Yeah I think it being based on interviews with those involved keeps it pretty non-dogmatic, just descriptive of what happened. I like that he references Neither Vertical Nor Horizontal towards the end of that interview. An ecology of organisation is a good take.
Neither Vertical Nor Horizontal I’m a bit more skeptical of. Again, I’m basing that stance on an interview of the author talking about the book instead of actually reading the book itself in the interest of an expedient response, but if that interview accurately represents some of the ideas he’s putting forward, then from what I can gather, he seems to be repackaging some anarchist ideas in a way that’s more digestible for more ardent marxists/Marxist-leninists.
As an example, his concept of “horizontality without horizontalism” and “vanguards without vanguardism” (of sometimes needing leaders in certain situations) is already done by Anarchists who can collectively elect people into leadership roles when necessary; they just do so with the ability to recall them at any time if they aren’t living up to their requirements, or abusing that position.
All that aside, If that book converts some of the more hard-core MLs into unknowingly adopting Anarchist practices under a different name, I’m not opposed to that outcome.
he seems to be repackaging some anarchist ideas in a way that’s more digestible for more ardent marxists/Marxist-leninists
And vice versa, is I think the point.
Though I took it not as repackaging as such, just highlighting strategy and tactics from both along with pros and cons, and suggesting make use of whatever works in a given context. Kind of and pattern language approach to political organisation.
Thanks for sharing these interviews and your thoughts, good to read them.
Yeah I think it being based on interviews with those involved keeps it pretty non-dogmatic, just descriptive of what happened. I like that he references Neither Vertical Nor Horizontal towards the end of that interview. An ecology of organisation is a good take.
Neither Vertical Nor Horizontal I’m a bit more skeptical of. Again, I’m basing that stance on an interview of the author talking about the book instead of actually reading the book itself in the interest of an expedient response, but if that interview accurately represents some of the ideas he’s putting forward, then from what I can gather, he seems to be repackaging some anarchist ideas in a way that’s more digestible for more ardent marxists/Marxist-leninists.
As an example, his concept of “horizontality without horizontalism” and “vanguards without vanguardism” (of sometimes needing leaders in certain situations) is already done by Anarchists who can collectively elect people into leadership roles when necessary; they just do so with the ability to recall them at any time if they aren’t living up to their requirements, or abusing that position.
All that aside, If that book converts some of the more hard-core MLs into unknowingly adopting Anarchist practices under a different name, I’m not opposed to that outcome.
And vice versa, is I think the point.
Though I took it not as repackaging as such, just highlighting strategy and tactics from both along with pros and cons, and suggesting make use of whatever works in a given context. Kind of and pattern language approach to political organisation.
Thanks for sharing these interviews and your thoughts, good to read them.
deleted by creator