[lbo-talk] Graeber responds to Hedges

[c b]

I an not an anarchist, and in a growing and vigorous mass movement the
relative 'weight' of anarchists would steadily decline. But I cannot
understand why, at the present time, anyone seriously interested in
building an anti-capitalist movement should not see the role of
anarchists to date as wholly positive. And, moreover, I cannot see any
focus on errors, mistaken tactics, inadequate strategy as other than
the irresponsible behavior of mere observers, ignorant of the
unavoidable messiness of a movement in its early stages.
Does anyone have a response yet to my question as to a non-sexist and
non-ageist synonym for "old women" in Luxemburg's 1898 speeches? We
really need such a term.

Carrol

^^^^^^^^^

CB: I'm certainly a bigtime participant , not observer, in Occupy.
That is exactly why I am way into assessing our tactics and strategy,
including at Occupy General Assemblies and at the bar the other night
with Lucianna, Shannon , Rick and Eric, four of the most active
Occupiers.  So,  u kind of have it exactly backward, I mean
participants are the ones most concerned about tactics and strategy,
obviously. But I guess that's your negative dialectic teaching style.
My focus and attention to tactics and strategy derives from my
Leninist approach. I agree that the role of anarchists has been
positive. In fact, a la Graeber , they can claim credit for leading
it. Of course, there is an inherent limit to anarchists as leaders ,
because anti-leadership is their fundamental principle.

The unity of anarchists, socialists and communists brings to mind the
Haymarket events and May Day.