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

[// ravi]

On Feb 11, 2012, at 2:23 PM, Angelus Novus wrote:
> 
> Then there's "anarchism", which is just a nebulous term that newly radicalizing people apply to themselves in order to emphasize their distance from both Social Democratic electoralism as well as the various self-styled "Bolshevik" organizations.  The problem with criticizing this kind of "anarchism" is that there isn't really anything to criticize, since it means something completely different depending on the individual using the term.  So you have anarchists who reject voting, anarchists who vote, anarchists who reject labor unions or permanent organizations, anarchists who believe in those things, anarchists with a concept of "capitalism", and anarchists who reject such conceptualizing.  
> 
> In other words, when you ask why "it" isn't taken seriously, that's because there isn't any one singular "it" to criticize.  Instead there is a multiplicity of various "its" that all happen to use the same label.  It's not that anyone regards "it" with contempt or dismissal; it's simply that "it" doesn't really exist.

By the same token, not channelling Wittgenstein or anything, does an “it” exist for “Bolshevik” organisations? Sort of like [almost all of] the various denominations of Christianity have their Holy Book and their One True God, perhaps?

	—ravi