Stuggle can even change primmos (apparently)

170 posts / 0 new
Last post
welshboy's picture
welshboy
Offline
Joined: 11-05-06
Jan 6 2012 08:21
nathorange wrote:
The likes of @theorynerd are not "abelists" as you try to demagogue them. Open your mind a bit and hear what they are saying.

Birthday Pony's picture
Birthday Pony
Offline
Joined: 11-12-11
Jan 6 2012 08:22

This is one of the most sectarian boards I've ever seen.

Jordan
Offline
Joined: 23-12-11
Jan 6 2012 08:45
Birthday Pony wrote:
This is one of the most sectarian boards I've ever seen.

Pointing out the logical consequences of the points of others, isn't sectarian.

You are right that sectarianism is rife in other ways on here though.

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Jan 6 2012 10:53

'Sectarianism' roll eyes . This word often gets pulled out when people don't agree. Maybe they just don't agree?

Fall Back's picture
Fall Back
Offline
Joined: 22-09-03
Jan 6 2012 11:02
Birthday Pony wrote:
This is one of the most sectarian boards I've ever seen.

Why use a word if you don't understand what it means?

edit - a bit snide maybe. But so fucking sick of people misusing the word. There is nothing sectarian about ruthless criticism of incredibly stupid ideas like primitivism. Not even close - in fact the sectarian thing to do would be to not criticise it because "we're all anarchists".

Spassmaschine
Offline
Joined: 29-01-07
Jan 6 2012 11:04

I imagine (although Birthday Pony can no doubt speak for his/her self) that the term 'sectarianism' (whether it is the most accurate term or not) more refers to comments such as many of Chilli Sauce's these days, that don't actually attempt to understand and engage with opposing arguments or add anything to the discussion, but merely appear to belittle posters with whom Chilli et al may be in disagreement, or make poor attempts at humour/in-jokes in an attempt to show how in with the clique they are.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jan 6 2012 16:30
Spaßmaschine wrote:
I imagine (although Birthday Pony can no doubt speak for his/her self) that the term 'sectarianism' (whether it is the most accurate term or not) more refers to comments such as many of Chilli Sauce's these days, that don't actually attempt to understand and engage with opposing arguments or add anything to the discussion, but merely appear to belittle posters with whom Chilli et al may be in disagreement, or make poor attempts at humour/in-jokes in an attempt to show how in with the clique they are.

See, now that's sectarian wink

Sectarianism, for the record, means putting your group/organisation before what's best for the class. To be fair, people who believe in getting rid of agriculture or technology or civilisation aren't putting their group before the needs of class. However, they are putting irrationality before class politics.

And pointing that out isn't sectarian either.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jan 6 2012 16:37

Also, for the record, this thread hadn't been posted on for three months until nathorange wondered back on telling me to "open my mind" when in fact the whole point of the OP was that as much as I disagree with primitivists , I think it's fucking great they're supporting the class struggle.

And that, my friend, is the opposite of sectarianism.

Birthday Pony's picture
Birthday Pony
Offline
Joined: 11-12-11
Jan 6 2012 17:55

I was referring more to the general attitude (amongst many) that anyone who doesn't support class struggle first and foremost borders on the edges of being useless or the boogey-man of "lifestylism." While there's plenty of dissent to go around here, I've never seen so many people (and not solely on this thread) almost insist on class reductionism.

Fall Back's picture
Fall Back
Offline
Joined: 22-09-03
Jan 6 2012 18:16
Quote:
I was referring more to the general attitude (amongst many) that anyone who doesn't support class struggle first and foremost borders on the edges of being useless or the boogey-man of "lifestylism."

Characterture aside, this isn't sectarianism. It's having politics.

Quote:
While there's plenty of dissent to go around here, I've never seen so many people (and not solely on this thread) almost insist on class reductionism.

Having class struggle politics isn't class reductionism. Honestly, why keep on throwing around terms that you don't understand?

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jan 6 2012 18:28

Wait (and correct me if I'm wrong) but BP weren't you slagging off libcom because too many people liked Marx and were closer to state socialists and Stalinists?

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Jan 6 2012 18:58
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Also, I made a slight snarky comment earlier in the thread calling theorynerd "ableist" because s/he used the term "retarded", but it's since occurred to me that primitivism is objectively ableist as society's ability to support those who are physically and mentally challenged would be greatly damaged if we rejected industrial society, never mind fucking agriculture.

This is an unfair caricature, one which is also applied to any sort of social change that entails destabilising existing conditions (ie 'how are you gonna look after wheelchair users without a wheelchair factory?' etc).

I'd stick to dismantling the poster's worrying advocacy of intense population control (or, in layman's terms, genocide).

Fall Back's picture
Fall Back
Offline
Joined: 22-09-03
Jan 6 2012 19:02

Eh, I think an ideology that thinks wheelchairs shouldn't exist (or even be possible) is pretty fair game on those grounds!

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jan 6 2012 19:10

Yeah, fair enough that serious social unrest will undoubtedly hit the vulnerable, but ATR we still plan to produce wheelchairs and offer technologically advanced care to the infirm. Primmos don't.

Birthday Pony's picture
Birthday Pony
Offline
Joined: 11-12-11
Jan 6 2012 19:14
Fall Back wrote:
Characterture aside, this isn't sectarianism. It's having politics.

Anarchist politics go far beyond class struggle. Spending your time talking about what's insufficient for revolution weakens your philosophy more than it strengthens it. Someone that emphasizes ecological justice over class struggle (but still both) is an ally in my eyes, despite my differences.

Quote:
Having class struggle politics isn't class reductionism. Honestly, why keep on throwing around terms that you don't understand?

And I didn't say it was. I'm referring more to people that claim race has no significance outside of class, or trying to squeeze the yeomanry or peasantry into a Marxist paradigm that doesn't account for them.

Chilli Sauce wrote:
Wait (and correct me if I'm wrong) but BP weren't you slagging off libcom because too many people liked Marx and were closer to state socialists and Stalinists?

I don't like how authoritarian Marxism can be welcomed with a grain of skepticism while mutualism is cast aside as an ideology that recreates capitalism. The old-timer I knew that survived the Spanish Civil War would have been just as shocked.

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Jan 6 2012 19:16

Birthday Pony, I think you could really benefit from actually reading Marx rather than talking about paradigms. You'd learn that Marx wrote more about the peasantry and yeomanry than most anarchist theoreticians.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jan 6 2012 19:22
Quote:
I don't like how authoritarian Marxism can be welcomed with a grain of skepticism while mutualism is cast aside as an ideology that recreates capitalism.

I'm not gonna bother to find the post, but from what I remember you first talked about the veneration of Marx on libcom and then jumped to the "authoritarians". Not to mention calling me a Stalinist because I disagreed with you about mutualism. So I don't think you're in any position to cast aspersions about anarchist "boogey-men".

As for this:

Quote:
The old-timer I knew that survived the Spanish Civil War would have been just as shocked.

That's just knee-jerk anti-Marxism. Sure, lots of Marx is shit, but as an analytical framework it can't be beat. Autonomous Marxism is freakin' great, not to mention that, economically, Bakunin borrowed quite a bit from Marx in the first place!

Fall Back's picture
Fall Back
Offline
Joined: 22-09-03
Jan 6 2012 19:21
Quote:
Anarchist politics go far beyond class struggle. Spending your time talking about what's insufficient for revolution weakens your philosophy more than it strengthens it. Someone that emphasizes ecological justice over class struggle (but still both) is an ally in my eyes, despite my differences.

You may well think this. I think you're wrong, but sure, whatever. You haven't demonstrated that disagreeing with you is sectarian tho.

Quote:
And I didn't say it was. I'm referring more to people that claim race has no significance outside of class, or trying to squeeze the yeomanry or peasantry into a Marxist paradigm that doesn't account for them.

So, no one that actually exists on this forum? Just a straw man you have invented? Of course, if you claim these are actually existing positions, I'm sure you'll be able to link me to these posts.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jan 6 2012 19:50
Quote:
(many)

Who?

This thread for example isn't against green politics by any means, it just criticises primitivism as a fundamentally poor theoretical structure for dealing with green issues, just as say, Marxist-Leninism is widely criticised as providing a fundamentally poor structure for dealing with the problems of transition from capitalism to communism. Or Dworkin's "all men are rapist" stuff is criticised as a fundamentally poor way of structuring feminist approaches.

No-one comes to an anarchist position by refusing to pick holes in bad ideas - and criticising in this case is NOT the same thing as being sectarian (which as Chili points out would actually have us blindly following "our" theory with no criticism at all) let alone being the same thing as belittling people struggling for equalities in things like gender, race etc as lifestylists.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jan 6 2012 19:50

BP on one of your first posts on libcom you talked about being a mid-west anarchist and how you pull from quite a wide net, yet you've condemned libcom for it's acceptance of "authoritarian Marxists" (another term you've never defined).

So my question to you is this: how come you're allowed to critically pull from from Proudhon or primitivism, but if we do the same with David Harvey or Paul Mason we're condemned? Seems like quite a double standard to me...

Birthday Pony's picture
Birthday Pony
Offline
Joined: 11-12-11
Jan 6 2012 19:50
Jura wrote:
Birthday Pony, I think you could really benefit from actually reading Marx rather than talking about paradigms. You'd learn that Marx wrote more about the peasantry and yeomanry than most anarchist theoreticians.

I was a Marxist before I was an anarchist. Why assume that since I read Marx differently that I haven't read him?

Chilli Sauce wrote:
I'm not gonna bother to find the post, but from what I remember you first talked about the veneration of Marx on libcom and then jumped to the "authoritarians". Not to mention calling me a Stalinist because I disagreed with you about mutualism. So I don't think you're in any position to cast aspersions about anarchist "boogey-men".

Yeah, I talked about how it was strange for a board based on an ideology that was markedly different from Marxism, and then grew in opposition to it, to have such high talk of Marx, who even in his anti-authoritarian works I read as pretty authoritarian. Pretty much this paraphrased:

Quote:
Regardless, my main point of contention is that people here are claiming that mutualism needs to be opposed in all forms by anarchists, when that's just completely bollocks. Without batting an eye we'll talk up radical (yet still statist) Marxists. In the short time I've posted here I've seen more positive mention of Marx and Marxist theory than any other anarchist board I've posted on, but when it comes to philosophies that are whole-heartedly and devoutly anti-authoritarian some people claim we need to oppose them as vehemently as capitalism. That just does not make any sense.

Which part of that seems reactionary? I'm actually quite okay with parts of Marxist theory. I'm also okay with mutualist theory. If this were a mutualist board where people were scoffing at the mention of Kropotkin, but loving Roderick Long, I'd have the same problem.

As for this:

Quote:
That's just knee-jerk anti-Marxism. Sure, lots of Marx is shit, but as an analytical framework it can't be beat. Autonomous Marxism is freakin' great, not to mention that, economically, Bakunin borrowed quite a bit from Marx in the first place!

There's no doubt about that, but if we're playing the historical ally game, then Bakunin consider Proudhon an ally while Marx was expelling the Anarchists from the International! My point is not that we should hate Marxism, but for as much as Marxism and libertarian communism have in common, so do libertarian communism and mutualism. And if class politics are the ultimate metric, mutualism has just as much in common. The only difference is the views on exchange. That's really the only substantial theoretical difference between mutualism and libertarian communism I can think of.

Fall Back wrote:
You may well think this. I think you're wrong, but sure, whatever. You haven't demonstrated that disagreeing with you is sectarian tho.

Are you saying you've never heard an anarchist talk about anything but class struggle, or that spending time alienating people that don't emphasize class struggle weakens your movement?

Quote:
So, no one that actually exists on this forum? Just a straw man you have invented? Of course, if you claim these are actually existing positions, I'm sure you'll be able to link me to these posts.

I must have misread the following posts:
http://libcom.org/forums/theory/white-privilege-22112011#comment-456986
"Actually race seems to have very little to do with opportunities, class is the main block to a good life with all bar 1 percent of the population having fuck all."

http://libcom.org/forums/theory/free-market-anarcho-communism-31122011#comment-461733
"free market anarchism and this whole mutualist tradition needs to be fundamentally opposed...it elevates and reinforces what is the absolutely central organisational principle of capitalism itself"

Look, I'm not trying to make a bigger deal than this actually is. But for all the wealth of knowledge this board has in Marx and Bakunin, it lacks in any anarchist ideology that isn't communist, almost all of which actually do have similar class politics.

It's very odd for me, coming from a Marxist background and becoming an anarchist, to see a discussion of mutualism or dual power or whatever turn into a discussion of why they are insufficient rather than how they are helpful to our own ideologies. Primitivism is bullshit, there's no doubt about that. But there's plenty out there that de-emphasizes class politics that is still quite useful.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jan 6 2012 19:52

BP, I think we cross-posted, but I just want to make sure you answer my question in post 51.

Birthday Pony's picture
Birthday Pony
Offline
Joined: 11-12-11
Jan 6 2012 19:55
Chilli Sauce wrote:
BP on one of your first posts on libcom you talked about being a mid-west anarchist and how you pull from quite a wide net, yet you've condemned libcom for it's acceptance of "authoritarian Marxists" (another term you've never defined).

So my question to you is this: how come you're allowed to critically pull from from Proudhon or primitivism, but if we do the same with David Harvey or Paul Mason we're condemned? Seems like quite a double standard to me...

My criticism is that you will pull from Marxists and condemn all else. I pull quite heavily from Marx as well. Disagreements are one thing, and critical discussion is healthy (I'd consider this discussion quite good), but condemnation of ideologies that are 90% compatible as incompatible is just silly.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jan 6 2012 20:03

You do realise almost no-one here agrees with BJJ about anything right*? And robbo is one voice amongst many, some being opposed to mutualism, others such as myself thinking that while it cannot be a revolutionary tactic in the final analysis it can be a useful one.

I'd be tempted to say lurk moar if that's your evidence for such sweeping statements about the character of this board.

* Well, maybe a bit much, but basically he's got a ways to go.

Fall Back's picture
Fall Back
Offline
Joined: 22-09-03
Jan 6 2012 20:05
Quote:
Are you saying you've never heard an anarchist talk about anything but class struggle, or that spending time alienating people that don't emphasize class struggle weakens your movement?

I think that not only does ruthlessly criticising anyone who doesn't emphasise class *strengthen* said movement, but to not do so because they are "allies" is almost dictionary definition of sectarian.

Quote:
I must have misread the following posts

Yep, looks like you did.

Quote:
condemnation of ideologies that are 90% compatible as incompatible is just silly.

You're the only one who contends they are 90% compatible tho. I disagree with you on this. Strongly.

Birthday Pony's picture
Birthday Pony
Offline
Joined: 11-12-11
Jan 6 2012 20:13
Rob Ray wrote:
You do realise almost no-one here agrees with BJJ about anything right*? And robbo is one voice amongst many, some being opposed to mutualism, others such as myself thinking that while it cannot be a revolutionary tactic in the final analysis it can be a useful one.

I'd be tempted to say lurk moar if that's your evidence for such sweeping statements about the character of this board.

* Well, maybe a bit much, but basically he's got a ways to go.

In my defense, I'm new here. And most of this is based on my initial reactions to the little interaction I've had with people here.

Fall Back wrote:
I think that not only does ruthlessly criticising anyone who doesn't emphasise class *strengthen* said movement, but to not do so because they are "allies" is almost dictionary definition of sectarian.

And you would be wrong to assume that say, ecological anarchism or mutualism, do not emphasize class. Ecological anarchism puts more emphasis on capitalism's ecological terror than it does class, but that does not mean that A) it's conclusions are wrong, B) class does not play a role in its analysis or, C) they are counter-revolutionary.

Quote:
You're the only one who contends they are 90% compatible tho. I disagree with you on this. Strongly.

You may have a very eloquent and apt criticism of mutualism's support for markets, and it may be a very substantial criticism, but that does not undo its criticism of capitalist property, its support of democratic institutions, its support of class politics, its analysis of capitalism, its critique of the state and authoritarianism, its support for LTV, its emphasis on reciprocity, or a host of other things I can't think to list right now. Regardless of your problems with mutualism, its emphasis on class politics can't be one. The basis of its very conclusions, the thing I'm assuming you have problems with, is class politics and a critique of capitalism.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jan 6 2012 20:28

I don't think anyone would argue that Proudhon's mutualism doesn't pay attention to class (though modern mutualists often don't - LETS being a prime example of a system with a clear mutualist basis which often a vehicle for little more than bourgeois hobby-trading).

Again though, that's not the same thing as having a critique of mutualism's failings as a theory (foremost among these being that it does not do away with capitalism's fundamental relationship of competition, nor is it necessarily incompatible with it if the likes of Suma are anything to go by).

Birthday Pony's picture
Birthday Pony
Offline
Joined: 11-12-11
Jan 6 2012 20:28
Rob Ray wrote:
Again though, that's not the same thing as having a critique of mutualism's failings as a theory (foremost among these being that it does not do away with capitalism, nor is it necessarily incompatible with it).

I've got plenty of disdain for most of what people call mutualism today. But as far as being compatible with capitalism goes, possession pretty much makes capitalist trade impossible, destroying both wage labor and rent.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jan 6 2012 20:32

Was editing that to make it clearer when you posted. And mutualism doesn't necessarily rule out wage labour, or even the ownership of private property (as long as it isn't hereditary).

Birthday Pony's picture
Birthday Pony
Offline
Joined: 11-12-11
Jan 6 2012 20:29

got it.