you are the one who claims we should support these people because they are supposedly part of the same "movement" as us. That may be true (many anarcho-communist groups and individuals historically have resorted to insurrectionism), but you are most certainly not a part of our movement, as you have declared your opposition to communism many times. As such, why do you feel your opinion is valid in this debate? While we are very much in disagreement with the tactic of letterbombing, all sides of this debate are agreed that anarcho-communism is the goal; the question is over tactics. As someone is isn't part of "the movement", I don't think your opinion is valid or interesting, sorry.

HorrorHiro's picture
HorrorHiro
Offline
Joined: 27-09-11
Jan 24 2012 19:13
no.25 wrote:
HorrorHiro wrote:
that defeats the Anti-Authoritarian aspect of Anarchism.

Yeah, sure, if you perceive yourself as some entity abstracted from and unaccountable to society. Would you happen to enjoy punk music? Shit like this is why I tend to call myself a Libertarian-Socialist when attempting to convey my ideology to others who aren't familiar with it. "If there was no government, wouldn't there be chaos?" "What if I told you to fuck off?"

Anti-Flag, Bad Religion, Rage Against The Machine.

tastybrain
Offline
Joined: 11-11-07
Jan 24 2012 19:25
LBird wrote:
The political path that those supporting terrorist acts are on, is not the same political path that we Libertarian Communists are on
LBird wrote:
Unpleasant as are the killing of kittens or indeed the murderous campaigns of 'liberation movements', they pale into insignificance in comparison with State Terrorism.

To use the term in the way the press does, that is, for any violent political act, is to ideologically side with the ruling class.

(from this thread)

Am I missing something here, comrade? wink laugh out loud

HorrorHiro's picture
HorrorHiro
Offline
Joined: 27-09-11
Jan 24 2012 19:31
tastybrain wrote:
HorrorHiro wrote:
Are you implying that Anarcho-Communism has it's own movement outside of the general Anarchist movement(s)? And I thought this thread was about critiques of using violence against the state.

Ding ding ding...we have a winner!

As some nice people have already attempted to explain to you, (such as Rob Ray), historically the movement known as "anarchism" has also been communist. Period. "Anarchist" only began to mean something other than "anarcho-communist" when right wing fuckheads started attempting to opportunistically attach themselves to the "anarchist" label. Nowadays we have a bunch of silly people (like your good self) running around claiming to be anarchists and not communists, although I would say these people are still the minority of self described "anarchists".

Since arguing over who the "real" anarchists are is silly (although of course the anarcho-communists would win the argument if it was a debate about the history of the term), we anarcho-communists have taken the high road and come up with the more specific term (anarcho-communist) to differentiate ourselves from the massive fucking wastes of life calling themselves "anarcho-capitalists", "anarcho-nationalists" (!!!!), etc etc.

So if your conception of an "anarchist" is "any fuckhead who happens to describe him/herself using that term" (like this dipshit), then the answer to your question "are you implying that Anarcho-Communism has it's own movement outside of the general Anarchist movement(s)?" is a massive fucking YES. In no way am I part of the same movement as Rothbard and the gold-obsessed anti central banking weirdos. If you view "anarcho-capitalism", "anarcho-nationalism", etc, as being obvious oxymorons, as I do, and tend to think they are not in fact anarchist, then no, we don't have a movement separate from anarchism, because any decent anarchist should also be a communist.

Yes, this is a thread about violence, but you are the one who claims we should support these people because they are supposedly part of the same "movement" as us. That may be true (many anarcho-communist groups and individuals historically have resorted to insurrectionism), but you are most certainly not a part of our movement, as you have declared your opposition to communism many times. As such, why do you feel your opinion is valid in this debate? While we are very much in disagreement with the tactic of letterbombing, all sides of this debate are agreed that anarcho-communism is the goal; the question is over tactics. As someone is isn't part of "the movement", I don't think your opinion is valid or interesting, sorry.

I was just reading something about how "types" (for lack of a better word) of Anarchism have become extremely dogmatic (Anarcho-Communism & Anarcho-Capitalism primarily) and dismiss everyone who doesn't identify as what they are, hey you and the capitalists have something in common grin

I thought it had been previously established that Libertarian/Liberal communists and general Anarchists have very much in common? And I love the way you put things like "Anarcho-Communists took the high road" simply because Anarcho is in front of communism...wow is all I can say to that.

tastybrain
Offline
Joined: 11-11-07
Jan 24 2012 19:52
HorrorHiro wrote:
I was just reading something about how "types" (for lack of a better word) of Anarchism have become extremely dogmatic (Anarcho-Communism & Anarcho-Capitalism primarily) and dismiss everyone who doesn't identify as what they are, hey you and the capitalists have something in common grin

If you knew anything about capitalism or capitalists you would know that capitalists are quite tolerant of most lifestyle choices, as long as they can make a nice profit off of selling them. If you think I am dogmatic and you don't like anarcho communism, please just fuck off from this website. As countless people have pointed out, it's called LIBCOM. "Com" being short for communist! We are under no obligation to tolerate you or anyone else from outside our political tendency on these boards.

Also, it's not true that I dismiss everyone who doesn't identify as what I am. If you were a liberal, a conservative, or a social democrat I would make an effort to engage with you. Since you are clearly an individualist/capitalist "anarchist" I don't think there is much of a point...

HorrorHiro wrote:
I thought it had been previously established that Libertarian/Liberal communists and general Anarchists have very much in common?

Does not compute. Are you talking about the historical movement of anarchism (always communist), or the handful of wackjobs who have opportunistically decided to leach onto it (anarcho capitalists, etc). If you mean the former, yes libertarian communism (not sure what liberal communism is, lol) has much in common with anarchist communism. It has absolutely nothing in common with the confused individualism you seem to be espousing.

HorrorHiro wrote:
And I love the way you put things like "Anarcho-Communists took the high road"

The "took the high road" part was kind of a joke. But really, I don't think the term "anarcho-communism" was needed until right wing ideologies tried to use "anarchy" as a way to make their warmed-over economic liberalism a little sexier. If you are aware of any anarcho-communists taking over terms historically used to describe right-wing movements I would love to hear about them (I've never heard of "communist voluntarism" for example...)

HorrorHiro wrote:
simply because Anarcho is in front of communism...wow is all I can say to that.

I don't really understand what you're saying here.

no.25's picture
no.25
Offline
Joined: 14-01-12
Jan 24 2012 21:10
HorrorHiro wrote:

I thought it had been previously established that Libertarian/Liberal communists and general Anarchists have very much in common? And I love the way you put things like "Anarcho-Communists took the high road" simply because Anarcho is in front of communism...wow is all I can say to that.

Lol, "liberal-communist."

- Edited to unclutter this thread.

wojtek
Offline
Joined: 8-01-11
Jan 24 2012 20:01

Slavoj mutherfuckin' Zizek uses 'liberal communist', but I doubt HH has read his work.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n07/slavoj-zizek/nobody-has-to-be-vile

LBird
Offline
Joined: 21-09-10
Jan 24 2012 20:01
tastybrain wrote:
LBird wrote:
The political path that those supporting terrorist acts are on, is not the same political path that we Libertarian Communists are on
LBird wrote:
Unpleasant as are the killing of kittens or indeed the murderous campaigns of 'liberation movements', they pale into insignificance in comparison with State Terrorism.

To use the term in the way the press does, that is, for any violent political act, is to ideologically side with the ruling class.

(from this thread)

Am I missing something here, comrade? wink laugh out loud

Only the wider context of the criticism of Graeber, mate!

LBird wrote:
'Terrorism' is the murder of millions in Vietnam by the bombing authorised by Kissinger or the support of coups d'etat in which tens of thousands of working class activists throughout South American have been tortured, raped and then murdered.

'Terrorism', real 'terrorism', is acts by the state, not by near-powerless individuals or small groups.

Unpleasant as are the killing of kittens or indeed the murderous campaigns of 'liberation movements', they pale into insignificance in comparison with State Terrorism.

To use the term in the way the press does, that is, for any violent political act, is to ideologically side with the ruling class.

I'm just using the term as it has been employed by everybody else on this thread at the moment. I haven't got the energy to challenge that, all over again, in the context of the far more important issue here of the politically mistaken and dangerous 'support for terrorism' line.

Perhaps we should use 'state-terrorism' and 'dickhead-terrorism' to differentiate, but for now, in this context, the covering term 'terrorism' will do, notwithstanding my earlier comments, which I still stand by, because state-terror is far more deadly than dickhead-terrorism, but both kill workers.

Anyway, thanks for the reminder of my rhetorical inconsistencies!

no.25's picture
no.25
Offline
Joined: 14-01-12
Jan 24 2012 20:11

"Anarchists" like HH make me want to convert to Marxism.

Cooked's picture
Cooked
Offline
Joined: 6-04-10
Jan 24 2012 20:14

Isn't there a serious overstatement that all anarchists have always been communists going on? All anarchists are socialists but there has always been non communists strands. To deny them as part of the history of anarchism seems absurd.

HorrorHiro's picture
HorrorHiro
Offline
Joined: 27-09-11
Jan 24 2012 20:15
tastybrain wrote:
HorrorHiro wrote:
I was just reading something about how "types" (for lack of a better word) of Anarchism have become extremely dogmatic (Anarcho-Communism & Anarcho-Capitalism primarily) and dismiss everyone who doesn't identify as what they are, hey you and the capitalists have something in common grin

If you knew anything about capitalism or capitalists you would know that capitalists are quite tolerant of most lifestyle choices, as long as they can make a nice profit off of selling them. If you think I am dogmatic and you don't like anarcho communism, please just fuck off from this website. As countless people have pointed out, it's called LIBCOM. "Com" being short for communist! We are under no obligation to tolerate you or anyone else from outside our political tendency on these boards.

Also, it's not true that I dismiss everyone who doesn't identify as what I am. If you were a liberal, a conservative, or a social democrat I would make an effort to engage with you. Since you are clearly an individualist/capitalist "anarchist" I don't think there is much of a point...

HorrorHiro wrote:
I thought it had been previously established that Libertarian/Liberal communists and general Anarchists have very much in common?

Does not compute. Are you talking about the historical movement of anarchism (always communist), or the handful of wackjobs who have opportunistically decided to leach onto it (anarcho capitalists, etc). If you mean the former, yes libertarian communism (not sure what liberal communism is, lol) has much in common with anarchist communism. It has absolutely nothing in common with the confused individualism you seem to be espousing.

HorrorHiro wrote:
And I love the way you put things like "Anarcho-Communists took the high road"

The "took the high road" part was kind of a joke. But really, I don't think the term "anarcho-communism" was needed until right wing ideologies tried to use "anarchy" as a way to make their warmed-over economic liberalism a little sexier. If you are aware of any anarcho-communists taking over terms historically used to describe right-wing movements I would love to hear about them (I've never heard of "communist voluntarism" for example...)

HorrorHiro wrote:
simply because Anarcho is in front of communism...wow is all I can say to that.

I don't really understand what you're saying here.

Alright 1st off I don't know if you are taking any offense to my responses (it doesn't seem like it thankfully) but if you are please don't, sometimes I forget that the internet doesn't have a sarcasm button and I may or may not come off as a complete asshole and or troll.

Now I'm curious why exactly did you call me a capitalist? I thought I had made it rather clear that I am anti-capitalist. And yes I am fully aware of capitalists/capitalisms ways of tolerating those which they can profit off of. And again yes I am fully aware that this is a communist forum. And just so we're on the same page I never asked anyone to tolerate me, feel free to feel however you wish about me and also feel free to voice those opinions if that is what you feel like doing. And the "Liberal communist" thing is a long ass story so I'll shorten it for you, I live in America nuff said. And that last part was suppose to go with Anarcho-Communist high road thing.

HorrorHiro's picture
HorrorHiro
Offline
Joined: 27-09-11
Jan 24 2012 20:16
Cooked wrote:
Isn't there a serious overstatement that all anarchists have always been communists going on? All anarchists are socialists but there has always been non communists strands. To deny them as part of the history of anarchism seems absurd.

Very well put.

HorrorHiro's picture
HorrorHiro
Offline
Joined: 27-09-11
Jan 24 2012 20:20
no.25 wrote:
HorrorHiro wrote:

I thought it had been previously established that Libertarian/Liberal communists and general Anarchists have very much in common? And I love the way you put things like "Anarcho-Communists took the high road" simply because Anarcho is in front of communism...wow is all I can say to that.

Lol, "liberal-communist."

Like I said the whole liberal-communist thing is a long story, and again short version is America. And I LOVE Dead Kennedy's!

no.25's picture
no.25
Offline
Joined: 14-01-12
Jan 24 2012 21:31

I'm from the US as well, but I don't imagine that I'd ever call myself a "liberal-communist," considering that as a term, it is completely contradictory.

I don't see how any rational person who is acquainted with what communism actually is can be opposed to it, unless they're bourgeois or just not comprehending how it would actually benefit them and the rest of humanity.

We're communists, you're not, what comes next?