Rockin With Rudolf
So I wander into the little used book store on the main drag in Taos and there on a shelf in the back room sits Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice by Rudolf Rocker. It is an enthusiastic little polemic and contains both a great deal of value ( for those desiring a basic primer on anarchist thought) and a great deal of historical revisionism which probably should have been avoided.
His basic themes, expanded on from the classic works of Proudhon, Kropotkin and Bakunin, are that association with parlimentary politics (a la Marx/Engles and Lenin) is the ruination of labor movements and that centralized planning and control ( as in either The State or the "dictatorship of the proletariat") must be rejected in favor of an autonomous "freedom", or true libertarian Socialism. From the declaration of principles of the 1923 congress of the International Workingmen's Association we learn that revolutionary syndicalism is "against the government of men", instead it "sets up the management of things". Rocker examines the objective conditions throughout the different societies of the world at the time and the development of anarcho-syndicalist movements in each, always juxtaposing the failed, authoritarian nature of the Bolshevik revolution to the anarchist revolution of the CNT in 1936 Spain. ( The book was first published in 1938)
As someone with an abiding belief that the injustice of modern society can only be confronted with a modern, non-sectarian socialism born of a synthesis of the many branches of our best traditions, combined with the newest and as yet undeveloped thought, I am put off by Rockers partisanship.The simplistic, doctrinal blaming that Rocker indulges in to explain the failures and mixed fortunes of workers movements in the early twentieth century and the un-scientific leaps of logic do little to help us understand complex issues . A more serious examination would honestly confront the obvious theoretical contradictions and incongruities embodied in both classic Marxist and anarchist thought and attempt through a more critical analysis to resolve such questions.
As just one of many examples Rocker states "Anarchism...does not believe in any absolute truth,..but in an unlimited perfectibility of social arrangements.." yet just three sentences prior he makes the absolute claim that "the state can only be what it is :the defender of mass exploitation and social privileges,.. the creator of new monopolies." So apparently the state is the one "social arrangement" which CAN deny "perfectibility". My dictionary defines a state as :a politically organized body of people, and so I wonder what makes these people so unperfectible? Rocker actually seems to disdain politics as such ( what he believes are fine distinctions I find to be contradictions on this point) yet fails to explain where his "associations of workers" end and the polity begins or how society is distinguished from the "organization of collectives". Without politics we will need a new way to know where autonomous freedom ends and governing begins but this is left unexplored as well. It may seem like splitting hairs but power, like property ownership or wealth, is not annihilated simply by re-distribution and some sort of discursive system had best be in place for it's containment and management.
Anarcho-syndicalism stresses important libertarian principles which are essential in the "synthesis" I mentioned earlier, principles such as equality, self determination and democracy and a deep faith in the ability of the worker-citizen to build a just society. It confronts the legacy of Jacobinism within Liberalism and embraces the spirit and creative potential of the individual. It fails when it refuses to confront the dynamic tension which makes social development such a fluid process, and when it assumes justice will prevail simply because it must.
posted by troutsky @ 10:43 AM
39 comments
39 Comments:
I read it a month or so ago
When i think of the state, I think of flag waving parades and bureaucratic war machines. It think it is helpful to differentiate the state from governing in democratic worker councils. I am not convinced a society could remain democratic with any sort of market economy, so there must have to be some planning involved.
at any rate, given the state of leftism in the US, it hardly makes sense to fight over the split at the first international.
I find anarchism tactically limiting. To be serious in a fight like what we're up against, sometimes electoral politics have a place, sometimes not. Same applies with civil disobedience and pacifism.
After any revolution, there are those who will want to reverse it, and will need to be stopped.
I think we are on the same page.Im not spoiling for a fight with anarchists but need them to better explain the "split", (why it is so critical) or let it go.Im not bound by everything Marx theorized, quite the contrary. But I spent time with anarchists in Miami anti-FTTA action and found their processes limiting as well, almost cultish.The whole Black Bloc thing seems like a Rolling Stones concert.
The Russian counter-revolution is never mentioned by Rocker, the White Army or the effects of years of war,etc..
The Republicans are having their national convention in St. Paul, MN. I haven't at all been involved with demonstration planning. I think it'll be a mess.
The anarchists run one group planning a demonstration there, and the Maoists run the other group.
I'm confused as to what "true libertarian Socialism" is. Can you explain, perhaps?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: while some human beings can wield power well, most cannot. For every Marcus Aurelius, there is a Commodus; thus it makes a tremendous amount of practical sense to be wary of concentrated power.
I am not convinced a society could remain democratic with any sort of market economy, so there must have to be some planning involved.
Then I guess our current democracy works for you, since the Federal Reserve plans all the time.
Tongue out of cheek, what if the will of the people is to let the market be free?
Ren and Trout,
Yes, anarchism is "tactically limiting." So is democracy. On the other hand, totalitarianism is very efficient. I do not want to be a part of your revolution if you expect me to put FAITH in benevolent tyrants and their parities. I don't want health care badly enough to pack my bags for Cuba. Besides, show me a Marxist state where the "necessary" restrictions of those in power weren't totally limiting to the tactics human beings could have employed to more equally distribute power and deliver their own justice.
I say "thank god" for the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Spanish Communists, et. al. It proved the inherent flaw in believing a vanguard state/party/ruler could ever share power, bring justice, etc. Why else do you think Buenaventura Durruti, Bakunin, Goldman, Malatesta, Rosa Luxembourg, Solidarity, Che Guevara, Spanish Anarchists, etc. were ignored/murdered/betrayed? Council communism, anarcho-syndicalism, etc. are the syntheses that took the best from Marx and moved beyond Marxism's misguided faith in political socialism. Besides, on a practical level, I'm going to have a much easier time trying to convince people that they are the best persons to lead themselves than you are going to be able to convince people to give state socialism another go! Finally, if you use Chavez as an example, who becomes guilty of cult-like behavior.
In Argentina, people are organically experimenting with horizontal power sharing. It's tremendously inefficient and they even risk total failure for the sake of their "cultish" behavior. At the same time, they've reached the inevitable conclusion that the best, most-trustworthy and competent leader is oneself. So I will join them in their foolish endeavor to live free and decentralize power.
And instead of waiting for another "great" leader to come along and fix society, I will naively continue to educate and contribute to a long, protracted social evolution which trends towards anarchism. I will hopelessly contribute to our collective education by disputing the claims of legitimacy of all bosses and leaders. I will foolishly sacrifice efficiency through the limiting tactics of a principled fight for power to be equally distributed.
"A practical scheme, says Oscar Wilde, is either one already in existence, or a scheme that could be carried out under existing conditions; but it is exactly the existing conditions that one objects to, and any scheme that could accept these conditions is wrong and foolish. The true criterion of the practical, therefore, is not whether the latter can keep intact the wrong or foolish; rather it is whether the scheme has vitality enough to leave the stagnant waters of the old, and build, as well as sustain, new life. In the light of this conception, Anarchism is indeed practical. More than any other idea, it is helping to do away with the wrong and foolish; more than any other idea, it is building and sustaining new life." (Emma Goldman)
I'm pretty sure the synthesis you are both looking for is libertarian socialism. If you are hung up on bomb-throwing, cult-like, DIY, punk rock anarchists, well then I understand your aversion. I too share this frustration of having anarchism conflated with the image you invoke of FTAA protesters in Miami or Seattle. It's kind of like those so narrow-minded that the can only see socialism as that which destroyed millions of lives through Maoism and Stalinism. At the same time, if you don't want people to conflate totalitarianism with socialism, then it's time to let go of your belief in a benevolent state.
I don't feel you are being fair to Rocker through your example of his supposed theoretical contradictions. Rocker was not referring to your dictionary definition when he was referring to the "state." Instead he was referring to the "state" as it actually exists: "defender of mass exploitation and social privileges,.. the creator of new monopolies." So unless, that "state" is completely decentralized and unless that "state" actually consisted of the people, by the people and for the people it is unworkable. Libertarian socialism, as I understand it, works for the loose confederation of workers' councils, unions, or whatever groups arise. In other words, we recognize the need for political organization in a very un-state-like form:
"Revolutionary Syndicalism basing itself on the class-war, aims at the union of all manual and intellectual workers in economic fighting organisations struggling for their emancipation from the yoke of wage slavery and from the oppression of the State. Its goal consists in the re-organisation of social life on the basis of free Communism, by means of the revolutionary action of the working-class itself. It considers that the economic organisations of the proletariat are alone capable of realising this aim, and, in consequence, its appeal is addressed to workers in their capacity of producers and creators of social riches, in opposition to the modern political labour parties which can never be considered at all from the points of view of economic re-organisation."
Wiser,
I couldn't have said it better myself...in fact, I didn't so I'm stealing it from you:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: while some human beings can wield power well, most cannot. For every Marcus Aurelius, there is a Commodus; thus it makes a tremendous amount of practical sense to be wary of concentrated power.
It sounds like you've got the "libertarian" part down, now we just need you to realize the "socialist" part! :)
Trout,
As someone with an abiding belief that the injustice of modern society can only be confronted with a modern, non-sectarian socialism born of a synthesis of the many branches of our best traditions, combined with the newest and as yet undeveloped thought, I am put off by Rockers partisanship.The simplistic, doctrinal blaming that Rocker indulges in to explain the failures and mixed fortunes of workers movements in the early twentieth century and the un-scientific leaps of logic do little to help us understand complex issues . A more serious examination would honestly confront the obvious theoretical contradictions and incongruities embodied in both classic Marxist and anarchist thought and attempt through a more critical analysis to resolve such questions.
How can one pretend to be neutral on a moving train? We are being partisan towards socialism, aren't we? Furthermore, why ask us to be non-sectarian? We are debating ideas from our political perspectives, no? What if we asked everyone to debate issues from a non-economic and non-political position? What would we be debating?
Asking Rocker or anyone to be non-sectarian about "their" socialism feels heavy-handed. Under these terms, where does one's polity start and one's association of workers end? It feels as though you've already determined this by telling us that it "can only be" non-sectarian. Wouldn't "non-sectarian socialism" then end up being sectarian? For instance, what would non-sectarian socialism look like? What would its politics consist of?
I'd prefer to just debate Rocker's critique of the state (as it actually exists).
Also, to criticize Rocker for "doctrinal blaming" (which is exactly what we do here on these blogs) is unfair. His work was not intended to critique today's world. It was to do exactly what you said: "to explain the failures and mixed fortunes of workers movements in the early twentieth century." I also feel it was a deadly serious examination of the consequences and human toll of political socialism in Spain (an opinion also shared by Orwell). It may be simplistic, but it's got teeth! Was he dishonest in describing the failures of Marxist communism up until the point in which he lived? If so, how?
What should he have said were the "contradictions and incongruities" of anarchism in 1938? Should he have agreed with Hobsbawm (another heavy-handed Marxist) that the anarchists were unorganized? Inefficient? Incompetent? All of which are, according to Hobsbawm, symptoms of a flawed theory. Or should he have written what he observed. We have no reason not to take Rocker seriously...or do we?
If your version of the story is vetted by historians such as Hobsbawm, who also deterministically revise history to tell the version that fits nicely into their narrative, well then we're back--full circle--to partisanship.
I'm put off by Hobsbawm, you're put off by Rocker. Where to from here?
"Should he have agreed with Hobsbawm ... that the anarchists were unorganized?"
I like that one!
On a serious note: you guys would do well to stay away from anarchists. Their image and antics appeal to a very particular strain of narcissitic, elitist, nihlistic, puerile pathogens. I can't imagine that you could gain any trust among "the people," even those who share your collectivist bent, by associating with black-hooded spectres of "wasted" youth.
Speaking of Marcus Aurelius, he once wrote:
The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.
"[T]he ranks of the insane" would include the anarchists.
Tongue out of cheek, what if the will of the people is to let the market be free?
Then so be it. My job is to argue and educate against it, so the will of the people will change.
Che Bob,
totalitarianism is very efficient.,
Fortunately, this is far from being the case. Otherwise we would all be screwed.
I do not want to be a part of your revolution if you expect me to put FAITH in benevolent tyrants and their parities.
Unfortunately, revolutionaries like Ren, Graeme and Troutsky are so obsessed by the fight itself, that they forget about being cautious.
But the problem isn't the revolutionary struggle itself. The problem is the EXACT MOMENT when the revolutionaries seize power. The problem is November 7, 1917. When that day comes, everything is lost.
November 7, 1917 is the day when the fire that used to warm the house, burns it to the ground.
If Castro, instead of seizing the power himself, simply stayed in the background to keep an eye over the successive Cuban governments, I am certain Cuba would now have a universal health care AND a prosperous economy AND no embargo.
There's certainly useful stuff from the council communist tradition, but as someone who was one an anarchist, you just cannot get round the party thing.
More later when I have time.
I think our project here should be to try to find out through discussion, analysis, what works theoretically and what doesn't.Critiquing the history of Rocker or Hobsbawm or James Michener is a whole different project.To that end we have critiqued the obvious, such as Stalinism and Maoism (throw in Castro or Chavez if you want)for authoritarian tendencies or Marx/Engles for outdated, disproved economic theory, the flaws of Leninist theory and now a little jab at Rockers idealistic system.If I am looking to sell a new ,anti-capitalist program to "workers" in the 21st century Ive got to do some defining.Is a doctor a worker,a nurse,an aid? What is a "people" and what unifies a "people" enough to work in cooperative association toward common goals? Where do "class" alliances begin and end? Then I have to decide if I am going to discard all the liberal constructions of constitutional government and that guarantor of minority rights, the state, and tell modern citizens they are no longer "citizens" , they are syndicalists.What I feel like is that I am mimicking the political philosophy of the neo-conservatives down at the Heritage Foundation.
It sounds like you've got the "libertarian" part down, now we just need you to realize the "socialist" part! :)
Thanks! Where does the socialist part enter in? I've always viewed socialism to be antithetical to libertarianism, but perhaps my conception of the latter is far too statist. Elucidate, if you would please.
what works theoretically and what doesn't.
Well then, let's do this.
Anarcho-syndicalism works, period...just as Rocker described it. Is anyone convinced just because I said so?
No, certainly not. Ren isn't convinced and I'm not convinced by Ren. Round and round we go.
I think we can talk all we want about which theory to try, but that will inevitably lead us back to the futile place we are in today: APATHY! Oh yeah, and what about AGREEING on a theory to try. I, for one, have expressed an unwillingness to follow tyrants (benevolent or otherwise). So where to from here?
If we could return to Spain 1936, anarchists were not telling other regional federations what to do. They weren't telling each other how they should be organized. The collectivists weren't placing demands on the syndicalists and vice versa. Unfortunately, Chavez and other benevolent leaders can't see beyond traditional political/economic limits and sees himself as a necessary evil. Worse yet, he sees himself as divinely endowed with power. He even has a destiny/savior complex, when this power rightfully resides with the people. He has grown beyond his simple utility as a voice and representative and now is seeking an end to term limits.
So even the best case scenario of political socialism leads to being corrupted by power. A scenario much scarier in the U.S. where politicians completely ignore their constituents.
I am seeking a form of political organization that loosely associates our societies through direct/horizontal/participatory democracy in a completely decentralized way. Let the most local/immediate level of society to speak for and represent itself.
Oops, I didn't mean to publish that quite yet, but..
Wiser said : "I guess our current democracy works for you ,since the Federal Reserve plans all the time."
I don't think enough people are informed enough as to the workings of the Fed to be able to have a meaningful democratic referendum on it's "planning".
Che Bob asks me to "show him a Marxist state where restrictions.. weren't totally limiting" and to contemplate how I would "convince people to give state socialism another go"
While USSR, China,Cuba etc display the afforementioned debilitating flaw and more, I can't dismiss the development that did occur in all those societies as totally inconsequential.That said, none of them were or are "Marxist" states according to my reading of Marx.
As for the concept of "benevolent state", I wanted to open up the inquiry into what is a state.Of course a capitalist state is not benevolent,but should anarcho/syndicalists reject the word "state" because of that connotation? Do we reject the term "democracy"because formal bourgeois democracy is a fraud? As for politics, as a way to resolve necessary antagonisms,it seems to me to be necessary as well.
I believe my stated goal of synthesis and advanced (new)discourse is the antithesis to the partisanship of established doctrines, Marxist or anarchist socialism.It's Thanksgiving so I gotta go but there is much more to go over,thanks for the thoughtful reply Che Bob.We have to get this out in the light.
How rude of me...of course I should have begun with "Happy Thanksgiving."
Do we reject the term "democracy"because formal bourgeois democracy is a fraud?
Excellent point Trout. Of course we do not reject the term "democracy." Likewise, I (we) need to look at "state" and do more to define it as the possibility of an anarcho-syndicalist "state."
To be fair to Rocker, his criticism of the state similarly dealt with the bourgeois state that centralizes/concentrates power. He was not, in my mind, talking about a "state" as a means for organizing human societies when he was disavowing the state. He was disavowing the state as it actually existed.
Also, I'd like to work on how we are defining "politics." Politics does not have to be conflated with the "political" of political socialism. Perhaps I'd be better off saying parliamentarian "politics" as we've experienced since the enlightenment. I think anarchists are plenty "political" without believing in the political proceedings of Western bourgeois democracies. For that matter, we are all unavoidably political.
I believe my stated goal of synthesis and advanced (new)discourse is the antithesis to the partisanship of established doctrines, Marxist or anarchist socialism.
How is this done? Won't the "advanced," "new" discourse end up being partisan? I'm totally for finding a bridge or a new plane from which we could transcend the "partisanshipness" that is bogging us all down. However, I'm pretty intractable when it comes to wanting to lead myself.
there should be a distinction between governing and the state. The state is the flag waving nation-state that asks young men and women to die for it. It is a flawed concept and rarely progressive. Government can be good, if it is a more direct, democratic institution. This, at least in my experience, has confused some anarchists who in some cases end up, consciously or not, supporting reactionary "small government" movements.
i just realized that i already said my last comment in my first one. Oh well, I think it is worth saying again.
Wiser,
Libertarian used to mean anti-state and anti-capitalism, but US right-wingers hijacked the term. when people ask, I usually tell them I am a libertarian. I have to explain that I am not against the will of the people, like so many american libertarians. I support social programs, democratic governing and am opposed to despotic corporate bureaucrats and subsidies given to the rich. I have a belief in the cooperative nature of humans and reject the idea that most people want to live off a nanny state (the ones that do want taxpayers to pay for their lifestyles are typically the ultra-rich). I also reject the idea that money alone motivates people. Without a democratic economy, there can be no liberty. Rest assured, under a complete democracy some "freedoms" would be taken away. Particularly, the "freedom" to be a wage slave.
Anarchists are too stupid to be evil.
The question is when the commie decide to implement the Old Yeller Solution. They are useful in their role as useful idiots.
Commies, such as Noam Chomsky, often hide their true faith behind Anarchism. It would seem the dolt from MIT knows it is far better to be
viewed as ignorant than the embodiment of evil.
Graeme,
To me, libertarianism can be summarized simply: that government is best which governs least.
The Federal Government exists to provide public goods, ex. roads, a basic national defense, etc. and to regulate commerce between the states. C'est tout. Social programs are best left to the market.
Universal Suffrage and libertarianism are at odds. So few people value liberty that allowing them all to vote is a tremendously stupid idea. I wouldn't suggest that many libertarians believe in democrats.
Graeme: I never heard before differentiating government from state before. To me they are synonymous; cops, courts, taxes and jails as I heard an old Wobbly say.
I think democratic centralism is misunderstood, because of how it has been used in modern times. During the Russian Revolution Zinoviev, Kamenov and to some degree Stalin, opposed overthrowing Kerensky publicly. They were not expelled. The recent events in the SWP (UK), make it look Stalinist.
To me anarchism is a nightmare. The Republican Convention is in St. Paul, MN. The anarchists are organizing their own contingent, seperate from other organizers. I personally dislike politically the anarchists and the other group is led by Maoists. To the anarchists, having unifying political demands is authoritarian. The cameras will be on the protesters, and no message will come out.
I believe in a vanguard party, democratic centralism and a state. What is important is how things work on the ground. After St. Paul has the convention, I'll have more answers.
So few people value liberty that allowing them all to vote is a tremendously stupid idea.
I disagree. People value liberty, they have just become apathetic because our political process doesn't.
I never heard before differentiating government from state before. To me they are synonymous...
I don't think they have to be synonymous. If people govern themselves, it is technically a government. If they don't recognize the imaginary authority, borders, military.. of the state- then they are a governing body without a state.
Like it or not you are now linked to liberal white boy, because and only because you have been and will likely continue to be an interesting character.
Ren,
To the anarchists, having unifying political demands is authoritarian.
To speak in such generalities about "anarchists"--as if we were all the exact same--goes a long way to explain why you and your vanguard party get lumped in with Stalinism.
If you expect the courtesy of a nuanced understanding of communism and socialism to be extended your way, you might begin by doing the same for others.
I see capitalists of all types and they must be distinguished one from the other in our discourse. Avoiding generalizing can be done without much strain, and one can still be opposed to capitalism.
As far as benevolent vanguard parties and political socialism, I can distinguish this hoped for ideal from Stalinism/Leninism/Castroism without much difficulty. I can--and do--struggle with socialist political parties without much strain or fear all the time. This doesn't mean I have to agree with their position. In fact, I believe being an anarchist in the presence of political socialists can have a very positive effect on discourse.
The anarchists are organizing their own contingent, seperate from other organizers.
For that matter, other organizers are organizing their own contingent separate from the anarchists...damn elitists! :)
Here we go centering reality for the rest of us.
Che: The Socialist Alternative Group locally had a workshop, one topic was Marxism vs Anarchism. The main speaker wasn't strong, and all the remarks seemed in a different direction.
I don't think anarchism describes you, Graeme or Troutsky. I think something like libertarian socialist keeps you out of these silly discussions. You are pragmatic people, with a worldview bigger than the kitsch left.
The Republican Convention demonstrations are organized by an anarchist coalition and one led by not very open Maoists. The Maoists I know and dislike. They support good Democrats against bad, underneath all their rhetoric. I have a history of fighting them in various coalitions. I don't really know the anarchists. Both sides scare me. I doon't have much passion about this event, because I think the Democrats are our main enemy.
Perception is important in politics. In Mexico people believe López Obrador, represents the poor. We know he is a bourgeoise politician. If people perceive him as a radical, it's best to get him in power, and organize to pressure him to live up to his rhetoric, and to get your foot in the door, with his supporters. I support Chavez, Bhutto and various labor parties. To anarchism I believe that would be a moral dillema. To me it's only a tactic.
Material forces make history. There is also the subjective factor. The circumstances in 1917 were ripe for revolution. People like Zinoviev, Stalin etc. opposed it. The subjective factor was a Lenin and Trotsky, to take the reigns of the movement. You need decisive leadership, combined with historical forces in alignment.
My group is active in the occupied factories movement in Venezuela. I believe in revolution from below. I also believe in learning from people who have political experience, and knowledge of history and theory.
Troutsky,
While USSR, China,Cuba etc display the afforementioned debilitating flaw and more, I can't dismiss the development that did occur in all those societies as totally inconsequential. That said, none of them were or are "Marxist" states according to my reading of Marx.
The only "development" that occured in those states was totalitarian dictatorship. United States is more "Marxist" (according to your definition of Marxism) than any of those states. There is nothing "flawed" about those countries. They function (or, in the case of USSR, functioned) exactly the way they are/were suppposed to function - as political black holes that paralyze any opposition mouvement inside their borders, while outside their borders fooling idealists like you by presenting themselves as somehow "better" than United States.
Troutsky
Since LWB is linking your site, perhaps you should consider changing the title of the post to rocking with
Adolph. Commies and Nazis have a history of colaberation that is alive and well. This history is well known to all people not named Noam Chomsky.
The usual suspect claims to find anarchism limiting. Anarchists are
great for cannon fodder and are easily confused as a prerequisite for being an anarchist is a low IQ.
Anarchists have achieved zero, except to excel as laughing stocks.
Perhaps the Maximum leader in MN will open up an Anarchists club. The sign on the door will read unauthorized personel only. Newsflash to anarchists even dog packs have a leader. However, dog packs do not commit class genocide
with regularity.
Seriously, how many of you lunatics are ready to turn in your citizenship at a US consulate. Perhaps the US should throw in a big screen TV or some Peter Paul and Mary CD's.
For a guy that talks so much about history why is it that Beakerkahane knows so little about it. Surely he knows the group of Zionist Ashkenazi founders of Israel he worships so much collaborated with the Nazis. That they actually worked to discourage countries from accepting Jewish immigrants so that the soon to be murder victims would come to Israel. These racist Zionists and Nazis probably also exchanged racial purity formulas.
I know, I know Beakerkahane your granddaddy led the charge on his horse against the Germans in WWII. If he is anything like you I'm betting the charge was headed East. They did call it a “Blitzkrieg” didn't they. Never mind I'm sure you don't know.
Here we go again with more stupidity from LWB/John Brown of Stormfront. Lets see the Soviet Nazi pact is quite well known. Then there is the colaberation between those wonderful Arabs and the Nazis.
It is clear that those on the left have much in common with the crew at Stormfront. One can see identical comments like those made by LWB on Nazi sites.
Any of you revolutionaries care to discuss social Justice in a Walmart
Parking lot? How about Che Bob talking about Castro in Union City NJ?
But Beakerkahane how can someone like you criticize Nazis. The ethnic German Nazis were racists who attempted to conquer, ethnically cleanse and murder many Poles. The ethnic Ashkenazim Zionists are murderous racists who conquered much of Palestine and are attempting to ethnically cleanse the rest. All of this while peddling this gigantic fraud that Ashkenazim have some Biblical claim to Palestine. If I remember correctly you fully support the war criminals of Apartheid Israel. Someone like you has no justification for any criticism of Nazis past, present or future.
Ren,
I think there is a place for both direct action and political action. I support progressive governments like Venezeula and leaders like Obrador.
LWB
Thank you once again for making my points quite clearly. The Jews have been recorded in the area by the Greeks, Babylonians, Romans, Egyptians and your theories are quite
ignorant even amongst Commie dolts.
The killing of Poles was an after thought to the Nazis who really wanted Poles and Slavs as menial labor. Jews and Gypsies were marked
for death. There is zero conection or comparison between the Holocaust
and the formation of Israel in any
rational mind. Jew/Nazi is standard
anti-semitism and you are clearly a dolt. Your continued presence is an embarassment to the commisars who like to keep alliances with actual Nazis secret. Do note in all of the exchanges Ren who has a position on everything including Crustacean abuse has never said so much as a sentence supporting your Nazi views. A wiser person would be able to read in between the lines, but being a Nazi is stupidity times ten
and evil squared.
Thank you for being a useful idiot.
Now dance, roll over, make Ren, Troutsky and wherever else you post
look like fools, play dead, kiss Ren's ass, Salute your picture of Hitler, tote Mein Kamph and proceed
to visit with your fellow lowlifes at Stormfront.
For the record Troutsky, the comments of LWB are in no way reflective of you. Your own comments are odious, inane, treasonous and sophomoric, but in no way do you throw red meat to Nazis.
Troutsky
I think he is trying to butter you up with his charm. He has such a way with words.
Troutsky: I plugged your post at my blog.
LWB
Listen to the silence. Commies are never silent about anything. Yet even
loud mouthed ignorant imbeciles will not say a single word in support of your Nazism.
You are an embarassment to the maximum leader from MN. He claims desperately not to be an anti- semite, but your commentary makes that claim absurd. Perhaps he is seeking a job as a capo when you build a lego concentration camp in your SS underoos.
i wanted to participate in this discussion but see it degenerated faster than the worker state of Russia.
a trot joke. heh
I had a similar experience when I read Rocker's work some time ago. I enjoyed the writing, especially from the theoretical standpoint, but his focus was far too narrow to make the work as compelling as Anton Pannekoek's "Workers Councils". Good post. Solid evaluation. I see I have largely missed the debate.
Anarchism is better than no government at all.
Post a Comment
<< Home