Since it's been a while since we had an Israel/Palestine thread...

Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
thirdform said:
My disagreement isn't with what you have said per se, but with the idea that anarchism is a consistent position. Anarchists are forced by historical circumstance to act authoritatively, as in the Spanish civil war when the CNT instituted forced labour for war time.
Click to expand...
OK, well you have the historical and theoretical background on this that I don't, so I'm not going to disagree with you. What I meant by 'consistent' was more that when I was on Twitter, I found that left-wing accounts that understood that 'NATO expansion' doesn't justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine any more than Hamas's crimes justify Israel's assaults on Palestinian civilians were overwhelmingly on the anarchist side of things.
 
dilbert1

dilbert1

Well-known member
So the plats are the pedantic ones, but then being pedantic is a virtue? (please don’t run with that its just a joke). I dunno @thirdform, I find that some of their “vague philosophical abstractions” provide “clarity,” whether I “agree” with them or not, but then you should point out exactly where things are vague and unclear for you. Basically every single thing you laid out responding to “Lenin’s Liberalism” is there in its contents, and again, you even cited the same exact passage from the Manifesto that receives explicit treatment and in a very similar fashion to your own. Maybe I’m missing something, but you immediately stated that you didn’t see the point of the text, and then proceeded to recapitulate the point of the text. Even beyond that, it could be argued that the overriding demand for mere ‘clarity’ can in some circumstances be a mask for a highly motivated rejection of something that would threaten one’s own position or interests. But to my mind that’s obviously not the case for you! Platypus is pro-Lenin through and through, and to posit his “liberalism” is only to highlight an arguably neglected aspect of Marxism, which as the resident Marxologist here you very clearly already comprehend.

As a side-note, ever read this one? Adorno and Horkheimer’s abandoned outline for a new communist manifesto in 1956.


From the introduction:
Adorno, more aesthetically minded, emerges paradoxically as the more radical: reminding Horkheimer of the need to oppose Adenauer, and envisaging their project as a ‘strictly Leninist manifesto’, even in a period when ‘the horror is that for the first time we live in a world in which we can no longer imagine a better one’.
Click to expand...
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
dilbert1 said:
So the plats are the pedantic ones, but then being pedantic is a virtue? (please don’t run with that its just a joke). I dunno @thirdform, I find that some of their “vague philosophical abstractions” provide “clarity,” whether I “agree” with them or not, but then you should point out exactly where things are vague and unclear for you. Basically every single thing you laid out responding to “Lenin’s Liberalism” is there in its contents, and again, you even cited the same exact passage from the Manifesto that receives explicit treatment and in a very similar fashion to your own. Maybe I’m missing something, but you immediately stated that you didn’t see the point of the text, and then proceeded to recapitulate the point of the text. Even beyond that, it could be argued that the overriding demand for mere ‘clarity’ can in some circumstances be a mask for a highly motivated rejection of something that would threaten one’s own position or interests. But to my mind that’s obviously not the case for you! Platypus is pro-Lenin through and through, and to posit his “liberalism” is only to highlight an arguably neglected aspect of Marxism, which as the resident Marxologist here you very clearly already comprehend.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with its conclusion, even if provisionally it gets the immediate history of pre-1914 Marxism right. To speak of Lenin's liberalism makes his theoretical elaboration contingent on marxism being an extension of liberalism, which I think has the schema reversed. No doubt Marxism has a relation to liberalism, but as its negation. In actuality the formula should be as follows:
capitalism: heir to the liberal revolutions.

What do we mean by this? That the material content of liberalism was capitalism, that the immediately conscious modus operandi of the classic bourgeois revolutions
expressed itself in liberal ideological phraseology. In the 20th century, on the other hand, the bourgeois revolutions in the underdeveloped countries took on the forms of reformist socialism, because liberalism is clearly not any mode of production, much less an eternal principle of government, but an ideological program that is time contingent. Unrelatedly, why fascism can never define itself programatically, as it is simply the duplication of bourgeois class rule endowed with the task of externally violating liberalism. Hence, fascism is an inherently transitory form, once thuggish petit-bourgeois malcontents can demand recalcitrant elements of the bourgeois to get behind etatist national renewal, sooner or later it regresses back into traditional liberalism, with its accompanying bureaucratic muck...

Lenin was a thoroughgoing internationalist, thus it makes little sense (to me) to speak of his liberalism when the era of using the parliament as a tribune to denounce it had been surpassed in the advanced capitalist countries. Here was the tactical disagreement of the Italian left with him, which is directly tied to the agrarian question. What we can say is that Lenin was unable to anticipate what the Italian comrades did, as democratic conformism had no time to calcify in Russia. It is wrong to see the proletarian revolution as a linear menshevised process, as someone like Lars Lih tends to, despite being pro-lenin. ironically, he finds himself under the same roof as avowed anti-leninists like libcom who misread Marx's correspondence with Vera Zasulich.

It is clear that the path of the Russian revolution can be found since we know the path of the French revolution, seen as an example of bourgeois revolutions, of which the English one was the first, – but it does not mean that they are identical –. This thesis, on which is founded our doctrine for over a century, must be dialectically understood. It’s not a matter of the path as seen by the bourgeois, that is of the false «self-consciousness of the revolution» – Marx, Preface to the «Critique of the Political Economy» –, but rather as it was discovered by our doctrine.
The revolution in France ends with the bourgeois dictatorship, and falsely states to have ended with democracy, a human conquest of all classes. Marxism discovers that democracy means power of one class, the capitalist one, and predicts the new class revolution and the proletarian dictatorship, only foundations for the abolition of classes. Under this flag the working class fights during the whole 19th century in the European countries, before and after the liberal revolution’s victory.
The historical defeats do not prevent the theory from being personified by the action of masses. Before the Russian masses launch their victorious attack, thanks also to their fight experience of 1905 (here lies the essence of Lenin’s work), a party, the bolshevik, is drawn up on the right theory: the masses do not stop with democracy, which means dictatorship of capital, they thrust to the proletarian dictatorship. Lenin masterly establishes that between the two outcomes there’s not the difference of one stage, but rather an abyss, separating the modern world in two fields of pitiless struggle.
Whoever intelligently reads «‹Left-wing› communism» can only draw from it our own thesis, that the revolutionary theory arises at a particular historical moment, rather than that, peculiar to Moscow renegades, according to which theory is continuously elaborated and modified. Such a moment, both for Lenin and for us, was not October 1917, but rather 1847, when the proletarian class condensed in its historical programme, in its Manifesto, the experience of the bourgeois revolution’s betrayal, as well as the destruction of the lie of democracy as a human and eternal conquest.
Click to expand...


 
dilbert1

dilbert1

Well-known member
Latest anarchist critique of Columbia protests

The Looter’s Union: On the Columbia Encampment & Its Evaporating Lines
 

Attachments

  • TheLine_Read_v3.pdf
    761.3 KB · Views: 6
maxi

maxi

Well-known member
does anyone else keep seeing this bassem youssef guy pop up on every platform. he's not a journalist or writer or historian or anything, he's a 'comedian' who doesn't make jokes. and for some reason he's interviewed on the news like he knows anything.... I guess because he has instagram followers or something.

obviously I'm broadly on his side but he's said some unbelievably dumb things. he did the whole "I'm not antisemitic because I'm a semite" thing on channel 4 the other day. I can't even believe anyone is still trying that one. fine so let's call it "anti-jewish" then you sneaky bastard. he could probably easily refute whatever he was being asked but the fact he responds that way actually does make him seem antisemitic lol. moron. I'm not one to usually quote Owen Jones, but he was right when he said it's the same as saying "I'm not homophobic because I'm not afraid of gays".

he also said "Israel has morally corrupted the west". wtf? as if the west was fine before Israel 'corrupted' it. dodgy as fuck. the guy just says loads of random careless shit like a person you'd know irl would. but he's quoted for headlines like he's some expert. irritating.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
maxi said:
obviously I'm broadly on his side but he's said some unbelievably dumb things. he did the whole "I'm not antisemitic because I'm a semite" thing on channel 4 the other day. I can't even believe anyone is still trying that one. fine so let's call it "anti-jewish" then you sneaky bastard. he could probably easily refute whatever he was being asked but the fact he responds that way actually does make him seem antisemitic lol. moron. I'm not one to usually quote Owen Jones, but he was right when he said it's the same as saying "I'm not homophobic because I'm not afraid of gays".
Click to expand...
Oh god, are people still trotting out the "Jews are not the only Semites" garbage about the word "antisemitism"? Fucking hell, that's lame. I mean, I see it on social media every now and then but it's disappointing to see someone with any kind of public profile using it.

Another good response is to mention how only the other day your mad racist uncle was banging on about how Assyrians secretly run Holywood, the banks and the media...
 
V

version

Well-known member
version said:
Their suggestions seem more or less indistinguishable from those of an undercover saboteur.
Click to expand...

I do like this though:

When a drawn line does not move, it becomes a part of the terrain it is drawn from and eventually evaporates entirely. If a political line does not move forward, it becomes part of the map, and therefore disappears.
 
V

version

Well-known member
Seems as though something bad's about to happen at Columbia. There are clips on Twitter of hundreds of police arriving and they've apparently locked down the surrounding area and barred journalists from getting in.
 
william_kent

william_kent

Well-known member
0bleak said:
we're not arresting autistic people for supposed thought crime yet, so...
Click to expand...

hmm, Canadian government are thinking about house arrest for anyone suspected of thought crime in Canada....

Justice Minister defends house arrest power for people feared to commit a hate crime in future​


Justice Minister Arif Virani has defended a new power in the online harms bill to impose house arrest on someone who is feared to commit a hate crime in the future – even if they have not yet done so already.

The person could be made to wear an electronic tag, if the attorney-general requests it, or ordered by a judge to remain at home, the bill says.
Click to expand...

I doubt it will be abused for political ends at all /s
 
V

version

Well-known member
A bunch of masked Israel supporters attacked the UCLA protesters last night:

LOS ANGELES, May 1 (Reuters) - Police deployed in force on the University of California in Los Angeles campus on Wednesday morning after Israel supporters attacked a camp set up by pro-Palestinian protesters.

Witness footage from the scene, verified by Reuters, showed people wielding sticks or poles to attack wooden boards being used makeshift barricades to protect the pro-Palestinian protesters.

Wonder whether it was spontaneous or someone sent them in.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
version said:
A bunch of masked Israel supporters attacked the UCLA protesters last night:

LOS ANGELES, May 1 (Reuters) - Police deployed in force on the University of California in Los Angeles campus on Wednesday morning after Israel supporters attacked a camp set up by pro-Palestinian protesters.

Witness footage from the scene, verified by Reuters, showed people wielding sticks or poles to attack wooden boards being used makeshift barricades to protect the pro-Palestinian protesters.

Wonder whether it was spontaneous or someone sent them in.
Click to expand...

apparently screaming 2nd nakba at the protestors as well.

classy stuff guys!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top