by Wayne Price
Bill Beech has continued his polemics against those who support the Ukrainians in the Ukrainian-Russian war. In his view, anarchists should oppose both sides in the war, especially the Ukrainian side. Aside from name-calling, his arguments usually amount to showing that the Ukrainian capitalist state acts like a capitalist state, and that U.S. imperialism acts imperialist. I will discuss a couple of topics which I think are at the center of our dispute. They may be of interest even to those who have not read Beech’s paper.
Pro-Russian Campism
On the Left, there are people who have been called “campists” or “tankies.” They see U.S. imperialism, and its allies, as the single evil “camp” which must be fought. Any state or force which opposes U.S. imperialism is regarded as positive, to be supported. They ignore that other states are imperialisms, such as Russia or China. They downplay that many oppressed nations have brutal dictatorships, which exploit their own people—such as the Taliban or the Iranian Ayatollahs. Their sole issue is Western imperialism.
Bill Beech is not a “campist” in this sense. He is not Stalinist. As an anarchist, he opposes the states of Russia, China, Iran, etc. In his first denunciation of me, “War on Anarchism,” he wrote, “Let’s…oppose various neo-Stalinists who see in Russia an anti-fascist and anti-imperialist force.”
Yet he, and quite a few others, hold an anarchist variant of campism. They present the U.S. as the outstanding danger to the world. He writes, “We see the global system of imperial domination and economic exploitation by Western states, i.e. the NATO bloc. …We know the history of NATO wars and US crimes….”
But “the global system of imperial domination and economic exploitation” has not been only by Western states. In history, the nations of Eastern Europe and within the USSR were also dominated imperially and exploited economically. Today’s Russian rulers are fighting to restore this imperialism to its full glory.…and beyond. Today the state capitalist rulers of China are working to make their state the equal or superior of the U.S. in “imperial domination.” Meanwhile China oppresses the Uyghurs, the Tibetans, the Mongolians, and the Hongkongers, while threatening to invade Taiwan. Other, weaker, states are trying to do the same on a regional scale, as Iran seeks to dominate the Middle East.
Beech takes a pro-Russian stance on the war. He cannot deny that it was Russia which first attacked Ukraine. It is still invading, bombing, occupying, and slaughtering the people. Nevertheless, he puts the blame for the war on the Western imperialists. The Russian state just had to invade because the NATO alliance was expanding eastward. He calls pro-Ukrainian anarchists “Natopolitans.” He condemns us for our “denial of the origins of the war (NATO expansion)…and therefore denial of US/NATO imperialism.”
Undoubtedly, the U.S. and its NATO allies are imperialist, in fact the most powerful imperialists in the world. As such the U.S. is constantly pushing to increase and solidify its military power and economic wealth. This is especially true in recent decades, as the U.S. declines in its world-domination, and struggles to shore itself up against other powers. Therefore the push to expand NATO eastward and even into the Pacific region.
But the Russian state is not merely passive. It does not only react to U.S. initiatives. Under Putin, it has been trying to rebuild its European and world influence. It wants at least to regain its domination over the states which once made up the Soviet Union. It invades other countries, within and without its borders, and plays great power politics. Nobody forced Putin to invade Ukraine; it was his own decision. Over the years, Russian aggression has made many in Eastern Europe—both the upper classes and the working classes—fearful and (unfortunately) interested in gaining NATO protection. We anarchists are opposed to both imperialisms and oppose these countries joining either NATO or the Russian bloc.
Beech’s other explanation of the start of the war is “Russia’s refusal to accept a fascist-friendly regime in Ukraine.” (He writes “fascist-friendly” rather than “fascist” because he acknowledges that Ukraine is not fascist or Nazi.) This is absurd. In his footnotes, Beech quotes a definition of “fascism.” Interestingly, Putin’s Russia fits all the parts of the definition, to a tee. This is why the Putinists are so friendly with fascist forces all over Europe and the U.S. It is why U.S. neo-Nazis march with signs, “Russians are our Friends!” It fits Trump’s adoration of Putin and the pro-Russian stance of so many Republicans and others on the U.S. far-right.
Beech sneers at the idea that “Russia invaded (to erase Ukraine!).” Yet Putin has repeatedly stated that Ukraine was not a real country. He condemned the Bolsheviks for establishing a Ukrainian Republic in the USSR. In those regions of Ukraine where the Russian forces rule, they have set up schools only in Russian, which is now the official language. A victory for Russia will be a disaster for the culture, language, and nationality of Ukrainians.
Certainly the U.S. remains the strongest state, with the biggest and most widespread military and the wealthiest economy. But it is not the only capitalist state nor the only imperialism. U.S. imperialism aids the Ukrainian state, only for its own imperialist reasons. But Russian imperialism has actually attacked Ukraine! The class enemy is not “the global system of imperial domination and economic exploitation by…the NATO bloc.” The class enemy is all of world capitalism.
National Self-Determination
To Beech, anarchism and national self-determination are incompatible. He regards national self-determination as the same as nationalism, to be completely rejected. Only the class struggle matters, not “floating notions of freedom and self-determination.” Apparently the class struggle is something distinct from “freedom and self-determination.”
We are not just disputing about Ukraine. Rejection of national self-determination means refusal to support the Palestinian people against Israel and its U.S. supplyer. (All trends among the Palestinians call for a state.) It means that it was wrong in the sixties to support the Vietnamese against U.S. imperialism.
At the height of the British empire, anarchists defended independence struggles in India and Ireland; presumably Beech thinks this was wrong. After World War II, many French anarchists supported the independence fight of the Algerians; something Beech must also think a mistake.
Some ignorant anarchists (not Beech) think that “national self-determination” (or “national liberation”) was invented by V.I. Lenin. Actually, it was originally part of the democratic program raised by the bourgeoisie in its revolutionary epoch. This program called for freedom of speech, of the press, of association, to bear arms, of religion, of dividing the land among those who work it, of equality in all matters (only excepting wealth), etc. And of the freedom of all peoples to decide their own futures.
Of course, the capitalist class never lived up to its promised program. Whatever freedoms were gained were won by the struggles and sacrifices of the people, from below. Now we are in the epoch of capitalist decline. All freedoms come under attack. The democratic freedoms can only be consistently and permanently won through the international revolution of the working class and its allies among all the oppressed.
Revolutionary anarchist-socialism is not for less freedom and democracy than what capitalism offered. Our program is for more—much more—freedom than capitalism has ever promised! And such freedom may only be won through class struggle, which is the fight of the exploited against the capitalists, their state, and all their forms of oppression (race, gender, sexual orientation ….and national oppression).
Luxemburg vs. Bakunin
Beech is sort-of responding to my article in Black Flag, “Should Anarchists Defend Ukraine? A Response to Bill Beech.” I began with a quotation from Errico Malatesta, “True [anarchist] socialism consists of hoping for and provoking, when possible, the subjected people to drive away the invaders, whoever they are.”
I followed with a brief excursus on the views of Mikhail Bakunin. He distinguished between states and homelands. The states are instruments of the ruling classes, which whip up “political patriotism” and nationalism. But homelands are communities based on culture, language, geography, and history. Bakunin opposed all states but defended the workers in exploited homelands. “I feel, frankly and always, the patriot of all the oppressed homelands.”
He declared, “Every people, weak or strong, every nation, large or small, every province, every commune has the absolute right to be free, autonomous, to live and govern themselves according to their particular interests.” This is national self-determination but it is also anarchism.
Bakunin wrote, “Nationality, like individuality, is a natural fact. It denotes the inalienable rights of individuals, groups, associations, and regions to their own way of life….I will always champion the cause of oppressed nationalities….” (Dolgoff 1980; p. 401)
Beech brushes these references aside. Instead, he cites the views of the great revolutionary Marxist, Rosa Luxemburg (also the anarchist Rudolf Rocker). She argues that all nations are divided by classes, a ruling class and working classes. She concludes, “…’the nation’ as a homogeneous socio-political entity does not exist.” Similarly, Rocker is quoted as writing, “It is, therefore, quite meaningless to speak of a community of national interests….”
I am a big fan of Luxemburg, but she was wrong to oppose national self-determination. The two quotations may be interpreted in two ways. One is to admit that nations (peoples, countries, national communities, etc.) exist but are not “homogeneous” or classless, bloc-like, “communities of national interests.” Nations are real, but are full of internal conflicts, especially of class. (This view is a rejection of nationalism, which denies these class conflicts.)
The other interpretation might be to say that “‘the nation’…does not exist.” There is really no Ukraine, nor Russia, nor France, nor Italy, nor China. Their existence is really an illusion created by the state. This is nonsense. Granted that nations are historical creations with uncertain boundaries, they exist in the historical actions and thinking of their people. Neither Marxists nor anarchists have been able to persuade working people that they are not parts of countries.
Brian Morris quotes an anarchist scholar, “Bakunin, Cahm concluded, unlike Marx and other revolutionaries, ‘appreciated the importance of national loyalties and aspirations in the context of social revolution. Where other revolutionary socialists dismissed this as a creation of the ruling classes rather than as a strong, natural, and instinctive feeling.’” (Morris 1993; p. 132)
Felipe Correa of Brazil, writes, sharply, “There is, on the part of different researchers, a minimization of the theme of national and anti-imperialist liberation in Bakunin’s life and work from 1864 onward. Perhaps this is explained…by the fact that these researchers live, in most cases, in the central countries of the North Atlantic axis.” (Correa 2024; p. 307)
I refer to Bakunin’s views, not because this proves he was right (he was wrong on a number of matters). What it does prove is that national self-determination is compatible with anarchism, in the opinion of a “founder” of revolutionary anarchism. This is contrary to Beech’s claim that to support national liberation is to betray anarchism, socialism, internationalism, and the working class.
Conclusion
The probable response to this argument is that national struggles in Ukraine, Palestine, etc. are not carried out by stateless “homelands.” They are fought by national states and would-be national states, usually with conventional armies (sometimes with guerrilla warfare).
To be consistent with Bakunin, revolutionary anarchists should support the popular rebellion against the aggressor—the Ukrainian workers and others who do not want to be occupied and killed by the Russian empire, or the Palestinian peasants who do not want to be robbed and massacred by the Israeli state (with U.S. weaponry). We are in solidarity with them.
But we are opposed to the nationalist, statist, and capitalist or state-capitalist program of the dominant leadership. We wish to win over the Ukrainian workers and Palestinian peasants to anarchist-socialism. This can only be done by supporting their fight, being on their side, while explaining (as best as we can under the circumstances) the need for revolution by the working class and all oppressed. To stand aloof, to condemn both sides, both the oppressed and the oppressor, the invader and the invaded, is to betray our program and values.
As I write, the Trump administration is waiting to officially take over the U.S. national government. Donald Trump and his top supporters have long rejected U.S. support for Ukraine, even as they snuggle up to Putin’s Russia. What their actual policy will be, remains to be seen. U.S. imperialism may cease to be the main backer of Ukraine. At this time, I can only discuss principles, and watch how matters develop.
References
Beech, Bill. “I Would Prefer Revolutionary Internationalism.”
https://anarchistnews.org/content/i-would-prefer-revolutionary-internat…
Beech, Bill. “War on Anarchism.” Black Flag: An Anarchist Review. https://www.anarchistfaq.org/blackflag/BlackFlag-vol4-no3.pdf
Correa, Felipe (2024). Freedom or Death: The Theory and Practice of Mikhail Bakunin. Montreal/NYC: Black Rose.
Dolgoff, Sam (Ed.) (1980). Bakunin on Anarchism. Montreal: Black Rose.
Morris, Brian (1993). Bakunin: The Philosophy of Freedom. Montreal: Black Rose.
Price, Wayne. “Should Anarchists Defend Ukraine? A Response to Bill Beech.” Black Flag: An Anarchist Review. https://www.anarchistfaq.org/blackflag/BlackFlag-vol4-no3.pdf
Comments
"In those regions of Ukraine
anon (not verified) Sun, 12/22/2024 - 20:36
"In those regions of Ukraine where the Russian forces rule, they have set up schools only in Russian, which is now the official language"(с)
Jesus, Wayne! Take off your pants before you take a shit! The Russians actually opened Russian-language schools in the regions populated by Russians, can you imagine? With Ukrainian as an optional subject that parents can choose, can you imagine? Shortly before the evil Russians came and opened Russian-language schools for the Russian population whose native language is Russian, the good Ukrainians banned the Russian language altogether. Who are you writing this nonsense for, Wayne? Are you trying to fool a couple of short-sighted Yankees? Wipe your ass and don't write such nonsense anymore.
>the good Ukrainians banned
anon (not verified) Mon, 12/23/2024 - 09:06
In reply to "In those regions of Ukraine by anon (not verified)
>the good Ukrainians banned the Russian language altogether
not only was it not a complete ban, and not in education, it happened after the war began. do you just make up shit on the internet expecting people to believe it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_Ukraine
"In April 2019, the Ukrainian
anon (not verified) Mon, 12/23/2024 - 09:15
In reply to >the good Ukrainians banned by anon (not verified)
"In April 2019, the Ukrainian parliament voted a new law, the law "On supporting the functioning of the Ukrainian language as the State language". The law made the use of Ukrainian compulsory (totally or within quotas) in more than 30 spheres of public life, including public administration, electoral process, education, science, culture, media, economic and social life, health and care institutions, and activities of political parties. The law did not regulate private communication. Some exemptions were provided for the official languages of the European Union and for minority languages, with the exclusion of Russian, Belarusian and Yiddish.[11][12] The Venice Commission and Human Rights Watch expressed concern about the 2019 law's failure to protect the language rights of Ukrainian minorities.[12][13] On 8 December 2023, the Ukrainian parliament passed a bill that claimed to have fixed this issues and was adopted in order to meet one of the European Commission’s criteria for the opening of Ukrainian European Union membership negotiations.[14]"(c)
Learn to read what you're trying to reference, dumbass.
not only was this only
anon (not verified) Mon, 12/23/2024 - 09:22
In reply to "In April 2019, the Ukrainian by anon (not verified)
not only was this only accepted in 2023 as the paragraph you quoted says, but this is more akin to making ukrainian the official language than anything close to a language ban. seriously -- try to purge your mind of this geopolitical anti-americanism -- it's like brain cancer. anyone that can even tangentially be related to the US is automatically evil.
also just to give context: right now ukrainian children are being subject to a genocidal and colonial policy by russia. the purpose of these russian-language schools is not to the benefit of some russian population there, it's so that thousands of ukrainian children can be kidnapped by russia and put through camps and forced brainwashing and torture to try and russify them, because russia does not believe ukrainians should exist. it is an OPEN FACT that is not hidden by either side that russia has irridentist goals.
You are incredibly stupid,
anon (not verified) Mon, 12/23/2024 - 09:34
In reply to not only was this only by anon (not verified)
You are incredibly stupid, aren't you?
Let me shorten the quote so you understand at least something:
In April 2019, the Ukrainian parliament voted a new law, the law "On supporting the functioning of the Ukrainian language as the State language".
Let's make it even shorter:
In April 2019
Також для контексту:
Я українець, ідіот. І я, щоправда, дуже люблю, коли мені намагаються розповісти про "справжній стан речей в Україні". Це було б ще кумедніше, якби ви розповіли мені щось крім самої ідіотської пропаганди з телемарафону.
yes, that's not a language
anon (not verified) Mon, 12/23/2024 - 09:42
In reply to You are incredibly stupid, by anon (not verified)
yes, that's not a language ban, it's par for the course for nation-states. if ukrainian as an optional subject is not a ban as you said earlier--and i have reasons to doubt that that's even a thing that's happening--then russian as an optional subject isn't a ban either. is that so hard to understand? really, nothing that you have said here has contradicted what i said earlier, the actually tangible restrictions on russian language media is indeed dated 2022. as for the context--that is something ukrainian friends have told me almost word for word, and i elect to believe them over some rando on the internet, so i'm not sure that's helping you out with credibility either.
just noticed -- but if you're
anon (not verified) Mon, 12/23/2024 - 09:59
In reply to yes, that's not a language by anon (not verified)
just noticed -- but if you're going to deny russia's imperialism and handwave it as propaganda from ukrainian news sources or w/e -- which is done by no entity that has any sort of connection with reality currently, then i think there is no service in listening people to like you, and it doesn't really matter if you're ukrainian or not. in other words refer to my original post.
You are the stupidest person
anon (not verified) Mon, 12/23/2024 - 10:02
In reply to yes, that's not a language by anon (not verified)
You are the stupidest person I've ever seen here. Seriously.
You yourself referred to the article, and when it turned out that your reference contradicted you, you declared that you don't trust "random information".
You didn't bother to find out that half of the population of Ukraine cannot study in their native language, conduct office work, broadcast on TV and radio, receive government services, and so on.
You sit and retell the most stupid propaganda nonsense from official propaganda channels to Ukrainians. Few people even believe this crap in Ukraine.
Seriously, you even outdid Wayne. You'll tell your "Ukrainian friends" that A. from RKAS was screwing a dick.
>You yourself referred to the
anon (not verified) Mon, 12/23/2024 - 10:18
In reply to You are the stupidest person by anon (not verified)
>You yourself referred to the article, and when it turned out that your reference contradicted
no, what i said is that having an official language does not mean that all the other languages spoken in that nation-state's territory are banned. now, we can say that this is an undesirable effect of nation-states as anarchists, but it is not something unprecedented. let's not move the goal posts here. it would make much more sense to claim that russia is doing the same thing and is therefore benevolent instead of spamming to me about ukrainization laws.
> you declared that you don't trust "random information".
i was talking about you specifically, not the wikipedia article.
> You didn't bother to find out that half of the population of Ukraine cannot study in their native language, conduct office work, broadcast on TV and radio, receive government services, and so on.
let's say all of this was true -- i am of the controversial opinion that this does not justify an invasion, no less a permanent integration of territory that is generally recognized as ukrainian into russia, and that this constitutes some level of imperialism that can be connected to russia's other acts in its border regions.
> Seriously, you even outdid Wayne
thank you. i had a deep primal desire to balance the comment section and had to support his point of view. you are allowed to call me ultra-waynist.
Nationalization of Languages
Wayne Price (not verified) Mon, 12/23/2024 - 16:01
In reply to >You yourself referred to the by anon (not verified)
I have no problem with saying that it was mistaken for the Ukrainian state to make Ukrainian the one official language, instead of including Russian. This was an error due to nationalism, which anarchists oppose. But as has been written, this hardly justifies the Russian invasion, occupation, and land grab. The emphasis on the language issue in this thread arises to downplay the simple fact that the Russian imperialists attacked Ukraine and have wrecked awful destruction upon its people.
I thank the anonymous commenter who was driven to balance the comment section and declares themselves "ultra-waynist" (even if with tongue in cheek). I myself am only moderately a waynist.
"this was an error due to
alex (not verified) Tue, 12/24/2024 - 10:55
In reply to Nationalization of Languages by Wayne Price (not verified)
"this was an error due to nationalism, which anarchists oppose." do anarchists oppose ideas, or the people and institutions those ideas provide cover for? nationalism is not a disease or some mysterious force that can enact bad policy on its own. as always, you equate the interests of the generalized ukrainian worker with the present state--which is bad enough--and yet provide no account of how that state can win this particular war. more conscription (perhaps you agree with the american handlers that the ukrainian state should lower the conscription age to 18?) , another few months or years in the trenches, more militarization of society, more NATO guns and money--that should do it!
i think you make this a question of "should anarchists support national liberation" because it would not serve you very well to ask in earnest wherein the "national liberation" of ukrainians adheres. you and others go in circles in the air--which no doubt i do as well at times--comparing and contrasting national liberation to nationalism to imperialism and so on. but you will not ask yourself why, if it is this concrete homeland that we are being asked to support the defense of, that defense requires a conscript army and an authoritarian, militaristic civil administration even within its own declared borders. is that merely an error as well, an error of the degenerate anti-nationalism and lack of patriotic fervor and consciousness of the work- and war-shy ukrainian?
russia was stopped from outright seizing the entire country within months if not weeks, even if we are going to take it as correct that anything is worth preventing that from happening. i don't think your account of this situation refers to the ukrainian people at all, but to the fallacious and state-derived narrative that "losing" any territory to russian control or administration would be tantamount to the defeat of the entire nation. THAT is more like what nationalism is--the identification of a specific interest of a specific group as the interest of the entire population (or at least the good population) and demanding of their sacrifice.
What is the National Liberation of Ukraine?
Wayne Price (not verified) Sat, 12/28/2024 - 13:36
In reply to "this was an error due to by alex (not verified)
Alex asks, "it would not serve you very well to ask in earnest wherein the "national liberation" of ukrainians adheres."
The national liberation of Ukrainians means that the Russian state does not get to take over Ukraine by a violent invasion. It means that Ukrainians get to decide their borders, not some foreign anarchist (Alex is cavalier about large parts of the population and land of Ukraine being seized by Russian invasion; it doesn't bother him!)
Alex asks me to consider why "that defense requires a conscript army and an authoritarian, militaristic civil administration"? In the abstract it doesn't. I would much prefer a revolutionary anarchist self-organized armed force, which is (abstractly) possible. Unfortunately, the Ukrainian people (not Alex or me) are not anarchists (now?) and insist on defending themselves through a bourgeois national state with its conventional army. I do not support that state but I am in solidarity with the Ukrainian people. I want them to win and the Russian invaders to lose (even as I want the Ukrainian anarchists to persuade them of the anarchist program). Unlike Alex I am not neutral between the Ukrainians and the imperialist Russian state.
BTW, does Alex apply the same reasoning to the Palestinian struggle. Is he neutral between the Palestinians (ruled by semi-states and led by statist forces) and the colonial-settler Israeli state, backed by U.S. imperialism?
wayne: nations never decide their borders,
CalvinSmith (not verified) Sat, 12/28/2024 - 13:41
In reply to What is the National Liberation of Ukraine? by Wayne Price (not verified)
Their borders are always decided through negotiation and violent conflict: are you starting to see the issue with anarchists thinking they have a horse in this conflict? I personally sympathize with idigenous ukranians for wanting to fight russians, but its hard for me to wrap my head around why you continue writing silly articles.
i am not neutral in either
alex (not verified) Sat, 12/28/2024 - 17:52
In reply to What is the National Liberation of Ukraine? by Wayne Price (not verified)
i am not neutral in either situation, the conflation of which is one of the more ridiculous canards you insist on. as a matter of principle i support the people in both ukraine and russia who resist the use of their lives and bodies for the extension and intensification of the rule of either state, wherever either set of forces are deployed. if you believe that the national liberation of ukrainians is as simple as "the Russian state does not get to take over Ukraine by a violent invasion" well, that's pretty shallow and untrustworthy, and points towards my interest in a conversation around what, if anything, the affirmative content of the word "nation" is insofar as people use it today--but that is not a conversation i am interested in having with you, or that i believe you to be capable of.
when russian troops were advancing on kiev and butchering villages, i supported the popular resistance to that. when the conflict quickly stagnated into a trench war over territory that i frankly do not believe is straightforwardly ukrainian by any standard, other than a legalistic one, i became much more critical of the continuation of the war. as far as i am concerned, that is where the question turns in ukraine--who administrates various strategic points in the east. the question for both russians and ukrainians is whether it is worth giving up their right to choose whether to live and die for it, whether it is worth hundreds of thousands of dead and counting, whether what it means to be a liberated person in either country depends on which state and which bloc ends up collecting the bribes in odessa or whatever.
to briefly address your palestine gotcha, my analysis of pretty much everything involved is different there, other than the american strategy of dumping arms and money into apparently any war it wants to continue indefinitely, and the relative indifference of the american people to this strategy. if someone else with a more interesting comparison than "there is war in both places" believes i am being hypocritical in the way i've written about either place (in the comments on this website), they are free to say so and maybe i'll respond. but your use of palestinian struggle in this context is merely rhetorical and insulting.
Palestine
anon (not verified) Sat, 12/28/2024 - 18:16
In reply to What is the National Liberation of Ukraine? by Wayne Price (not verified)
Hey Wayne, it would be funny if it wasn't so disgusting that you keep bringing up Palestine to justify the Ukrainian state and its NATO allies' war effort, because you've already said on this site that the Ukrainian state has the right to Israeli weapons as well as American weapons (made by the same companies that supply Israel). This means you don't support BDS or the Palestinian struggle and do think the interests of the Ukrainian state and American and Israeli capitalists are worth more than the life of Palestinian civilians. You also said on this site that it doesn't matter that the USA used its ammo cache in Israel to supply Ukraine. You are a scumbag imperialist and militarist bootlicker who's on the wrong side of the Palestinian liberation struggle and nobody should take you seriously about anything, least of all national liberation and its relation to anarchism.
For years, Wannabe Wayne has
anon (not verified) Sat, 12/28/2024 - 20:17
In reply to Palestine by anon (not verified)
For years, Wannabe Wayne has only been experimenting with the masters tools, i.e. the statecraft of winning by playing both sides. What capitalist scumlords have excelled at doing. Campism is for the losers of history.... anarchists should know better than falling prey to these national "liberation" silos. Why would those who take power lower themselves to taking sides!?
Btw both Ukrainian trident and the "Palestinian" flag are retrograde fascistic symbols. It's kinda fucked that purported anarchists been doing stuff under those symbols, but eh... anarchism is not so often a place of consistency!
“Bakunin, Cahm concluded,
anon (not verified) Mon, 12/23/2024 - 07:59
“Bakunin, Cahm concluded, unlike Marx and other revolutionaries, ‘appreciated the importance of national loyalties and aspirations in the context of social revolution. Where other revolutionary socialists dismissed this as a creation of the ruling classes rather than as a strong, natural, and instinctive feeling.’” (Morris 1993; p. 132)
As always, Marx was a real revolutionary, and Bakunin was not.
Also, Bakunin's 'collectivist anarchism' is based on commodity production. Unlike Marx, who wrote, "Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products..." ('Critique of the Gotha Program')
F**k Bakunin.
Marx's first phase of
anon (not verified) Mon, 12/23/2024 - 08:36
In reply to “Bakunin, Cahm concluded, by anon (not verified)
Marx's first phase of "communism" is also based on commodity production because it's based on labor certificates and "to each according to work" instead of "to each according to need." That is exchange of commodities. Idiotic marxists think that by changing the names of things they change the things themselves.
Fuck Marx. Fuck your colonial labor aristocracy.
To 08:36: Labor time
anon (not verified) Mon, 12/23/2024 - 16:51
In reply to Marx's first phase of by anon (not verified)
To 08:36: Labor time vouchers would been a form of rationing. There is no market mechanism at work here, so, you are wrong as always, Sherlock. And congratulations on borrowing your 'labor aristocracy' stuff from Lenin.
This is the siren song of many stupid US anarchists; hostile to Marx, like the loyal 'Muricans they are, they get their notions of reality from Lenin, Stalin and Mao.
Bakunin on quasi-bourgeois workers
anon (not verified) Tue, 12/24/2024 - 09:05
In reply to To 08:36: Labor time by anon (not verified)
Bakunin wrote about what he called "quasi-bourgeois workers" (who he further described as the "upper layer, the most civilized and well-off") in 1872 while critiquing "marxiens", who he said focused on this layer, wrongly (Bakunin wrote this fragment intending it as an extension of "The Knouto-Germanic Empire and the Social Revolution", and also wrote about the concept elsewhere). He was Russian, not American, and wrote this in French. You are a laughably ignorant fool to think I got this notion of reality "from Lenin, Stalin and Mao." You speak of the "siren song of many stupid US anarchists," when you yourself have no clue about what you speak of.
Labor vouchers have nothing to do with "rationing" and Marx never claimed they did, he claimed they were about "bourgeois right", in other words, Lockean property rights gained by the labor of the liberal-colonial individual. Rationing has to be performed at the point of distribution (in coordination with production) regardless of whether labor vouchers are the system in place or not. If our council knows that Worker A worked for 6 hours and Worker B only worked for 3, so A is entitled to twice as many goods as B, this tells us absolutely nothing about how much socially necessary labor time it takes to make any given good or how many goods we have in stock. The idea that vouchers have something to do with rationing is absolute dogmatic marxian fanstasy, it has nothing whatsoever to do with how a material-social system would actually work. Marxians are too stupid to realize this, since they never bother to actually think about it and just take other marxian's moronic mantras on faith.
"There is only one
anon (not verified) Tue, 12/24/2024 - 09:47
In reply to Bakunin on quasi-bourgeois workers by anon (not verified)
"There is only one Proletariat... that stands united against all the petty lumpen scum of this world that we will cleanse off from out great workers' society, and then up against The Rich we will overthrow in 2058!!!"
- Anon 16:51
You commies will keep
anon (not verified) Tue, 12/24/2024 - 10:05
In reply to "There is only one by anon (not verified)
You commies will keep infighting until the proletariat ceases to exist and then you all will attempt to take credit for it. Humans don't need industries.
To 10:05. All middle class
anon (not verified) Tue, 12/24/2024 - 18:45
In reply to You commies will keep by anon (not verified)
To 10:05. All middle class US types always say exactly this.
humans don't need industrial
anon (not verified) Sat, 12/28/2024 - 21:16
In reply to You commies will keep by anon (not verified)
humans don't need industrial manufacture. but humans who live off industrial supply chains do. and humans who live off supply chains never vote to dismantle those chains, do they?
Marx the Real Revolutionary?
Wayne Price (not verified) Mon, 12/23/2024 - 16:16
In reply to “Bakunin, Cahm concluded, by anon (not verified)
You write, "As always, Marx was a real revolutionary, and Bakunin was not."
I have respect for Marx (as did Bakunin) and think anarchists may learn from him. In particular, from his analysis of how capitalism works.
But he advocated the workers taking over the existing state, or overthrowing it and creating a new state (the "dictatorship of the proletariat"). This was his central strategy, which Bakunin completely opposed.
Me, I'm with Bakunin on this.
To 16:16. Regarding Wayne
anon (not verified) Mon, 12/23/2024 - 16:54
In reply to Marx the Real Revolutionary? by Wayne Price (not verified)
To 16:16. Regarding Wayne Price: once an icepickhead, always an icepickhead. Like Uncle Tom Wetzel, these hapless anarcho-leftiods are out to preserve commodity relations, including wage labor.
anarchists have already explored and dissected all of Marx's
CalvinSmith (not verified) Mon, 12/23/2024 - 17:49
In reply to Marx the Real Revolutionary? by Wayne Price (not verified)
ideas: do you think having a more authoritarian attitude about dead ideologists is really going to fix anything? I personally like Stirner and Neech, but i'm not one of these blockheads who thinks what people think and say really defines them. Amor Fati! I attack egoists here on the time only for selfish internet addiction reasons, and feeling bothered by the lack of genuine anarchist culture around where I live.
It would be more of a pleasurable sight for me to see you make a Karl Marx bot. Hey, if you've been trying to argue for revolutionary socialism as long as you have, maybe I will join a communist cult! You never know! I do believe strength and determination can achieve wonderful things! I can already hear a knew Ukranian national anthem in the background...
Dost thou enjoy amphetamines?
anon (not verified) Mon, 12/23/2024 - 18:18
In reply to anarchists have already explored and dissected all of Marx's by CalvinSmith (not verified)
Dost thou enjoy amphetamines?
I wish, then i would actually be able to write some essay about
CalvinSmith (not verified) Tue, 12/24/2024 - 05:55
In reply to Dost thou enjoy amphetamines? by anon (not verified)
colonialism:
"IMMA COLONIZE ALL YOUR BUTTHOLES, WATCH ME TRY! I FINALLY FIT IN HERE, IT'S GREAT!"
It does not take drugs to be an insomniac! It only takes wasted time during the day, then you end up making it up during the night. You should try being very stressed for an entire week sometime.
To 17:49: Give a few examples
anon (not verified) Mon, 12/23/2024 - 18:47
In reply to anarchists have already explored and dissected all of Marx's by CalvinSmith (not verified)
To 17:49: Give a few examples of occasions when you have asserted your putative anarchism in real-world social struggle or class struggle contexts.
You get as much as he gives.
anon (not verified) Mon, 12/23/2024 - 20:37
In reply to To 17:49: Give a few examples by anon (not verified)
You get as much as he gives. Don't be so greedy, brah. It's a sign of desperation.
And why am I not surprised.
anon (not verified) Mon, 12/23/2024 - 21:09
In reply to You get as much as he gives. by anon (not verified)
And why am I not surprised. You forgot to say, "so-called Mexico."
Wrong thread, brah? You okay?
anon (not verified) Mon, 12/23/2024 - 21:16
In reply to And why am I not surprised. by anon (not verified)
Wrong thread, brah? You okay?
not campism
anon (not verified) Mon, 12/23/2024 - 09:03
"Yet he, and quite a few others, hold an anarchist variant of campism. They present the U.S. as the outstanding danger to the world."
This is not campism. Campism would be if you saw the world as being divided into however many camps and self-indentified with one of them for ideological-strategic reasons. However it's quite possible to see the US as the outstanding danger to the world and yet not self-identify with or support one or any of the other camps. Just like it's possible to politically support self-determination of all peoples but not support the war effort of NATO and it's Ukrainian state ally.
Both Price and Beech are wrong because they simply hand-wave away actual anarchist arguments (anti-militarism, anti-imperialism, pro national liberation) in favor of their own delusional marxist dogmatism, pretending either that Western imperialism/militarism doesn't exist or that peoples/national-liberation doesn't exist. Their analysis is not based on reality but on marxist fantasies.
i'm impressed that WP actually wrote a near-
CalvinSmith (not verified) Mon, 12/23/2024 - 09:21
anarchist essay this time, and i say this ONLY because he acknowledges that the US, Russia, and China are all imperial, and we should try our best not to support the ways these nation states engage in oppression. We should not support islamic extremists because they are "the enemy of our enemy", i agree with WP....to THAT extent.
However (and i've tried to explain this Wayne Price before, multiple times, and he doesn't listen), there's nothing wrong with scoffing at "national self-determination". I personally had a hard time understanding why we did "the pledge" in school, and always felt uncomfortable about barking the daily call-to-action I experienced in both public and christian schools. Please get that national determination gibberish out of your head before you become a murder or financier robot, it's embarrassing. You are still embarrassing yourself in the wake of proud anarchist ideas.
Once again Wayne, you care too much about what other people think:
"The probable response to this argument is that national struggles in Ukraine, Palestine, etc. are not carried out by stateless “homelands.” They are fought by national states and would-be national states, usually with conventional armies (sometimes with guerrilla warfare)."
No: you can't really understand how people are going to respond to you on such an open-ended website, unless you exclusively argue with lumpy: his arguments are genuinely predictable ((references to manly strength and the egotistical value of reading texts, unfounded arrogance, capitalist/rationalist attitudes about human emotion (which ultimately just means denial that you are just as emotional and sensitive like others, etc.))
Listening to Calvin
Wayne Price (not verified) Mon, 12/23/2024 - 15:47
In reply to i'm impressed that WP actually wrote a near- by CalvinSmith (not verified)
Dear Calvin Smith, I am sorry you feel that I have not listened to your explanations in the past. So let me try to answer you now. The full slogan, "self-determination of oppressed nations" does not apply to the U.S., to which you had to "pledge allegiance" in school. The U.S.A. has achieved its self-determination (from Great Britain) some time ago. It is no longer an issue! In any case, as I quoted from Bakunin, love of U.S. culture (if you do) or identification with the revolutionary-democratic side of its history (the revolution, abolitionists, Native resistance, feminists, unionists, socialists, anarchists) is not the same thing as "patriotic" or nationalist indoctrination.
I stopped saying the pledge in high school. Even when I was a teacher, I quietly skipped it.
i stopped when i finally understand that nobody was going to
CalvinSmith (not verified) Mon, 12/23/2024 - 17:38
In reply to Listening to Calvin by Wayne Price (not verified)
hurt or humiliate me if i stopped saying it, and now a days i never even stand, or even find myself in situations where anyone would expect me to do anything about the pledge.
So here is another way to look at my problem with your logic: how can a nation have self-determination? People who live on in the poverished/oppressed regions of the middle east know how to survive and join militant islamic groups, why not buck the ideological frameworks of nation states and religions, which all state the collective is higher than individuals, and that ideas are more worthy of consideration than the health, happiness, and sense of adventure that everyone has? I'm not saying that I'm suited to lead radically different people, but everything you've been saying over the past year about gaza and ukraine hints that maybe you do feel suited to lead them.
You know that socialism always leads to a hierarchical hypocrisy, right? Europe blended capitalism with socialism in a relatively sustainable manner, and now "the darkies" and others want to live there. The United States invented social security (which is definitely a socialist/bureaucratic investment scheme in the health of the federal government), yet it's not like being old and retiring are somehow attractive and without tons of alienation.
It's not socialism if you
anon (not verified) Mon, 12/23/2024 - 20:04
In reply to i stopped when i finally understand that nobody was going to by CalvinSmith (not verified)
It's not socialism if you wage labor and market relations. Get your parents or older siblings to explain it to you.
that's exactly what an edgey socialist
CalvinSmith (not verified) Tue, 12/24/2024 - 05:32
In reply to It's not socialism if you by anon (not verified)
would say.
How has CalvinSmith still not figured out his tell with the
anon (not verified) Wed, 12/25/2024 - 09:47
In reply to that's exactly what an edgey socialist by CalvinSmith (not verified)
subject line pattern posting?
Re: troll post
woman-splainer (not verified) Wed, 12/25/2024 - 12:56
In reply to How has CalvinSmith still not figured out his tell with the by anon (not verified)
because Calvin Smith is not the only troll on the internet.
Bon voyage, ye merry incendiary warriors!
Thank, brah! *floats awaY*
smoothy (not verified) Wed, 12/25/2024 - 13:09
In reply to Re: troll post by woman-splainer (not verified)
Thank, brah!
*floats awaY*
someone explain for an autist
anon (not verified) Wed, 12/25/2024 - 13:33
In reply to Re: troll post by woman-splainer (not verified)
someone explain for an autist what a troll is, do they really exist?
A troll is when a
anon (not verified) Wed, 12/25/2024 - 13:45
In reply to someone explain for an autist by anon (not verified)
A troll is when a
now i'm really skeptical
anon (not verified) Wed, 12/25/2024 - 14:17
In reply to A troll is when a by anon (not verified)
now i'm really skeptical
"Self-determination of
anon (not verified) Tue, 12/24/2024 - 10:36
In reply to Listening to Calvin by Wayne Price (not verified)
"Self-determination of oppressed nations" (or peoples) does not apply to states, which is why it doesn't apply to the USA, not because that state already won independence from the UK. On the other hand, a people like the Americans, who themselves deny the self-determination of other peoples, cannot be free.
This is part of why Price isn't an anarchist. He doesn't even understand the distinction between states and peoples that Bakunin made, or what self-determination means in general, let alone to anarchists in particular.
This is why colonial states like the USA and France aren't parties to national liberation struggle (in general) and so can't be party to it in Rojava or Ukraine either... because they themselves are colonizing and oppressing peoples who live within the still existing US and French empires (from Standing Rock to Kanaky). This is why the state of Israel doesn't have a "right to exist", because no state has a right to exist, not because of anything particular about Israel. On the other hand, a people like the Israelis cannot be free because the basis of their existence (unlike the Jewish people) is the oppression and denial of the self-determination of the Palestinian and other Arab peoples. All peoples have a right to self-determination, including Kurds, Jews, Ukrainians, etc., but this does not include the right to oppress other peoples.
This is the distinction between national liberation and national oppression (nationalism/patriotism), which Price has no clue about (he's specifically said it doesn't matter that the Ukrainian state uses Israeli arms, for example, which by definition means he doesn't support national liberation, that to him Palestinian rights are subordinate to the rights of the states of Ukraine and Israel).
Ones who are driven entirely by ideas and prejudices cannot be
MustacheManFro… (not verified) Wed, 12/25/2024 - 13:09
In reply to "Self-determination of by anon (not verified)
free either, and WP appears to only gloss over old texts to suite his particularly oxymoronic ideas. Self-determination only comes from the will to power, at least until your nazi sister-in-law ruins your books for future generations.
Peoples Need Self-Determination, Not States
Wayne Price (not verified) Wed, 12/25/2024 - 15:30
In reply to "Self-determination of by anon (not verified)
You state, " colonial states like the USA and France aren't parties to national liberation struggle (in general) and so can't be party to it in Rojava or Ukraine either... because they themselves are colonizing and oppressing peoples"
Which completely misses the point. We agree that the USA and France are imperialist and colonist, within their borders and throughout the world. The do not need nor deserve "national self-determination." The same is true of Israel, a colonial-settler state backed by US imperialism. OK. This is not in dispute.
But the Kurdish people of Rojava, and the Ukrainians (whom you included as "having a right to self-determination") are not imperialist or colonist and do not oppress other peoples. OK. The question is whether they have the right to get military aid from imperialist countries such as the US, France, and Israel. I say they do. You seem to say that they don't. That is the issue between us.
As for *your* opinion that I am not really an anarchist, I really do not care.
Wayne...
CalvinSmith (not verified) Wed, 12/25/2024 - 15:54
In reply to Peoples Need Self-Determination, Not States by Wayne Price (not verified)
yes, you realize that the other people on here who protest your proto-nationalist are not the same person I am, and I can only give you a hearty medal of imaginary consolation in response.
However, I personally believe one crucial difference between anarchists (if they exist) and archists is that the latter love to discuss what people deserve, whereas anarchists respect the self-determination of others, until it gets confused with the self-determination of spooks, or it interferes with the well-being of them, personally....
....and at that point, individuals CANNOT and WILL NOT be trusted. Now that I know you would personally sacrifice me to the spirit of both Ukraine, NATO, and the US military, I must step back...because I no longer say the pledge to "my" fatherland. I'll talk to the cops if it will make them go away, but that's about it.
The Ukrainian people aren't
anon (not verified) Wed, 12/25/2024 - 19:24
In reply to Peoples Need Self-Determination, Not States by Wayne Price (not verified)
The Ukrainian people aren't being armed by imperialist states like the USA and France, the Ukrainian state is being armed by them. This is why you are not an anarchist and this isn't just my opinion, it is fact, because you support imperialist states arming their junior partner state, Ukraine. You conflate peoples and states and ignore that states undermine the self-determination of peoples. Anarchists cannot support states without being incoherent not to mention foolish. That's the issue.
This brah gets it and couldn
anon (not verified) Wed, 12/25/2024 - 21:44
In reply to The Ukrainian people aren't by anon (not verified)
This brah gets it and couldn't have explained it any simpler for Wayne to completely ignore and go out being a nationalist NATOist.
I wish Wayne would fuck off
anon (not verified) Thu, 12/26/2024 - 10:02
In reply to This brah gets it and couldn by anon (not verified)
I wish Wayne would fuck off from this website if he's bringing up Marxism.
Marxists are fine with arming States because they see it as a prize to eventually capture. An intact State will help them impose their "class" dictatorship on anyone deemed reactionary.
Marx is as relevant to
anon (not verified) Thu, 12/26/2024 - 10:30
In reply to I wish Wayne would fuck off by anon (not verified)
Marx is as relevant to anarchists than other authoritarians like Hobbes, Julius Caesar, Heidegger. Carl Schmitt and Machiavelli... despite the latter not being really authoritarian, just a kinda republican liberal populist. The moment you start believing in Santa Karl as any sort of liberator or revolutionary eminence you're getting intellectually pwned for a long time.
in spite of the use of the
lumpy (not verified) Thu, 12/26/2024 - 12:48
In reply to Marx is as relevant to by anon (not verified)
in spite of the use of the phrase "intellectually pwned" [self report much?], it's true that "santa Karl" as a belief system is basically just another cult.
all marx did, was correctly assess what's wrong with capitalism and describe the historical process. his ideas about what to do instead are trash, his predictions about the future were mostly trash and he literally spent his end years dodging questions that he didn't have answers to, while people charged around, using his name for a bunch of stuff he didn't like or agree with.
but the critique still stands and the problems he pointed out are literally going to destroy the world, quite soon!
a critique man, not a viable solutions man
"all marx (sic) did, was
anon (not verified) Thu, 12/26/2024 - 14:53
In reply to in spite of the use of the by lumpy (not verified)
"all marx (sic) did, was correctly assess what's wrong with capitalism and describe the historical process."
Gosh, that's all? No free Lotto tickets or toaster ovens? I want my money back!
ikr!? much ado about what was
lumpy (not verified) Thu, 12/26/2024 - 14:58
In reply to "all marx (sic) did, was by anon (not verified)
ikr!? much ado about what was largely just a critique! then everyone made it WEEIIRRD
He's the greatest theorist of
anon (not verified) Thu, 12/26/2024 - 15:49
In reply to ikr!? much ado about what was by lumpy (not verified)
He's the greatest theorist of capitalism. Beyond Smith, Ricardo, Keynes. Marx helped the bourgeoisie more than anyone ever could via elucidating in Capital. Imagine how much they'd
have to figure out if he never did it for them. Zero self-awareness.
Reminds a lot of the Einstein
anon (not verified) Thu, 12/26/2024 - 16:04
In reply to He's the greatest theorist of by anon (not verified)
Reminds a lot of the Einstein contributions to the Manhattan Project.
Yeah. He can't hold a candle
anon (not verified) Thu, 12/26/2024 - 19:19
In reply to He's the greatest theorist of by anon (not verified)
Yeah. He can't hold a candle to wacky-slaphappy dolts like Prodhoun, Count Bakunin and I-dont-care-if-we-use-money-,after-the-revolution Malatesta.
well, i've never been that
lumpy (not verified) Fri, 12/27/2024 - 08:56
In reply to He's the greatest theorist of by anon (not verified)
well, i've never been that impressed by critique alone, makes me a bad anarchist! BAD! NO!
*hits self with rolled up newspaper*
it's pretty clear to me from the conversation ya'll have
CalvinSmith (not verified) Sat, 12/28/2024 - 05:54
In reply to in spite of the use of the by lumpy (not verified)
have had with yourselves that Marx did a whole lot more than "correctly assess what's wrong with capitalism and describe the historical process". In my opinion, the failures of Marx have to do with format of his ideas, which was dying to be used by an opportunist posthumously. Like cult leaders, he presented his alternative to capitalism (communist governments) in a highly Utopian fashion, which did make him similar to a cult leader.
I agree that the problems with Marx mostly stem from the historical determinism though. In my opinion, Marx had all the trappings of a modern self-help guru: "i know what's wrong with you, and what's wrong with me, but i have NO FUCKING IDEA what to do about it, but that's not sexy enough for book sales so i'll just keep writing anyways!"
Marx's 'correct assessments' were just Proudhon rippoffs
SirEinzige Sat, 12/28/2024 - 23:14
In reply to it's pretty clear to me from the conversation ya'll have by CalvinSmith (not verified)
Das Kapital is just a rippoff of 'The System of Economic Contradictions' but without the succinct simplicity. Future student radicals would be better to read that and not waste their time(like I did) on Kapital.
Proudhon, for all his flaws, had better analysis and a less worse system to to offer. He never got the authoritarian statue treatment. As far as radial orientation goes, just ffwd to Stirner from there and forget Marx.
Boring. Ziggie in decline.
anon (not verified) Sat, 12/28/2024 - 23:21
In reply to Marx's 'correct assessments' were just Proudhon rippoffs by SirEinzige
Boring. Ziggie in decline.
nah that's pretty typical Ziggie, the only problem is that
CalvinSmith (not verified) Sun, 12/29/2024 - 00:54
In reply to Boring. Ziggie in decline. by anon (not verified)
nobody has enough time to reason the same way he does, and overall, that makes it boring to try and understand his logic. Oh well: not much of a point in political internet dialogue unless you're okay with only talking to yourself (as both Ziggie and Wayne Price like to do...)
Is there no point in political internet dialogue?
Wayne Price (not verified) Sun, 12/29/2024 - 09:46
In reply to nah that's pretty typical Ziggie, the only problem is that by CalvinSmith (not verified)
Of course there is no point in internet dialogue on political assassinations unless approved by the council of the working people AND women, but what about for the self determination of the Ukrainian People (peasants AND women) by whatever means (NATO supplied arms and a nationalistic, carceral, puppet state), CalvinSmith? We are doing it now are we not?
Wayne
Nope, Not By Me!
Wayne Price (not verified) Sun, 12/29/2024 - 14:33
In reply to Is there no point in political internet dialogue? by Wayne Price (not verified)
NBM
Is there a fake Wayne on this list?
Wayne Price (not verified) Sun, 12/29/2024 - 14:41
In reply to Nope, Not By Me! by Wayne Price (not verified)
Yes.
That was by me.
*WBM
For the self determination of the Ukrainian working people by any means!
Officially signed,
Wayne
05:54 -
anon (not verified) Sat, 12/28/2024 - 23:31
In reply to it's pretty clear to me from the conversation ya'll have by CalvinSmith (not verified)
05:54 -
You and Sir Pencil-dick can give lessons on how to not know what the fuck you are talking about.
yes it's pretty simple, so it means being a human, and uh,
CalvinSmith (not verified) Sun, 12/29/2024 - 02:52
In reply to 05:54 - by anon (not verified)
talking: without really caring what raging provocateurs like you think about it. It's actually pretty refreshing to stop wanting to know what you're talking about, at least for a moment.
It would be great if i could bypass my personal reading list and somehow download the readings of other people to my brain (like ziggies), but unfortunately NOBODY has the time for this. All I can really do is look at the wiki page for SE's suggestion.
This is another reason why I hate people like Marx: he obviously just had a financial motive for what he was doing, but for whatever reason, he had to window-dress that in all sorts of bullshit about "surplus value" (JUST A FUCKING FANCY WORD FOR "PROFIT MARGIN") and all these other cryptic economic cocepts that some in academia could explain to you...but why?
To 10:30 -- As always,
anon (not verified) Thu, 12/26/2024 - 14:43
In reply to Marx is as relevant to by anon (not verified)
To 10:30 -- As always, adolescent narcissism is the default setting here. Revolutionary Marxism -- hostile to social democracy, hostile to Leninism, and contemptuous of pedants of the 'Insurgent Notes' and libcom.org stripes -- offers a set of critical tools for understanding capitalist society, for banding together with others and acting against capital. I've been in or around the U.S. anarchist subculture since the spring of 1981, and that's not what gets called anarchism in the U.S. is about. It is a subculture. Beginning, middle and end, it is a subculture, and one that has nothing in common with the admirable, liberatory, real world communist class struggle anarchism of far away and long ago. The subculture exists to provide entertainment and a sense of identity to disengaged, totally self-involved people, and it generates nothing relevant to the world outside of its subculture.
*adds more coins in to the
lumpy (not verified) Thu, 12/26/2024 - 15:00
In reply to To 10:30 -- As always, by anon (not verified)
*adds more coins in to the KeatingLikeaMF jar*
Lumpy is clearly a
anon (not verified) Thu, 12/26/2024 - 15:38
In reply to *adds more coins in to the by lumpy (not verified)
Lumpy is clearly a description of the material in the space between your ears.
Re: 14:43
anon (not verified) Thu, 12/26/2024 - 15:52
In reply to Lumpy is clearly a by anon (not verified)
You're right to bring up culture but your conclusions about it seem back asswards.
as opposed to a silky smooth
lumpy (not verified) Fri, 12/27/2024 - 08:57
In reply to Lumpy is clearly a by anon (not verified)
as opposed to a silky smooth brain?
you'd have to be pretty dumb to believe that administrative
CalvinSmith (not verified) Sat, 12/28/2024 - 06:04
In reply to To 10:30 -- As always, by anon (not verified)
counsel narcissism (how i interpret this rant) is better than adolescent narcissism. Marx's ideas are barely readable or usable, which is why people on here have such a hard time talking about him. He was also a living acquaintance with both Engels and Stirner. It seems Stirner won the popularity contest with anarchists, even though I do think "The Conditions of The Working Class" by Engels is also a helpful book to read, as it does give you an idea of what inspired Marxist ideology. However, there's really no reason why someone can't just read the summary of Das Capital without putting themselves through the intellectual labor. It's not rewarding to read unless you're trying to start some revolutionary commie group that's destined to fail.
wow, you're really admitting
lumpy (not verified) Sat, 12/28/2024 - 08:24
In reply to you'd have to be pretty dumb to believe that administrative by CalvinSmith (not verified)
wow, you're really admitting to main character syndrome a lot in this rant here, little guy!
marx's ideas have been read and used by millions and millions of people across centuries, people here "have such a hard time" because their skulls are riddled with america-style, anti-communist brainworms. has nothing to do with the source material.
stirner is a relatively obscure thinker, who got resurrected from the memory hole, which i think is pretty cool but you clearly have no sense of the scale of these things and it's pretty embarrassing tbh!
oh but the last point is the weirdest, you'd only read a dense, dry book about economics if it would make you in to a badass action hero somehow, with guns and babes presumably? ...yeah, that's pretty unlikely!
well, i suppose it's also rewarding
CalvinSmith (not verified) Sat, 12/28/2024 - 12:07
In reply to wow, you're really admitting by lumpy (not verified)
If you're interested in publishing your own commentary about it. However, im not sure whats up with your "little guy" complex, and your obsession with being front and center. Why are anarchists and leftists still fixated on a revolutionary think such as marx? What exactly did he do about capitalism?
You kinda need a certification to start diagnosing folks with mental illness, or else you just look crazy. For example, why are you ever incapable of discussing anything without also hurling 5 insults? Isn't there a disorder for that, or multiple disorders for that?
Also, what is the deal with you and books? Im so sorry i didnt advertise to the world that i have also begrudgingly read Marx. What the fuck is your problem?
" It seems Stirner won the
anon (not verified) Sun, 12/29/2024 - 04:59
In reply to you'd have to be pretty dumb to believe that administrative by CalvinSmith (not verified)
" It seems Stirner won the popularity contest with anarchists, " Yup, there's a bit of Stirner in every authentic anarchist fighting to get out!
Bringing Up Marxism?
Wayne Price (not verified) Thu, 12/26/2024 - 15:43
In reply to I wish Wayne would fuck off by anon (not verified)
This person writes, "I wish Wayne would fuck off from this website if he's bringing up Marxism."
Which is weird, since I had not been bringing up Marxism. In fact, earlier in this thread, I had defended Bakunin from someone who declared him inferior to the "real revolutionary" Marx. I claimed that Bakunin was right and Marx wrong on the key issue of the state.
It's as if someone had written, "I wish Wayne would take a flying leap if he insists on bringing up astrophysics!"
Okay, fair. Wish everyone but
anon (not verified) Thu, 12/26/2024 - 15:56
In reply to Bringing Up Marxism? by Wayne Price (not verified)
Okay, fair. Wish everyone but the Lacanians would fuck off. Bakuninites especially. Better?
do you like lacan bc you like
anon (not verified) Sat, 12/28/2024 - 21:28
In reply to Okay, fair. Wish everyone but by anon (not verified)
do you like lacan bc you like nom du pere, or bc you're living the non-dupe err?
Robot... rewrite this comment
anon (not verified) Thu, 12/26/2024 - 04:25
In reply to The Ukrainian people aren't by anon (not verified)
Robot... rewrite this comment but for a state liberal audience....
More on Peoples and States
Wayne Price (not verified) Thu, 12/26/2024 - 15:05
In reply to The Ukrainian people aren't by anon (not verified)
You write: "The Ukrainian people aren't being armed by imperialist states like the USA and France, the Ukrainian state is being armed by them." You claim that I do not see the difference between peoples and states.
But here's the problem. Throughout the world oppressed peoples are led by states or by those who would have states. To put it another way, oppressed people universally (at this time) are not anarchists and (mistakenly!) want their own independent states (with the possible exception of Rojava). To take a position such as yours would mean that *in practice* you do not support a single national liberation struggle. Not Palestine, not Tibet, not Georgia, not Puerto Rico, not West Sahara, not Chechnya. You would not have supported the Vietnamese against the US nor Algeria against France nor Namibia against apartheid South Africa nor India against Britain.
We anarchists (if I may include myself among the anarchists....) know of the difference between people and states. I quoted Bakunin to that effect. But most people don't. To them, political independence from an imperialist overlord means their own state. Look at the Palestinians. For us to support the people in their fight for independence means to participate in a statist-led movement--even as we oppose statism. Our eventual goal is to win over the people to our perspective and defeat the nationalists.
Our "alliance" with nationalists can only be negative. We are both fighting against the oppressor imperialist. But our positive goals are different. They want a new (capitalist) state. We want a self-organized, stateless, socialism. And we say so.
We cannot be in solidarity with the Ukrainian workers and oppressed without supporting their struggle which is led and channelled by their capitalist state. We may denounce the state, and should, but to refuse to participate in that armed struggle which is led by a state and armed by imperialists (for their own reasons) is to be passively neutral between the Russian imperialists and the Ukrainian nation.
The same goes for supporting the Palestinian people, who are most led by nationalist, jihadist, Marxist-Leninist, authoritarian groups which want a state, and which have been armed by the regional sub-imperialist Iran. We can oppose the programs of these forces, but to reject support for the Palestinians on that grounds is to betray a people.
" We can oppose the programs
anon (not verified) Thu, 12/26/2024 - 16:00
In reply to More on Peoples and States by Wayne Price (not verified)
" We can oppose the programs of these forces, but to reject support for the Palestinians on that grounds is to betray a people."
Palestinians don't need your loyalty. Just leave us the fuck alone. Support the people in your bioregion trying to stop our genocide. Don't shoehorn us into your worldviews.
Internationalism
Wayne Price (not verified) Sat, 12/28/2024 - 13:51
In reply to " We can oppose the programs by anon (not verified)
You write, "Palestinians don't need your loyalty. Just leave us the fuck alone." This expresses your own nationalism.
Revolutionary anarchists are internationalists. We feel that the struggle in our own country (or bioregion) can only be won through a world-wide revolution of the working class and all oppressed (nationally oppressed included). We are on the side of (feel "loyalty" to) every class and every people fighting for freedom.
while you flout rhetoric and
anon (not verified) Sat, 12/28/2024 - 14:20
In reply to Internationalism by Wayne Price (not verified)
while you flout rhetoric and you chase pie in the sky we're being killed every second. your empty words mean nothing
Oppressed people want states
anon (not verified) Fri, 12/27/2024 - 11:37
In reply to More on Peoples and States by Wayne Price (not verified)
Oppressed people want states so we anarchists should support states. We cannot support any social struggle that people are engaged in without supporting states and state institutions if those people want a state. People want cops, therefore anarchists should support cops, hell, become a cop yourself, carry the anarchist struggle forward within the state. Anarchism is when you are just another political party that works within state structures. The role of the anarchist is to tail all the reactionary tendencies of the masses, from racism to whatever else, and to forgo all autonomous organizing in favor of subservience to the American military industrial complex. I am a very smart and very coherent anarchist like Wayne Price. Thank you for your time and for your service. Ask not what anarchy can do for you but what you can do for your country.
Be the change you want to see
anon (not verified) Fri, 12/27/2024 - 14:00
In reply to Oppressed people want states by anon (not verified)
Be the change you want to see in your zone of interest. Be wild, go for a different flavor latte today! Macadamia milk.
Anarchists Don't "Support" States
Wayne Price (not verified) Fri, 12/27/2024 - 15:07
In reply to Oppressed people want states by anon (not verified)
You appear to be trying to paraphrase me as believing, "Oppressed people want states so we anarchists should support states." However, I did not say that. I actually said the exact opposite. Read it again.
How about this: Workers go on strike, organized and led by a reactionary, corrupt, union bureaucracy. If we participate in the strike or otherwise support the striking workers, are we "supporting" the union bureaucrats? If these bureaucrats are arrested for "leading" the strike, shall we anarchists denounce this arrest and demand their release? Not because we support them--we are their political enemies within and without the unions--but because the arrests are meant as an attack on the workers? See?
No I don't see, Price
anon (not verified) Thu, 01/02/2025 - 10:44
In reply to Anarchists Don't "Support" States by Wayne Price (not verified)
No I don't see, because to me, a reactionary and corrupt union bureaucracy is still not as bad as a capitalist state army, and being a member of such a shitty union still isn't as bad as being a hired killer for the State and an enforcer of State repression, see?
To me, it would be ok, potentially even good, for anarchists to support a strike by such a shitty union, either from the outside or from within the rank-and-file. But I don't think it's ok or good for anarchists to become union bureaucrats, cops or soldiers, or at least, it's not "anarchist" to become those things.
It's excusable, from an anarchist perspective, if one is being attacked and has no other option, to call the cops for help. Who knows if they'll actually help. But the cops don't become "anarchist" if they do help, calling cops doesn't become anarchist, we don't start saying, well, things are bad, maybe we do need the cops, let's get hired as cops and change the system from within. If you think this way, you clearly think anarchism itself is wrong, you just don't have the gumption to say so openly, yet.
If the leaders of a shitty union get busted, anarchists would be within reason to oppose this repression, just as they'd be to oppose Russian invasion. But this doesn't make Ukraine not a state, NATO not NATO, or union bureaucrats not bureaucrats. Anarchism isn't an ideology of the lesser evil is my friend. Just like anarchists didn't have to become supporters of Saddam Hussein in order to oppose the imperialist invasion of Iraq.
One can start by opposing one's own state, or the state occupying one's territory, and the alliances of states. One doesn't need to become a cheerleader for particular states and militarism, as you have. Errico Malatesta, Marcus Graham and other anarchists already taught us this long ago, it's nobody's fault but your own that you refuse to learn from them.
I don't see supporting striking workers in a shitty union whose leaders are being repressed as analogous to your support for the Ukrainian state and its NATO allies and their arms industries. The analogy would be one union doing a hostile take-over of another. You are not opposing the state repression carried out by the Ukrainian state (conscription and prosecution) for example, you are preaching subservience to state repression in support of a particular camp, the West. You are a prime example of campist.
Wayne, Ukrainian troops have
anon (not verified) Thu, 12/26/2024 - 20:39
In reply to Peoples Need Self-Determination, Not States by Wayne Price (not verified)
Wayne, Ukrainian troops have taken part in US and NATO imperialist operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Ukrainian state has been trying with all its might to join the imperialist NATO bloc for many years. The Ukrainian state is armed and financed by NATO imperialists. You also ignore the fact that the Ukrainian state oppresses ethnic minorities within its borders. Russians, Hungarians, Tatars living on the territory of Ukraine or living on former territories of Ukraine have received neither autonomy nor a satisfactory language policy.
Aren't you tired of defending these little imperialist assholes, Wayne?
Anon, Russian Troops Have....
Wayne Price (not verified) Fri, 12/27/2024 - 15:18
In reply to Wayne, Ukrainian troops have by anon (not verified)
Anon, Russian troops have invaded Ukraine, seized large parts of its territory, massacred many Ukrainians and declared its rule over many, blown up much of the country, denied the Ukrainians the right to decide their own future (national self-determination), kidnapped children, repressed the Crimean Tartars far worse than under the Ukrainian government, and proclaimed a goal of complete assimilation of the Ukrainian people. (It was fear of Russian aggression which made many Ukrainians, among the rulers as well as among ordinary people, sympathetic to joining NATO; of course I think they were wrong.)
Aren't you tired of being neutral between this (non-imperialist) country and Russian imperialism?
In addition, the punitive
anon (not verified) Sat, 12/28/2024 - 03:56
In reply to Anon, Russian Troops Have.... by Wayne Price (not verified)
In addition, the punitive forces of Ukraine invaded the Russian regions that did not accept the coup, destroyed Dombas, filled residential areas with mines, shelled the cities of Donbas for eight years, refused to allow Russians to determine their own future (national self-determination), called children rescued from the combat zone and subsequently handed over to relatives kidnapped, refusing to investigate the kidnapping of children from the territories controlled by Kyiv, bulldozed the villages of the Crimean Tatars (which the evil Russians have not yet thought to do), organized pogroms against gypsies, tied gypsies to poles and beat them, joyfully posting photos of their atrocities, and came up with a fairy tale about the desire for "complete assimilation" of Ukrainians, while trying to refuse the Russians of Donbass even to be called Russians, officially calling them "Russian-speaking Ukrainians".
Aren't you tired of playing these games, Wayne, and dumping official Kyiv propaganda on my unfortunate head?
Furthermore,
Wayne Price (not verified) Sat, 12/28/2024 - 13:58
In reply to In addition, the punitive by anon (not verified)
Aren't you tired of dumping official Russian propaganda on all of us? None of which denies the main issue, which is that Russian imperialism invaded Ukraine and has been trying to take over as much as possible, through massive bombardment, massacre, and destruction.
Poor Wayne, you lost. But I'm
anon (not verified) Sun, 12/29/2024 - 00:50
In reply to Furthermore, by Wayne Price (not verified)
Poor Wayne, you lost. But I'm kind today and I'll give you another chance to impress me with stories about bad Russian imperialism being fought by good Western imperialism. And bring more stories from the telethon, please. There were some great ones. For example, my favorite about how evil Russians in the field slit the stomachs of Ukrainian children with knives, inserted anti-personnel mines, sewed them up and released the children so that they could hug Ukrainian warriors of light and goodness and explode.
Bad Faith
Wayne Price (not verified) Sun, 12/29/2024 - 14:16
In reply to Poor Wayne, you lost. But I'm by anon (not verified)
You accuse me of presenting " stories about bad Russian imperialism being fought by good Western imperialism." As anyone can easily see, this is nothing like I have written. I wrote about bad Russian imperialism invading, smashing, occupying, and seizing Ukrainian territory and population, and about (more-or-less good or at least justified) Ukrainians getting military aid from the bad Western imperialisms, which had their own reasons.
I don't think you missed this. You are simply a pro-Russian campist writing in bad faith.
And here we are again, Wayne,
anon (not verified) Sun, 12/29/2024 - 14:46
In reply to Bad Faith by Wayne Price (not verified)
And here we are again, Wayne, taking a shit with your pants on. I understand that you feel awkward when you have to stop retelling the idiotic stories of Kyiv propagandists or when you are rubbed in the little nuances of harsh reality, but you have to deal with it somehow. And no, simply declaring me "pro-Russian" won't help, you have to come up with something else. Try again.
Idiotic Stories of Russian Propagandists
Wayne Price (not verified) Sun, 12/29/2024 - 20:48
In reply to And here we are again, Wayne, by anon (not verified)
You accuse me of "retelling the idiotic stories of Kyiv propagandists."
Do you mean the story about Russia invading Ukraine? Wow, that was a doozy huh! I suppose you think it didn't really happen, not in your alternate reality.
And if it never happened, then the Ukrainians did not have to defend themselves and the Ukrainian anarchists did not have to work out ways of relating to the Ukrainian war effort and the Ukrainians did not have to take arms aid from Western imperialists. Ah, to live in your reality!
Once you start delirious, you
anon (not verified) Sun, 12/29/2024 - 22:37
In reply to Idiotic Stories of Russian Propagandists by Wayne Price (not verified)
Once you start delirious, you can't stop, right, Wayne? Get well.
To stupid 17:38: the United
anon (not verified) Mon, 12/23/2024 - 20:07
To stupid 17:38: the United States did not invent social security benefits.
you can reinvent the wheel all you want.
CalvinSmith (not verified) Tue, 12/24/2024 - 05:42
In reply to To stupid 17:38: the United by anon (not verified)
It really doesn't take a lot of academic expertise to know this.
Anarchist news hierarchical structure:
8=================================D
The Articles: sets the tone for the conversation
8=================================D
|
|
|
|
|
8====================================================D
The author: spies on the trolls to see if they can become the superior troll.
The goal is always raw numbers.
8====================================================D
|
|
|
|
|
|
======D
The trolls
======D
The best trolls point to never-never land repeatedly, it's called "the long con" in Hollywood. It doesn't have to elicit an immediate response: the goal is just to plant seeds in people's minds, and win them over to your valuations.
they're all dicks. so
anon (not verified) Wed, 12/25/2024 - 10:36
In reply to you can reinvent the wheel all you want. by CalvinSmith (not verified)
they're all dicks. so thecollective is your average ancom op?
if you want ammunition, it
lumpy (not verified) Wed, 12/25/2024 - 11:23
In reply to they're all dicks. so by anon (not verified)
if you want ammunition, it hurts them the most when you call them ancoms
*he said, while being maybe the last actual ancom that still visits this site*
you're at least a borderline
anon (not verified) Wed, 12/25/2024 - 11:29
In reply to if you want ammunition, it by lumpy (not verified)
you're at least a borderline case. like we got "unity of fields" and igd going around acting like they're abolishing property and capitalism. you at least recognize that we can't just pretend our way to utopia. i don't mind the ancoms who recognize the autonomy of other f@gs and NDNs. it's the pure (organizationalist, centralizing) communists who call themselves ancoms who are a bother to me.
like sometimes the org folx
anon (not verified) Wed, 12/25/2024 - 11:36
In reply to you're at least a borderline by anon (not verified)
like sometimes the org folx wanna pretend that personal and interrelational dynamics don't/can't access "meaningful power" bc their definition of power is the same one Name of the Father (tm) gives them. and sometimes ppl trash talk delinquency and act like there is confirmed "no organizing happening" when there are no aboveground orgs, just bc they don't know the extent of petty unapologetic illegalism. you are at least chill about other's choices.
hmmm... i suppose that's fair
lumpy (not verified) Thu, 12/26/2024 - 09:05
In reply to like sometimes the org folx by anon (not verified)
hmmm... i suppose that's fair. maybe there's more of the illegalist, lumpen kind of ancoms, depending on which part of the world?
also the youngest kids are radicalizing, start reading, usually find marxist crap first, then find that those people are weird and boring when they actually meet them, then gravitate towards anarchy after that, if they don't just give up right away haha
where i'm at, there's the outlaw folks with far-left and/or pitch black nihilism tendencies and then there's the """leftists""" with career aspirations in nonprofit activist land or electoral politics, so i tend to make the distinction that way. those are just professional managerials with a bullshit facade of rad lib, so we all instinctively hate them within 2 mins of talking to them, if not on sight.
plus they're too scared of us to even approach, most of the time. so it's all passive aggressive vibes from long range lol
thecollective are mysterious anarchist thought police.
HeyBackASec (not verified) Wed, 12/25/2024 - 13:02
In reply to they're all dicks. so by anon (not verified)
I do appreciate their dedication to the cause, but I prefer to understand them as intelligentsia. The typical ancom thought police method is shaming-to-the-face in leu of perceived whiteness.
so ancom is often white
anon (not verified) Wed, 12/25/2024 - 13:30
In reply to thecollective are mysterious anarchist thought police. by HeyBackASec (not verified)
so ancom is often white supremacist...?
this aligns with the shaming for thc/alcohol/laziness i have occasionally witnessed, but i usually think it's leftists more than ancoms who love their bourgeois moralities.
that's correct:
BackAgain (not verified) Wed, 12/25/2024 - 14:33
In reply to so ancom is often white by anon (not verified)
I was going for the mirror image of the white supremacist, some may know them as de-colonizers, others may know them as The Nation of Islam
ancom = anarco-communist and
lumpy (not verified) Thu, 12/26/2024 - 09:08
In reply to so ancom is often white by anon (not verified)
ancom = anarco-communist and has nothing to do with any of what you're talking about, so... nice try with the brainworms you little scumfuck halfwit troll
Wayne was never a Marxist. He
anon (not verified) Thu, 12/26/2024 - 19:12
Wayne was never a Marxist. He was a Trotskyist, a militant of Stalinism's loyal opposition. He was no more a Marxist than the rest of you are.
A Maoist Troll
Wayne Price (not verified) Fri, 12/27/2024 - 15:22
In reply to Wayne was never a Marxist. He by anon (not verified)
Probably a post by a Maoist troll.
To 15:22 - Wrong, pro-wage
anon (not verified) Fri, 12/27/2024 - 17:40
In reply to A Maoist Troll by Wayne Price (not verified)
To 15:22 - Wrong, pro-wage labor leftist.
I thought maybe a troll with
anon (not verified) Fri, 12/27/2024 - 22:40
In reply to A Maoist Troll by Wayne Price (not verified)
I thought maybe a troll with post-Maoist tendencies, but now I put all revolutionaries into the neo-Seething Ressentimentist basket.
*Moist Wayne
Wayne Price (not verified) Sat, 12/28/2024 - 00:10
In reply to A Maoist Troll by Wayne Price (not verified)
*Moist
Wayne
Not by Me
Wayne Price (not verified) Sat, 12/28/2024 - 14:03
In reply to *Moist Wayne by Wayne Price (not verified)
Not me.
*Most
Wayne Price (not verified) Sat, 12/28/2024 - 14:38
In reply to *Moist Wayne by Wayne Price (not verified)
Not, Maoist, Sorry! None of these other clowns are me. We need a central bureaucracy to resolve such affairs!
Not Me
Wayne Price (not verified) Sun, 12/29/2024 - 14:19
In reply to *Most by Wayne Price (not verified)
Not By Me, Again!
...why would being a trot,
lumpy (not verified) Fri, 12/27/2024 - 16:25
In reply to Wayne was never a Marxist. He by anon (not verified)
...why would being a trot, make you not a marxist anymore?
i doubt trotsky would agree with that, if you break out the necronomicon and ask him yourself
I said, revolutionary Marxism
anon (not verified) Fri, 12/27/2024 - 18:21
In reply to ...why would being a trot, by lumpy (not verified)
I said, revolutionary Marxism, not Second International social democratic Marxism. You are probably not going to get the difference here.
you didn't answer the
lumpy (not verified) Sun, 12/29/2024 - 10:08
In reply to I said, revolutionary Marxism by anon (not verified)
you didn't answer the qurestion, kind of makes it seem like you're dodging after botching ;)
I don't want to join in the
anon (not verified) Fri, 12/27/2024 - 18:30
I don't want to join in the pile on Wayne thing here, but for fairly obvious reasons a Maoist wouldn't write disparagingly of Stalinism.
Pile on Wayne?
Wayne Price (not verified) Sat, 12/28/2024 - 14:19
For a little clarity: I thought the writer (19:12) was probably a Maoist because he or she described Trotskyists (which supposedly included me) as not being "Marxist" (did not write "revolutionary Marxist"). Did not disparage Stalinism; I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that Stalinism was being included as Marxist.
The Trotskyists, like the Maoists (who are Stalinist-derived) regard themselves each as the only true Marxists. No longer being a Marxist myself, I would not say which one is the real Marxist. I currently think that each is based on certain aspects of Marxism, which is why they are failures (a discussion I have gone into elsewhere).
Clearly we have gotten pretty far from my original article on Ukraine, Bakunin, and National Self-Determination.
setting aside any one-true
lumpy (not verified) Sun, 12/29/2024 - 10:14
In reply to Pile on Wayne? by Wayne Price (not verified)
setting aside any one-true-scotsman nonsense, which is obviously what anyone who isn't in weird, marxist cult should do, that leaves you with the bog-standard, wikipedia version that these are clearly all just different branches of marxism
like, i don't care about the bickering? the point is tracing which ideas were the most influential, not validating the competing dogmas of the authoritarian sects that betrayed their respective revolutions
Price, again
anon (not verified) Mon, 01/06/2025 - 10:37
Price writes, "To be consistent with Bakunin, revolutionary anarchists should support the popular rebellion against the aggressor—the Ukrainian workers and others who do not want to be occupied and killed by the Russian empire, or the Palestinian peasants who do not want to be robbed and massacred by the Israeli state (with U.S. weaponry). We are in solidarity with them."
However, Bakunin's argument in 1870 for the salvation of France was that the French state could not accomplish it, that the French masses, proles and peasants, should go to war (civil war and class war) against both the tottering French state and the invading foreign forces.
Price's argument is not only inconsistent with Bakunin's, it's the exact opposite, that anarchists should be in solidarity with the Ukrainian state, its soldiers, and by extension their own NATO states supplying weapons. Bakunin's support for national self-determination and national liberation was very explicitly anti-statist, calling for civil war against the French state and non-statist resistance against the invaders. Price's national liberation is statist, has to do with state armies and capitalist arms companies. A bit strange to argue for consistency with Bakunin on war and then argue against what he wrote.
https://www.libertarian-labyrinth.org/bakunin-library/letters-to-a-fren…
It Wayne a stateist or a the people'sist?
Wayne Price (not verified) Mon, 01/06/2025 - 11:21
In reply to Price, again by anon (not verified)
Let me ask you this, smartguy:
Q. Who do you think makes up the state and the armies?
A. The People (which includes peasant workers AND women), that's who.
Check mate. Go straight to gulag.
For the self determination of the peasant people and women people of Ukraine who comprise the militaries and the state by whatever means NATO provides them with!
Wayne
Well, you know what is
anon (not verified) Mon, 01/06/2025 - 14:19
In reply to It Wayne a stateist or a the people'sist? by Wayne Price (not verified)
Well, you know what is interesting about that, fake Wayne Price? It's that the real Price took the opposite position on the war on Iraq of the 2000s than he does on the current Russia-Ukraine (and NATO) war.
Back then he said, "For example, I agree that, 'the Iraqi resistance is a legitimate war of national liberation.' But I also agree with Bennis that, 'We do not [have to] endorse specific resistance organizations.'"
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wayne-price-the-u-s-deserves-to…
But now he says it's not enough to support the Ukrainian people (or various peoples within Ukraine) right to self-determination, anarchists should also support a specific resistance organization, the Ukrainian state army. He even says Ukrainians, via their state, have a right to the fruits of the capitalist American military industrial complex, regardless of what or who is harmed by that industry and those capitalists.
To recap, the American, Price, says that when America attacks Iraq, American anarchists don't have to support resistance organizations, but when America trains and arms and supplies intel to the Ukrainian army, anarchists should support this resistance organization, the State. This is what's called run-of-the-mill American chauvinism, and at best indirect support for American capitalism and imperialism, not anarchism.
Look, the "working"
anon (not verified) Mon, 01/06/2025 - 14:26
In reply to Well, you know what is by anon (not verified)
Look, the "working" resistance "people" of Iraq aren't white and aren't supported by NATO. Wayne is just being consistent. Understand?
Some admirable qualities
Le Way, (not verified) Mon, 01/06/2025 - 16:34
In reply to Well, you know what is by anon (not verified)
Some admirable qualities Wayne has is his respect for the Stirnerian autonomous individualist, AND he's a grandfather, which might explain this metamorphosis, nice combo ;)
To elaborate, just say, just
Le Way, (not verified) Mon, 01/06/2025 - 18:29
In reply to Well, you know what is by anon (not verified)
To elaborate, just say, just say I was a Ukrainian Stirnerian from some village and a group of Nationalists began pillaging and raping my neighbours, and some NATO dude comes up to me and says " Hey Le Way Stirnerian dude, do you want some grenades, rocket launchers and mg 58s?" YeeEees thankyou myYy duUude!
Ah the old UkWaynean adage of
anon (not verified) Mon, 01/06/2025 - 18:50
In reply to To elaborate, just say, just by Le Way, (not verified)
Ah the old UkWaynean adage of, "Ask for self-determination for the working people. If they do not give you self-determination for the working people, ask for grenades. If they do not give you grenades, ask to be allowed to vote to join NATO so you can be issued grenades."
YeeEees anARchY!
Not quite. Ask for
Le Way, (not verified) Mon, 01/06/2025 - 21:25
In reply to Ah the old UkWaynean adage of by anon (not verified)
Not quite. Ask for individual sovereignty for yourself. If the powers that be give you unconditional self-determination, try asking them for grenades. Regardless of whether they give you grenades or not against a common enemy, ask to be allowed to defend yourself so that just maybe in the future they will give you grenades.
Stirnerians are nuanced and Machiavellian, 'cos Sun Tzu, The Art of War,
NoOOo! The true Stirnerianesq
anon (not verified) Mon, 01/06/2025 - 21:38
In reply to Not quite. Ask for by Le Way, (not verified)
NoOOo! The true Stirnerianesq anarch asks for nothing! The true Stirnerianesq anarch TAKES grenades!
NooOoo, if a solitary
Le Way, (not verified) Mon, 01/06/2025 - 23:41
In reply to NoOOo! The true Stirnerianesq by anon (not verified)
NooOoo, if a solitary Stirnerian (we prefer our own company) is surrounded by herds of gun waving fanatical nationalists, he/she cunningly and politely endears themselves to the enemy (Machiavellianism at work) and ingratiates themselves to them to manipulate and gain favors from them. (The Art of War). THEN you ask them for weapons and they comply, or he/she waits until they fall asleep and steal the items, and sneak away in the night, and thus, empoyer themselves without a shot being fired.
We are tacticians, not blundering raging bulls in a porcelain store!
OooOooh you are sO wrong!
DarkStirner (not verified) Tue, 01/07/2025 - 09:14
In reply to NooOoo, if a solitary by Le Way, (not verified)
OooOooh you are sO wrong! Look, the Sacred Texts CLEARLY state:
"Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs [grenade]!"
We Stirnerians are greatly displeased with you. Be less like the conniving coward and more like the confident Stirnerian, Novatore, who both took AND used grenades on his conquest toward the great and sublime conquest of the nothing!
Contemplate this in deep isolation.
Is Wayne consistent?
Wayne Price (not verified) Mon, 01/06/2025 - 14:23
In reply to Price, again by anon (not verified)
I will rip off my own head and shit down my own neck in support of the popular rebellion of the Ukrainian workers and others (peasants AND women) in their struggle against the Russian empire by any means.
Wayne
Is Wayne the true headless Acephale we were promised?
Wayne Price (not verified) Mon, 01/06/2025 - 14:38
In reply to Is Wayne consistent? by Wayne Price (not verified)
Yes. A Robinson Arms XCR in one hand and a NATO gift bag in the other. Ecstatic rupture and Dionsyian frenzy await all working people, peasants, AND women of Ukraine! By any democratically decided means!
Wayne
Add new comment