DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

what brings libcom together..

13 posts / 0 new
Last post
yoshomon
Offline
Joined: 19-06-07
Nov 21 2007 14:10
what brings libcom together..

...is a belief in the need for formal political organization. There is a wide spectrum of positions presented here on trade unions, nationalism, history, ongoing struggles, and so on (with some positions being directly at odds with each other), but at the end of the day the position that unites almost all posters is on formal organization. In the context of this board organization is the most pressing question.

Why is that? On a board like anti-politics - where rejection of unions and national liberation is a given and not really up for debate - the organizational question is very open. It's interesting to compare and contrast.

Also interesting that the critique of 'anti-organizationalists/individualists' here is a crude pyschology. "Mentalists!" etc etc

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Nov 21 2007 14:34
yoshomon wrote:
Why is that? On a board like anti-politics - where rejection of unions and national liberation is a given and not really up for debate - the organizational question is very open. It's interesting to compare and contrast.

Yeah, but that's because everybody on anti-politics is fucking mental. Especially you wink

Seriously though, what do you think is wrong with formal organisation then? What, exactly, is wrong with having fully worked out decision making structures to deal with situations that are likely to arise?

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Nov 21 2007 15:00
yoshomon wrote:
Why is that? On a board like anti-politics - where rejection of unions and national liberation is a given and not really up for debate - the organizational question is very open. It's interesting to compare and contrast.

Firstly, I don't think that this is at all true. I have seen support for national liberation on anti-politics.

But secondly, and much more importantly I think that your opening statement is wrong.

yoshomon wrote:
...is a belief in the need for formal political organization.

I think that what unites people on Libcom that doesn't unite people on anti-politics is a belief that the working class is the revolutionary agent in society.

Devrim

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Nov 21 2007 15:28

There are people opposed to formal political organisation on here, there's also a lot of people who agree with formal organisation in principle, but not with any of the 'actually existing' formal organisations around. However just about everyone is in favour of collective action, and that collective action being carried out by organised groups of workers (which may or may not be 'formal' or permanent).

I'd agree with Devrim that it's the importance of class that is probably the only thing that nearly every poster has in common. I'd also say that the hostility to primmos and lifestylists is due to their lack of/rejection of class analysis, not because they're anti-organisationalist.

yoshomon
Offline
Joined: 19-06-07
Nov 21 2007 15:55

Well, I think that supporting "national liberation" and other things speak to a lack of/rejection of class analysis, so that doesn't seem to be the issue. Many people here hold a variety of voluntarist positions that are far more worrisome to me than primitivism or other silly things like that.

mikus
Offline
Joined: 18-07-06
Nov 21 2007 18:30

How many regular posters here actually support national liberation movements though? It always seems to be irregular posters, and they seem to be criticized by most everyone pretty damn quick.

EdmontonWobbly's picture
EdmontonWobbly
Offline
Joined: 25-03-06
Nov 21 2007 19:06

I wouldn't say there are any dyed in the wool national lib posters on here regularly there's a few that it can be argued are 'soft' on it, but that's pretty different than whole hearted support.
Devrim is right though, it's the support for the working class.

mikus
Offline
Joined: 18-07-06
Nov 21 2007 20:27

I agree that it is support for the working class. That doesn't mean that some people might have (to use the language of the left communists) anti-working class positions, but I think an attempt to support working class politics is common to almost everyone here.

And what exactly is the point of this thread again? Is it a veiled criticism of libcom?

EdmontonWobbly's picture
EdmontonWobbly
Offline
Joined: 25-03-06
Nov 21 2007 21:04

I think it's a veiled defence of anti organizational/individualist types.

fort-da game
Offline
Joined: 16-02-06
Nov 21 2007 21:19

Or an opportunity for organisationalists to prove their efficacy by telling us after a hundred years of organising how many thousands of the billions of workers on this planet they have recruited this week.

Quote:
an attempt to support working class politics is common to almost everyone here.

This is a contentless comment. Support can mean anything, including its opposite (trade unionism for example)

Whether most of us posting on here have class analysis or not makes no difference to our real position with relation to the class (we may be proletarianised but not many of us are really proletarian). Supporting the working class is not a movement in any direction. In other words, our 'working class politics' has little to do with the working class as it actually exists, and serves paradoxically enough, as the disqualification, from the perspective of most workers, for us effectively 'supporting' it.

The disjunction between Libcom posters and the working class coupled with Libcom posters' wish to support the working class suggests an exteriorised relationship.

And when tied to organisational strategies this typically results in essentially bourgeois forms of representation for or in support of the class who are present only to add mass to the ideas that don't belong to them.

sam sanchez's picture
sam sanchez
Offline
Joined: 8-09-05
Nov 21 2007 22:11

The way I see it, if you work for a wage you are working class in the only way that matters. Just cos I read the occassional book and don't like footy doesn't make me not working class fo example. I don't see any reason not to consider myself "truly proleterian", not that its a good thing to be...

mikus
Offline
Joined: 18-07-06
Nov 22 2007 10:33
fort-da game wrote:
Or an opportunity for organisationalists to prove their efficacy by telling us after a hundred years of organising how many thousands of the billions of workers on this planet they have recruited this week.

And the great successes of the unorganized working class? How many anti-capitalist insurrections has it taken part in this week? Or are you waiting for the next crisis, which will make them become communists? What boggles my mind is why you feel the need to criticize us "organizationalists" (although I suspect many organizationalists would call me anti-organizational) if you think that there is nothing any of us can do. In which case you might as well stop arguing with us and let the rest of us carry on with our worthless discussions of organization and so forth.

fort-da-game wrote:
Quote:
an attempt to support working class politics is common to almost everyone here.

This is a contentless comment. Support can mean anything, including its opposite (trade unionism for example)

Please reread what I wrote. I was talking about how the individuals view themselves. I of course don't rule out the possibility that people can view themselves as supporting working class politics while in fact doing the "opposite." The fact that the individuals view themselves as supporting revolutionary working class politics generally functions here (although not always) as a common basis for discussion.

If you guys love anti-politics so much, why not go back there and have fun talking to the various wackos that can have extremely enlightening discussions about anything and everything from Ted Kaczynski, to technology, to "the spectacle", to how to raise your children.

Mike