Preview: Match 2 of Revolutionary Soccer Tournament Cup Bay Area 2003

The world is at war. Is this really the best you can do?

the anarkids and the maoists don't have distinct politics, they just cleave to different political monikers. going at it on the soccer field gives them an opportunity at detente that could be achieved (with no great benefit to the revolutionary movement) with a five minute political debate. this is just a cuter way of doing it.


wh

This is an excerpt from the opening document of the 'Love and Treason' web page, at Mid-Atlantic Anarchist infoshop:

The ladies and gentlemen of the left

In 1973, in Eclipse and Re-emergence of the Communist Movement, Jean Barrot noted, "The first condition for a minimum revolutionary action is to break decisively with all forms of Official Marxism...Official Marxism is part of capitalist society in its theory as well as its practice. Compromising in this field means remaining on the side of capital."

From Kronstadt in March 1921 to the Guatemalan highlands in the 1980’s, the Soviet Union and its satellite parties played a direct role in the defeat of every significant revolutionary movement of the 20th century. The former Soviet Union, Mao's China, Cuba, etc. were not socialist societies, but state capitalist systems, moments in the unfolding of capitalist domination over the earth. Under state capitalism, the ruling party imposed industrial wage labor on formerly agrarian laboring classes, exploited the working populace and kept them politically powerless. This development of the means of production was a wholly capitalist modernization process, with the party-state developing the means of production on the backs of the laboring classes in ways that more backward elites or colonial rulers were unwilling to or incapable of doing. "Socialist" regimes had nothing in common with socialism, or with the best elements of the classical workers’ movement, or with the fight for a classless society.

Democracy, fascism and Stalinism were not qualitatively different forms of civilization in conflict with one another. They were different management strategies for industrial capitalist class societies that were at different phases of historical development. All forms of capitalism and the state are equally murderous and anti-revolutionary.

Social democracy and Leninism were part of the left wing of capital; they offered populist and statist management strategies for integrating the working class into capitalist society. "Personal politics," individualist anarchism and lifestyle anarchism are also forms of fake radicalism, although they are by virtue of their self-marginalizing and largely laughable character less of a threat to a future mass revolutionary movement than social democracy and Leninism have been. An awareness of history is everything. In both small and large-scale social struggles we must understand the past and make a complete break with failed strategies and obsolete politics.

In national liberation movements, people of non-exploiting social classes pin their hopes for a better life behind the political ambitions of the local bourgeoisie, or a substitute bourgeoisie of guerrilla bosses and professional intellectuals. These hopes have proven to be futile. No nationalist struggle has given rise to a society ruled by working people. Nationalism isolates working people from one another. Regardless of the egalitarian language that nationalists sometimes use to mobilize the masses, all successful nationalist struggles have produced regimes that are cops for the world market and local elites against wage workers, impoverished peasants and indigenous people. A Turkish proverb says it well: "When the ax came into the forest, the trees said: the handle is one of us."

The FMLN, FARC, IRA, PLO, ANC, ETA, etc. are pro-capitalist organizations and enemies of the working class. They have more in common with existing nation states and multinational corporations than with what Frederich Engels called "the real movement that abolishes existing conditions." Capitalism is a global system and our fight is international; all forms of tribalism, patriotism or nationalism are anti-human and counter-revolutionary, a psychological disease of class society closely akin to racism. Anyone, including self-proclaimed Marxists and anarchists, who supports any form of nationalism or the state in time of peace or war is on the side of capital against the interests of the vast majority of humanity. This includes Subcommandante Marcos!

Our class has to fight alone for what we need against the property-owning classes. All "popular fronts," or alliances between the exploited and other social classes, or "united fronts" between rebellious working people and pro-capitalist workers’ organizations (unions and parties of the left) have lead to the defeat and often the massacre of working people, like in Spain in the 1930’s and in Chile in the early 1970’s....

if only the these "communists" and "anarchists" (ultra liberals given to cultural nationalism in various guises) gave as much attention to their theoretical development as they do to organizing and promoting their soccer tournament.....

"The world is at war. Is this really the best you can do?"

What's wrong with having a bit of fun and getting some exercise? Did it ever occur to you that people who live in the bad parts of the world still play soccer and have fun? Or are you one of those armchair leftists who thinks that we should always be serious and sacrifice ourselves?

sure, people even in the most fucked-up situations carry on and, among other things, play soccer.

the difference is they don't self-importantly suggest that they're furthering the revolution when they do so.

Only the fit can fight. Get in shape. Stay in shape. Practice, practice practice.

The more you sweat in peace, the less you bleed in war.

>"don't self-importantly suggest that they're furthering the revolution when they do so"

Wow. You don't get it, do you. What both of you smelly marxists fail to grasp is that this is supposed to be for FUN. Ever heard of having fun? You should try it sometime. Oh, I forgot... I'll let you get back to looking up archaic irrelevant quotes from Engels.

molly, you ain't got no monopoly on "fun," you self-congragulatory fool.

Hey, while you're at it, why not condemn the "guest player from an English anarchist team which had traveled to Chiapas to play solidarity matches with the Zapatistas," and the Zapatistas as well. How dare they play soccer while the world is at war?!?! Back to the armchairs and the theory with those Zapatistas!

Crabby Marxists:

"the anarkids and the maoists don't have distinct politics"

The fact that you can't see the difference does not mean that none exists. It just means that you're not paying attention (which also explains why you're a marxist).

It is obvious to most people who give the matter any thought that yes, in fact, the people who worship a military leader who built the most populous nation-state in the world, and placed it under totalitarian control (maoists) are quite different from people who advocate radical decentralization (anarchists).

"thanks tibor"
Why are you thanking him, crabby marxist? He just pointed out the same thing I did in my last sentence, only in the more academic language you are accustomed to. His entire post was a salvo against the entire marxist tradition, and in favor of decentralized popular rebellion.

"the difference is they don't self-importantly suggest that they're furthering the revolution when they do so."

Actually, that's not the difference, because nobody here claimed to be furthering the revolution. They claimed to be playing soccer. You're awfully illiterate for someone who likes writing as academic as tibor's.

"molly, you ain't got no monopoly on "fun," you self-congragulatory fool."

Ooopsie! It seems you're the fool, again, because you can't seem to read. Molly didn't congratulate herself for anything. She just pointed out that this is a soccer game, not "furthering the revolution," which you couldn't grasp in the first place. It's simple, really: it's a soccer game.

Should I switch to monosyllabic words only, to make this easier for you? Or maybe you would like it better if I would write only in lengthy, academic style. You would thank me, even though you wouldn't understand a word of it.



It is a game. They play for fun. They kick. They run.

See them play? See them run? They have fun. In the sun.

Watch the ball. See them score. They do more...

than your dumb ass.

but, hey, if we organize all the soccer players, under the head of, of course, a COACH, and then the soccer players show up at practice, cus the COACH will somehow non-hierarchically (magic!) PUNISH them if they don't, or somehow otherwise create incentive for them to practice, and then the team practices until it gets really good, through the mutual aid and aggressive training involved with practice, then, somehow, they will all know each other and the game of soccer so well that THEY WONT NEED A COACH ANYMORE!!!
REVOLUTION!!!
FREEDOM FOR ALL OPPRESSED COMRADES IN SOCCER BATTLES!!!
THERE WONT BE ANY LOSERS!!!
THERE WONT BE ANY WINNERS!!!
NO UMPIRES!!! NO COACH!!!
SOCCER PLAYERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!!!

<He [Tibor S.] just pointed out the same thing I did in my last sentence, only in the more academic language you are accustomed to. His entire post was a salvo against the entire marxist tradition, and in favor of decentralized popular rebellion.>

You're hallucinating, anarchist.
Tibor's polemic begins with a quote from Jean Barrot--a marxian communist who attempts to draw from the best of the council communist and ultra-left traditions, while rejecting *Official Marxism*, i.e., social democracy and Leninism. Neither Tibor's piece nor Jean Barrot talk about "decentralized popular rebellion"; that's part of the anarcho-catechism, and doesn't express either's politics.

Tibor says: "Personal politics," individualist anarchism and lifestyle anarchism are also forms of fake radicalism, although they are by virtue of their self-marginalizing and largely laughable character less of a threat to a future mass revolutionary movement than social democracy and Leninism have been...."
Who could deny that this accurately describes *most* of the anarchist "movement" these days?

Tibor goes onto say, quoting Engels, it might be noted:
"The FMLN, FARC, IRA, PLO, ANC, ETA, etc. are pro-capitalist organizations and enemies of the working class. They have more in common with existing nation states and multinational corporations than with what Frederich Engels called "the real movement that abolishes existing conditions." Capitalism is a global system and our fight is international; all forms of tribalism, patriotism or nationalism are anti-human and counter-revolutionary, a psychological disease of class society closely akin to racism. Anyone, including self-proclaimed Marxists and anarchists, who supports any form of nationalism or the state in time of peace or war is on the side of capital against the interests of the vast majority of humanity. This includes Subcommandante Marcos! "
How many self-proclaimed anarchists would rather eat a handful of dirt than criticize Marcos--let alone, by inference, the Zapatistas?

Which brings us to "anarchist" who seems to think simply uttering the EZLN's name constitutes a slam-dunk:

<Hey, while you're at it, why not condemn the "guest player from an English anarchist team which had traveled to Chiapas to play solidarity matches with the Zapatistas," and the Zapatistas as well. How dare they play soccer while the world is at war?!?! Back to the armchairs and the theory with those Zapatistas!>

Who is more critical of the national liberationist Zapatistas, the anarchists or the maoists?

<Actually, that's not the difference, because nobody here claimed to be furthering the revolution. They claimed to be playing soccer.>

Actually, "anarchist", if you read over the various threads about this tournament, quite a few have suggested that these soccer matches are furthering the revo.

<Molly didn't congratulate herself for anything. She just pointed out that this is a soccer game...>

Well, in fact, Molly said:
"What both of you smelly marxists fail to grasp is that this is supposed to be for FUN. Ever heard of having fun? You should try it sometime."
It's funny hearing an anarchist accusing others of being smelly, but that aside, Molly, in typical anarcho fashion, is suggesting here that those who challenge the pretenses of her clique's activities are uptight and uncool, unlike the robut anarchists who embrace their desires, blah blah blah--a good stand-in for a reasoned political argument.

<Should I switch to monosyllabic words only, to make this easier for you? Or maybe you would like it better if I would write only in lengthy, academic style. You would thank me, even though you wouldn't understand a word of it.>

you can use big words or little words, it doesn't faze me cause i know your game and it ain't goin' nowhere.

The whole point of this phenomenon is that the supposedly more-revolutionary-than-thou anarchos are playmates with Mao-iods and other Stalinist counter-revolutionary clowns.

And I like Molly's dissing Marxism while playing footsie with Leniniod creeps; it reveals how befuddled she is.

You know Molly, I don't really think I write in an academic style....I really hate the left -- those guys you are playing soccer with just make me want to heave!

Hey Tibor (or yucky marxist, or whatever). You should really get out more often. It's obvious you're not familiar at all with where most anarchists stand nowadays. Most anarchists recognize Leninoid creeps for what they are and are not naive enough to try to work with them. You have to realize that the current anarchist milieu's stances are as diverse as they come (including unfotunately, liberals co-opting the term) though and I'm sure the anarchist team reflects that diversity as well. Also, you should know that most anarchists are very critical of nationalism and national liberation movements. And yes, this includes Subcomandante Marcos and his EZLN. The Stalinoids on the other hand usually cannot say the same.

I think most non-leninist marxists have more in common with anarchists except when it comes to their inability to be critical of the cult of personality of Marx.

Hey Tibor (or yucky marxist, or whatever). You should really get out more often. It's obvious you're not familiar at all with where most anarchists stand nowadays. Most anarchists recognize Leninoid creeps for what they are and are not naive enough to try to work with them. You have to realize that the current anarchist milieu's stances are as diverse as they come (including unfotunately, liberals co-opting the term) though and I'm sure the anarchist team reflects that diversity as well. Also, you should know that most anarchists are very critical of nationalism and national liberation movements. And yes, this includes Subcomandante Marcos and his EZLN. The Stalinoids on the other hand usually cannot say the same.

I think most non-leninist marxists have more in common with anarchists except when it comes to their inability to be critical of the cult of personality of Marx.

<It's obvious you're not familiar at all with where most anarchists stand nowadays.>

but even by your own admission anarchists are such a motley crew (containing liberals cc-opting the term--no, duh) that it's impossible to be familiar "at all" with where they stand.

the problem with "anarchism" as a politically defining moniker is that it's as likely to provoke a debate about the need for street-lights as it is to provoke real discussion regarding anti-capitalist strategy and intelligent analysis of the nature of the state under capital.

as far as (self-proclaimed) anarchists' alleged diametric opposition to maoism, then why has the supposedly anarcho "people of color" conference--with featured maoist guru J. Sakai--triggered such a dirth of criticism? would that be too uptight for y'all? too un-PC? too "authoritarian"?

i'm so disgusted with the anarchist scene that i find myself (like right here) calling myself a marxist even if, in a strict sense, i'm not.

i know a lot of people who formerly carried the anarchist mantle who feel the same.

Anarchists are "diverse," alright -- 99% liberalism and 1% primitivism.

I used to be an anarchist, but I never found any useful critical tools in anarcho-world for understanding how this society functions, and for how the dictatorship of capital tends to generate proletarian resistance that can one day abolish this society.

You guys playing soccer with Stalinists-Leninists is, I think, an accurate assesment of how close you are to them in the practical terms of the contemporary protest ghetto. The perspectives of most anarchos aren't qualitatively different from the rest of the left. Take nationalism -- the so-called anarchist "communists" of NEFAC published an article in their recent issue that gives fawning praise to the Stalinist gangster-led Black Panthers. Most anarchos who even can be bothered to relate to the world suck up to nationalists, even Subcommandante Marcos, who issued a typically mawkish, over-written denunciation of anarchism that was on indy press web sites from the UK in the late summer of 2002....more soon.

Have fun with your Stalinist bretheren!

T. Szamuely

"terror is the principle weapon of our regime."
bolshevik, Tibor Szmuely

1. kinda weird that an anti-leninist marxist would be some police agent as their pseudonym.

2. J. Sakai-- the creepy maoist third world nationalist is quite accepted by anarcho doormats like Chris Crass. Some of Sakai's writings, along with a plethora of whitey flagellation articles (like Crass's) can be found at http://www.colours.mahost.org.

3. Somebody out there want to offer up a crique of the white guilt racket known as the challenging white supremecy workshop? These so called anarchists are politically equivilant to the uhuru dimwits.

Szamuely was the leader of the extreme left of the Hungarian Communist Party, and, as one of the leaders of "The Lenin Boys" he was the chief revolutionary terrorist of the council republic --he was NOT a cop! He was one of the people fighting to make a real communist revolution in Hungary, against the social democrats, and to some degree against scumbags like Bela Kun who led the CP as well.

Wher have you been getting your information about Hungary in 1919 from anyway? You will have to dig a bit deeper that a single Google link!

Go on Google and type in, 'Autonomous Proletarian Struggles in Eastern Europe,' by the Internationalist Proletarian Group, for a better intro to Szamuely and the council republic. You should allow for the fact that the IPG guys' first language isn't English...

'Spontaneous proletarian organization during the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy 1918-1919,'

About Szamuely, Cherney, Otto Korvin and the Lenin Boys, (who were a lot better than their name!) is at:

http://www.geocities.com/sztrajk/spon.htm

F.U.'s comments about the 'Challenging White Supremacy' hustle are spot-on -- even if they don't like my choice of a pseudonym!

In his long polemic "The Myth of the White Proletariat", J Sakai argues that white coal miners who linked up with black coal miners to fight the bosses in the 1930's were doing nothing more than forging a tactical alliance with blacks to preserve white supremacy.
Now, how is that for a materialist critique of capitalism?

There is no question that Sakai's BULLSHIT is of a piece with the "challenging white supremacy" folks. It's straight out of1960's maoism, with its endless calls for self-flagellation and derision of "white" workers, who, it is claimed, categorically benefit from imperialism and capitalism, and must therefore be seen as a reactionary social force--that is, unless and until they do penance at CWS workshops and agree to throw themselves into maoist politics dressed up as the cutting edge of anarchist anti-racism.