Re: AUT: Anarchism & Marxism

[Ilan Shalif <gshalif@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi People.
Leutha Blissett wrote:

> As the Situationists were not anarchists, who can anarchists criticisng
> situationists be an example of anarchists criticising themselves.

Some ignorant Situationists did not know Leutha Blissett decision
that they are not anarchists and stubbornly call themselves anarchists-situationists.

> In fact
> what anarchists do is to criticise each other rather than themselves.

Self criticism is a nobel method of the Stalinist era.
It is a nice generalisation... but wrong. I know at least two anarchists that
analyzed previous mistakes they were part of.

> How helpful is it to denounce someone as an idiot or a liar when it is
> clear you do not understand what is being said. i.e. you complain about
> being called a leninist when no-one has called you such.

US people insinuate things about others and then hide behind lot of
words to say they are innocent. The question "is it true that your brother
is a whore" is not only a question about information.

> What Rowan
> suggested was that anarchists can be just as leninist as the leninists.

To simple minded people it is just as saying that anarchists are not much
different from the leninist.

> Surely when anarchists criticise the CNT (or even the FAI) this criticism
> has included the suggestion of leninism.

Suggestion, insinuation, supposition, hypothetic, .......

> The problem is that in these criticisims they too often revolve around a
> defense of anarcho-authenticity,

Too often is just what the teacher said about my mischief at the kindergarten.

Some anarchists gave a more serious analyzis and criticism... but one has
the right to choose whom it is easier to blame.

> and other anarchists are criticised for
> not being sufficiently authentic in their anarchism.

"Authenticity" is not part of the common vocabulary of class war social
anarchists... but who care?

> As this question of
> authenticity is tied in with a semi-conscious political identity with brand
> @ @narchism the only way it is possible to understand how pissed off you
> are with "being called a leninist" is precisely because you immersed within
> this identification.

Barking on the wrong tree is not a crime...

> Thus your emotive hackles rise precisely at the point
> where any critical understanding and hence development of your politics
> could begin.

I wonder what pseudo scientific branch of "psychology" is used here
for the psychologism - that evade to the point text.

> There is a short circuit which you experience as pain and it
> produces a whelp of insults just as surely as a pavlovian dog. In this
> sense @narchism can express an internalisation of control which can
> precisely extol the virtues of freedom because it has already neutralised
> any reflective process which could break out of a pre-structured
> consciousness.

I have never had encountered so condence pseudo scientific psychologism
way to evade political challenge. However in the postmodernism era you should not be
surprised.

Anarcho-communism can be libertarian communism with few levels higher than
some pseudo leftist Marxists.

Leutha Blissett responded to my:

 Ilan wrote:
 >Hi people.
 >I wonder if the highly esteemed and widely informed Leutha Blissett
 >had ever read texts of the anarcho-communists and the Platformists
 >trend within it.

 Yes indeed so.

If so why force people under the same label? People who do not agree
on the main political point with others who happen to call themselves
anarchists?

Ain Rand followers tend to call themselves anarchists too.

 >Or, if Leutha Blissett really read the posts contributed to the aut-op-sy list
 >by the anarchists subscribers.

 Yes also

The refering to all people who use the label anarchism as a one entity does
not reflect this.

 >It is very easy to use the confusion between the so called LifeStyle anarchists
 >and the class war social anarchists... and between discrete trends within it.

 But the critique of @narchism is a critique precisely of this confusion.

It is well known that some psychotic schizophrenics invent new words... but this
is not an axcuse for sane people to bring forward confusing labels.

 The concept of an "@narchist movement" is that both so called LifeStyle
 anarchists
 and the class war social anarchists are united in this so-called movement,

I do not recall class war social anarxchists regarding the life stylists as part of
one movement with us. They are not even alowed to subscribe to our discussion
mailing lists.

 and that they should exhibit particular solidarity to each other under this
 shared ideological umbrella

I wonder who call for this kind of solidarity - both sides are not fond at all
of each others and questioning the other side using the label anarchism.

Some confused people try to mix water and oil with the call for anarchism
with out labels, but it is just a way for lazy people to evade the effort to
see sthings clearly.

 over and above solidarity with other working
 class people.

Only people who are not class war social anarchists will use these words.
Solidarity for political people is with struggles, and opinions, and of cource
people who are not part of the capitalist class enemy.
By the way, serious anarchists do not have "anarchist ideology" only "anarchist
theory".

 Sometimes people even present their immediate goal as of
 trying to persuade more and more people to become @narchists, rather than
 using the benefit of their experience and theory to open up different ways
 of thinking and acting which people can adopt without taking on such
 sobriquets.

You can always claime such things happen "sometimes".... as long as you
do not say some times people just fly like angels.

 Is the basis of this critique so hard to understand without anarchists
 leaping to the defense of @narchism?

If you invent a "label" @narchism with out clear definition each time you use it
do not be surprised people read it as Anarchism. Lot of class war social anarchists
and others, use the @ insread of A in the word "Anarcism".

 Or is the problem of dissolving of
 identity as anarchist which I think must follow from dissolving that of
 @narchist to difficult? Maybe I am wrong, but in that case how come so many
 of these anarcho-communists aren't making similar critiques, but instead
 tend to try and defend @narchism?

As you are claiming you are not Marxist, you will better add that you are not
anarchist of any kind too and may be add that you are not libertarian communist...

If you take peoples words at their face value you can go astray easily. There is
no word police and people can label themselves as they wish.

So two people who call themselves anarcho-communists said so and so...
I do not find it productive to insinuate I am responsible to them in any way.

I never before used @narchy to label any thing and wonder how come you find it
so qute. I never seen anarcho-communist support to  "@narchy".

 >I have tried real hard for the whole 1997 year to find significant differences
 >between the anarcho-communism of the platformist trend and the
 >Marxist-Autonomists
 >opinion the Israeli organization Matspen held for 30 years and is held also
 >by the esteemed Marxist autonomist comrades I met in the Encountro2 or read in
 >aut-op-sy and other places.

 Good!

Good marks from the kindergarten teacher were apreciated at that far away times.

Ilan Shalif
(Psy.D. & Alternative Psychologist)
http://www.shalif.com/anarchy/
http://www.shalif.com/psychology/
Tel-Aviv 61132 ISRAEL (Occupied Palestain)




     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---