[lbo-talk] More on BB antics and their defenders

[Carrol Cox]

Eric's points are persuasive. I would only like to add that lessening of
"relative weight' is hardly a purge, soft or hard. I assume that a number of
tendencies, some that I _really_ dislike, will remain active in the
resistance movements (plural) indefinitely; that even a "big tent" Party
would not be able to contain them all, nor would such containment be
desirable.

Carrol

-----Original Message-----
From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
On Behalf Of Eric Beck
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2012 10:46 AM
To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] More on BB antics and their defenders

Random, hurried thoughts:

1. Old habits die hard. Between Julio's hard force of discipline and
uniformity of tactics and Bhaskar's and Carrol's soft force of
expanding the movement so as to marginalize the anarchists, the urge
to purge remains strong. It's almost comical. Just when I think
anarchists are engaging in anachronistic taunting for invoking
Stalinism, it rears its fetid head.

2. How come opponents of BB and anarchism never take it seriously (or,
in shag's terms, respect it)? None of them actually try to figure out
why it appeals to people who do shit and why those people prefer it to
other forms of radical practice. It's always a false consciousness or
petit bourgeois dilettantism or, at best, a good impetus to action but
not a sustainable politics.

3. Robert's point about violence having historically been mostly
carried out by labor is a good one, and one I hadn't thought of. If,
today, violence were carried out primarily by unionists, would that be
okay or should that also be subject to central committee approval? In
other words, is the opposition here violence as such or is it
anarchism?
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk