[lbo-talk] Graeber responds to Hedges

c b cb31450 at gmail.com
Sat Feb 11 05:49:12 PST 2012


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.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list