Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Tequilx_Wolf wrote (edited )

Hey I read your FAQ - at w/CommunistFAQ - will say a few small things to try to contribute. I don't know how useful they'll be since I think this is complicated in a lot of ways.

  • First is just to say that I don't think it's so easy to say that what you've said is communism actually is communism. There's a lot more to it for me, so I guess there has to be some kind of argument for why you can say that. (I think there's a good reason to abandon a geneaological account of what anarchism is, but I don't know if the same can be done of communism, haven't thought about it)

  • For me the key word in the whole piece is 'hold' - communists hold things in common, the means of existence. For me, anarchy simply is in common, and anarchists themselves become in common, they become in common by destroying the enclosures that cordon off portions of all and make all no longer in common. Including our ideas.
    But destroying is done with tools and networks and relations generally that are built, which includes exactly the thing you're talking about when you say "the anti-politics of building direct relationships with people of affinity and proximity" of communists. For me it's straightforwardly the case that that is an anarchist disposition, and not straightforwardly a communist one.

  • I'm also wary of your term "supplant" in

For one: Anarchism seeks the challenging or negation of authority, often performatively, while communism is essentially indifferent to authority and seeks to supplant hegemonic authorities rather than demolish or occupy it.

  • I don't think anarchism is idealist, I would be curious to know why you and other communists think this. I also think the valourising of the individual is something a small group of anarchists did in error for a while and that the individual/collective dichotomy is a false one. Even those individualists were drawing from Stirner and if they'd had a better grasp of what uniques are they would have avoided this idea of the individual.

Can say more but will stop there for now.

8

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

First is just to say that I don't think it's so easy to say that what you've said is communism actually is communism.

Why not? What use is a dead communism of history, of laws, of "non-aggression pacts" with the Nazi party, of the trampling of a hundred flowers, of betrayal and...my own boredom? Of work? Of subsumation into a machine? This is just the same thing which we are trying to get away from, perhaps you could pass it off as "transitional socialism" but it's not communism. In fact, the self-described communists online, will often tell you it's impossible to achieve communism in any reasonable timeframe. They will tell you, there is a 50 year plan, just you wait what we have under our sleeve. They are the most self-defeating people, and they are common.

So, my own perspective. It's not so much a genealogical account of communism, as a moving away from that. Which is not popular among other communists, but which I think is truer to what communism means for us today regardless. Nobody said that efficacy or honesty would be popular, I suppose.

I think your preconceptions of communism, and interactions with this sort of person i describe, have colored your impression of communism. Now, you cannot imagine it without a historical genealogical narrative. The abandoning of that...seems to you, a property of anarchism. When in fact, it is a characteristic of post-modernism, which itself is a possible historic step towards self-actualization. The dissection of the past, like a cadaver, offers insight useful to cultivating new life. In this case, that abdicating our power to self-define our ontological outlook is in fact a tool to constrain possibility in favor of what already is. That history, is a geist.

For me the key word in the whole piece is 'hold' - communists hold things in common, the means of existence. For me, anarchy simply is in common, and anarchists themselves become in common, they become in common by destroying the enclosures that cordon off portions of all and make all no longer in common. Including our ideas.

Unfortunately, in this world, you have to take it by the horns. If you don't defend your zone, you get it taken from you.

Perhaps this is a low blow, or disingenous, but I am forcibly reminded of how urban street conflict invariably involves barricades. They can be police, they can be anarchist, they can be fascist, they can be communist, I have even seen liberal barricades in HK first hand. The point being, it's a tactic; rather than ideology, I find this to be more useful.

Holding, as a communist, is more in the sense of holding space with someone you care for. Would you let them be alone? Only if they withdrew from you, did not want you there, of course. But communism is about cultivating the sense of safety and autonomy which is necessary to build serious human relationships. It is about opening a space of possibility, which means defending its material bases.

Sure, it is also stealing from the boss. But who do you bring it home to, if not your loved ones? Communism is both the small scale of this action thus described, and the bigger scale which is yet possible. It is about these relationships, and where they can lead us.

I'm also wary of your term "supplant"

Perhaps it is the wrong one. I am still working this out, so thank you for pointing this out. It is a replacement, a supplantation, but not of like quality. It is a transformative process, is what I mean to convey. So perhaps i will look for better language.

I don't think anarchism is idealist, I would be curious to know why you and other communists think this.

It is idealist in its valorization of freedom and autonomy, in its frequent hesitancy to make demands or firm plans or bigger frameworks. You see the anarchist in imperial core countries, they will wear black bloc all alone in the middle of town, where it has no tactical efficacy. There are communist that do this type of thing too, but i would argue it is proportionately smaller (they have other tendencies which are problematic though), and there is at least usually an acknowledgement of the need to build material conditions for the cultivation of what they want. Anarchist, sometimes don't even acknowledge this performativity, because the whole ideological framework is about ideal forms, what should be, not necessarily a cultivation of that in a material and reproducible way. Although, this is just my way of understanding things, I don't mean to impose it, but just share it.

But destroying is done with tools and networks and relations generally that are built, which includes exactly the thing you're talking about when you say "the anti-politics of building direct relationships with people of affinity and proximity" of communists. For me it's straightforwardly the case that that is an anarchist disposition, and not straightforwardly a communist one.

Perhaps it is not straightforward, or even useful, but it is the framework that I have built. The two have a contested, yet mutualistic interaction (on a good day). but the problems I see of communist, are generally an over-cultivation which conforms too closely to the existing hegemonic pattern. The problems of anarchist, which I see visible to me, appear in the same metaphor to be under-cultivation which does not do enough to beat back the invasive species.

When anarchist take control of a space, and organize within it, the downfall of the project usually comes because of a reversion to alienation, a lack of functional relationships, and the supplantation of the project with neoliberalism etc. When communist take control of a space, and organize within it, the downfall of the project usually comes because of a reversion to hierarchical forms, where the space loses its participatory power, microelites take charge, and the project is supplanted by neoliberalism.

However, by using communist and anarchist action in concert, flexibly, one can push back with leverage against this creeping hegemonic power.

Just some thought. Thank you for your questions, and your pushback, it is giving me something to propel my ideas off of.

4

zoom_zip wrote (edited )

i appreciate this willingness to shake off the baggage of the past that you express here. it’s something i see a lot in both communists and anarchists; clinging onto idols, symbols, identities. i understand why people do that. i probably do it myself in a lot of things, but it never really comes across as genuine. more like the people who do this are pinning themselves to an external identity and hoping to be carried by that. maybe because they don’t have the time or space to forge an identity of their own, or maybe because it’s easy to feel a sense of belonging when you all hang your coat on the same rack.

is this what you mean when you talk about that performative nature? people who think it’s more important to wear a hammer and sickle flag patch as an expression of identity, rather than actually enact any sort of practice that could contribute to forming that identity further than aesthetics.

4

lettuceLeafer wrote

I think you are the only main user who is a communist. Though there are a few people who have posted once or twice who like communism. Prob a few lurkers too. So, in terms of presence of communist discussion on raddle I think you are the only one.

5

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

It is unfortunate, I do not like to prostelytize/debate to anarchists or others averse to the discourse, so it is difficult for me to discuss communist ideas here. Things seem always, to get caught up in the language questions, which is difficult for me. But I would like to, certainly, talk with others of fellow mind. I was hopeful with /f/CTH, RIP, but on some level I knew that their internal moderator hierarchy would lead people away eventually, after some blow up argument.

3

lettuceLeafer wrote

Yeah, that sounds pretty frustrating.

If it helps there are quite a few ideas of communism I do like a lot that largely influence what I do in life. I desire to build a world with free healthcare, medicine, housing food, childcare and a few other things. Though I'm not very interested in the large communal reliance aspect, establishment of private property, abolishing profit from everything and I'm not too interested in such large picture theories such as communism as a principle.

To clarify the last part theories of building a world that I can't feasible see myself achieving in the next ten years are very uninteresting to me. Theory and philosophizing isn't really my thing to much. I really like the aspect of addressing problems, thinking how to solve them in a way that encourages individual autonomy.

For example I work with communists sometimes and we get along well as our goal is the same, but they are working for a lager project of doing communism while I'm not working on some grander project. So from a practical aspect I see what anarchist communist do as incredibly useful. So I kinda like communism despite me having tactical disagreements and lack of interest in working on a communist project in the far off future.

3

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

I made /wiki/CommunistFAQ , which you may find interesting. It is just my tentative thoughts at this time, but a main thrust is finding a way to disentangle and re-embody what communism means, from this grand teleology and the historical appropriation of the term by authoritarians.

4

OdiousOutlaw wrote

I have no fixed definition for Communism anymore, so depending on how you define it; I could or could not fit that mold.

If we're using that super general definition of "anyone against the current social order" or whatever, I guess that's pretty much most of us; but I hate that definition, so I don't use it.

4

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

I agree, the latter definition is way too large. Many of the definitions are too vague and too large, imo. This is why I have try to bound my definition more tightly into a shape I can use coherently, or at least attempt to do so.

4

Tequilx_Wolf wrote

One other thing I would be interested to hear more on is how you understand yourself to also be an anarchist given the characterisations you've made.

3

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

well, i have been incarcerated, so i am anarchist, as i seek the destruction of that institution. I am communist, because I wish to cultivate something in its place, so it cannot return so easily.

communism, to me, is more of a gardening thing. It's gardening with people, growing relationships.

It's ok that you view anarchism the way you do, but i have more bounded definitions of each. I'm not even say that this is the correct way, it's just my way at this time

From my viewpoint: each is appropriate, and can be inappropriate, in a given situation, under my definitions. My anarchism is a destructive force, a brass knuckle, which negates things I wish to recede or be contested. Whether that is a bad organizing space, a consensus which is toxic, a norm which is oppressive, a police gun which is threatening. Communism, on the other hand, is what I wish to replace this negative space with. It is the soft hand which grips strongly those who reach out. It is the hand which feeds my friends and protects us from the hegemonic.

throughout each day, i travel through different codes, identities, spaces which are appropriate to one thing or another. When walking these paths, I simply try to choose wisely

4

[deleted] wrote

2

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

going to the jail? I wouldn't recommend it, certainly

3

[deleted] wrote

1

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

I can't really reply to this, as it would then be too easy to connect my profile to me. It's also why I don't say my locations, travel history, or other things which are logged for surveillance easily and primarily by bureaucracies

2

emoticons wrote

if its meaning anything, I like your perspectives

3

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

That is kind, thank you for your words. I am glad my words, have been useful to you.

3

anarchist999 wrote

A lot?

2

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

It seems there are very vocal anti-communist on the board, there is at least quite a more visible non-communist anarchist presence here. I was just wondering if anyone else even feels comfortable saying "I'm a communist" without significant reservations

Most of the replies here are either playfully poking fun, or debating/tugging at the idea of communism. The others are people who seem somewhat to very uncomfortable associating with communism, but are trying to be generous to my point of view.

Perhaps they are the communist, silent majority? Lol

2

lettuceLeafer wrote

Here are my thoughts on the communistFAQ

Communists are people who seek to work and hold the means of existence in common with their friends and neighbors. This implies two things. First, that the communist has good, functional relationships with their neighbors, or seeks to build that up. Second, that the communist has access to the means of existence, and power over them.

I think this is a good idea tactically, but often times what I desire is not desired by neighbors or friends. This is just the result of having niche enough ideas that most don't agree with them. So, sometimes taking the means of production for yourself is a good idea. If no one around your cares about an endangered local population, abtaining land for youself and allowing it to rewild why limiting human interaction with it is a good idea. Yet, this requires not sharing it with outhers. Same goes for ilicit actions that others might disagree with such as making a lab for abortion drugs. Neighbors and friends prob wouldn't be interested and adding another person to the manufacture would greatly increase risk of incarceration. So taking the means of production and holding it individually is prob a good idea in this scenario. But oftten for essentials what u said is a good idea. I see it as a tactic I can use and think I should use more in the future. Though, I think it can be a poor idea n many scenarios.

Less obviously to most, many "socialist states" may have improved the welfare of some of their people, but they all had market economies (however state-inflected they were) and they all had state apparatuses, which never seemed to ebb as foretold. As a result, the people leading and facilitating these societies are not communists, were not communists, by the definition I gave above.

I mean isn't communism often defined as a classless, stateless moneyless society. So most wouldn't consider a state communist but a transition. Tho anarchist communist reject the transition. But, I think what you are saying does make sense as communism.

How is communism different than anarchism? There are many ways to answer this question. For one: Anarchism seeks the challenging or negation of authority, often performatively, while communism is essentially indifferent to authority and seeks to supplant hegemonic authorities rather than demolish or occupy it. Anarchism is an idealist ideology, while communism is based more upon a materialism. Anarchism is suspicious of organization, and frequently valorizing of the individual (a concept it denies is rooted in liberalism) while communism is at home with relationships and human beings' nature as social animals. Anarchists may be more concerned with individual lifestyle as a path to liberation, you might say ala Buddhist "Right Livelihood" thinking

Yeah, I think u got at some of the stuff about anarchist that annoys me sometimes.

2

celebratedrecluse OP wrote (edited )

Thank you for sharing your thoughts

I think this is a good idea tactically, but often times what I desire is not desired by neighbors or friends

Certainly, this is where the anarchist fist finds a spot to land. If it is not possible to build relationships on a particular topic, do what must be done, what is your desire. However, it is much more stable to build strong relationships with others, to perpetuate material conditions ("essentials") which foster your ability to act independently. So yes, it's just a tactic, I agree, but it has utility indirectly which may not always be appreciated.

For to your example: an abortion drug manufacturer still has to get their product out somehow. People of many skills are needed to make and distribute such a thing: chemists, people of medical knowledges, internet technician, people who specialize in concealing drugs in the mail, etc. Going it alone, actually dramatically increases the risk of getting caught, because it is unlikely that just one person has all the skills needed to make a clandestine (or even just unpopular) operation like that to work without endangering the participants in one way or another.

Even if it was a one-woman operation, it will still help her if she has a good relationship with their neighbors, instead of having distrustful Karens peeking through the blinds waiting for something illegal that they can call the pig about.

Another example, this one my own: Every guerrila force has a good working relationship with the local population. Or, it fails. For example, Shining Path in Peru, they failed due to horrifically alienating the indigenous people in the Andes. Having good working relationships, or at least a basic understanding/respect, with non-combatants, is incredibly important in the medium and long term, and can have unpredictable consequences especially in contested rural areas. These relationships are how a successful guerilla's logistics are more efficient than an occupying army, eventually outlasting even the most well-armed and trained opponents. We don't have to replicate military structures, to learn important knowledge from studying how they operate and reproduce. In this case, it's simply true that to do controversial acts with ease and visibility, you need some people to cooperate and trust you, at least enough to coexist and have a mutual understanding. Even if info is concealed from them about the most controversial aspects, having a good working/neighborly relationship with people around you will have a positive impact on your ability to get away with shit they wouldn't like.

So most wouldn't consider a state communist but a transition.

Exactly. I guess my point, is that, the loudest and most powerful self-described communists aren't interested in living under communism. They say it is impossible. But I say it can be grown right in our backyard, and it is called cannabis!

But serious, I do believe that communism is something you either water and feed sunlight every day, or it starts to wither. It's all about being present in your social relationships, fostering those so they grow into something more. At least, this is the way I talk about it with those open to the conversation.

5

lettuceLeafer wrote (edited )

, this is where the anarchist fist finds a spot to land. If it is not possible to build relationships on a particular topic, do what must be done, what is your desire. However, it is much more stable to build strong relationships with others, to perpetuate material conditions ("essentials") which foster your ability to act independently. So yes, it's just a tactic, I agree, but it has utility indirectly which may not always be appreciated.

For to your example: an abortion drug manufacturer still has to get their product out somehow. People of many skills are needed to make and distribute such a thing: chemists, people of medical knowledges, internet technician, people who specialize in concealing drugs in the mail, etc. Going it alone, actually dramatically increases the risk of getting caught, because it is unlikely that just one person has all the skills needed to make a clandestine (or even just unpopular) operation like that to work without endangering the participants in one way or another.

Even if it was a one-woman operation, it will still help her if she has a good relationship with their neighbors, instead of having distrustful Karens peeking through the blinds waiting for something illegal that they can call the pig about.

Another example, this one my own: Every guerrila force has a good working relationship with the local population. Or, it fails. For example, Shining Path in Peru, they failed due to horrifically alienating the indigenous people in the Andes. Having good working relationships, or at least a basic understanding/respect, with non-combatants, is incredibly important in the medium and long term, and can have unpredictable consequences especially in contested rural areas. These relationships are how a successful guerilla's logistics are more efficient than an occupying army, eventually outlasting even the most well-armed and trained opponents. We don't have to replicate military structures, to learn important knowledge from studying how they operate and reproduce. In this case, it's simply true that to do controversial acts with ease and visibility, you need some people to cooperate and trust you, at least enough to coexist and have a mutual understanding. Even if info is concealed from them about the most controversial aspects, having a good working/neighborly relationship with people around you will have a positive impact on your ability to get away with shit they wouldn't like

I agree with everything u said but I don't think it defends your claim. I agree that having a strong community and support network for friends an neighbors gives benefits to other projects. That's is a major things that's good about it. Just because I might do a free community food or housing project more comministicly to provide benefits to help prevent people snitching on my contestant lab. That doesn't mean I would want the lab run communisticly.

U mentioned that u need other people which I agree with. I think these people should be partners in crime/ business partners not your friends or your neighbors. Most people in a community won't do crime, are pretty bad at doing crime and don't really have great crime skills. In this situation a small network of semi trusted bussiness partners would be a good idea. I dont really see the perks outweighing the massive cons of making such illegal activity a community project. Now sometimes u might what to make it more community based but it's most certainly not something to all ways do or even do most times.

We are in agreement about the massive perks of building strong communities that work more communally. I'm pretty individualistic but I see the benefits being so great that I'm pretty interested in doing it and try to integrate it into current and future projects.

I just don't see the benefits of making everything run on that same strategy. For instance if I want to have rewilded property for endangered species to live and be less likely to go extinct I'm not going to involve the community.

In such a situation adamantly defending it as my own personal private property is a good idea. Beating up any hunters, smashing and destroying trespassing logging trucks. I'm not going to involve my neighbors or most of my industrialist friends as they don't really give a shit abou preserving that kinda stuff.

Sure I will have a much better time if I am well liked in the community but that doesn't mean I should forfeit some power and control over the land to the community of industrialist because they will most likely choose to make it a nonnsafe space for the animals to live and kick them all out.

Sure this is all theoretical and tactics would be a lot different depending but the point is I can think of a multitude of projects where I wouldn't want a local community to have more power and control over a project unless necessary. Sure a small portion of the local community might be helpful but most would be inherently in opposition.

There are a lot of good things about people but they fucking suck in a lot of ways. There are a lot of people who I have helped or even family members who love me but wouldn't hesitate to call the police on me if they saw me doing crime. Wouldn't hesitate to berate and attack me for being openly queer. Hell most friends or family would consider me no worse than a Nazi if I be at skinhead up because free speech.

Sometimes community is good, sometimes communities are dangerous af and need to be kept far away from projects whole minimizing their control as much as possible.

Just because a communal project has benefits to other projects I'm not going to use the strategy for all project and prob not even most projects I have planned of.

I think what u call communism in a world where everyone is like someone on raddle would be pretty effective to use for most projects. But for many of my goals my community is a major opponent.

building strong communities is the best way to make a less hostile community imo, but I'm not too interested in changing hearts and minds. I'm going to do what I want to do and sometimes that requires me to be more individualistic and work alone / with a few trusted people and overpower or far more likely do the work without friends or neighbors knowledge stealthily doing it without their knowledge.

1

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

That doesn't mean I would want the lab run communisticly.

absolutely, there are limits to communism. for me, i think it is not a universal ideology-- I think this is part of our disconnect, perhaps you are extrapolating from discussions with other communists their assumptions around the universal coherence of their ideology-- i don't share that perspective, for what it's worth. I think there are limits to when communism is an appropriate framework or approach, and you gave a great example.

However, there are still these indirect linkages-- finding synergy between different approaches, is what makes praxis the sort of strange magic it is. It requires...tact? Good judgement, maybe is the way to say.

U mentioned that u need other people which I agree with. I think these people should be partners in crime/ business partners not your friends or your neighbors.

Well, this is a misunderstanding of my turn of phrase. I should explain better. When I say "friends and neighbors", i am referring to "people you are in affinity with, and people you are in proximity with". they are two separate groups. In this case, yes, you would only want trusted friends (or, if you will, business partners) to be involved with something actively clandestine. However, you would still want good relationships with your neighbors besides that project, as this will avoid a lot of problems. Building relationships with neighbors beyond affinity groups, is a great way to protect those more sensitive affairs, and is just as important in many cases as the operational security and information siloing that you refer to.

I just don't see the benefits of making everything run on that same strategy.

Of course, I do not claim that communism is the answer to every problem. It just has wide applicability, although often it is indirect (by laying the foundation for other types of activity to be pursued more easily). Sometimes, it's just not relevant at all.

For instance if I want to have rewilded property for endangered species to live and be less likely to go extinct I'm not going to involve the community.

Well, the state already does this, and what do you see? Poachers coming in, and general community resentment for what are seen as imperialist projects. Even if it's just one individual doing it with private property, a similar dynamic of enclosure-ism is at play, and will certainly alienate people for a variety of reasons if not somehow addressed. Having the support of the preserve's neighbors can help make your efforts more likely to succeed, because having people who respect your right to coexist reduces the chance of conflict and opens up possible resources for the project (labor to help patrol the boundaries, for example, or other needed tasks).

for example, say you move to indigenous unceded land, and set up a preserve, wouldn't you want to talk to the people around you and invite their knowledge and perspective on your project?

Even if you move to somewhere completely different, like a metropolitan outskirt, why not try to at least make good with your new neighbors? It will, at least, give you an idea of what to expect from them, and even if they dislike you, it's not a huge loss to try and at least meet them. You may identify the home addresses of people who will pose an issue. It's just good to get the lay of the land, and you can do that best by networking with other people and holding space with each other. People who receive kindness or respect on first meeting and throughout your neighborhood residency, can be more willing to coexist even if they do not cooperate with you.

In such a situation adamantly defending it as my own personal private property is a good idea. Beating up any hunters, smashing and destroying trespassing logging trucks. I'm not going to involve my neighbors or most of my industrialist friends as they don't really give a shit abou preserving that kinda stuff. Sure I will have a much better time if I am well liked in the community but that doesn't mean I should forfeit some power and control over the land to the community of industrialist because they will most likely choose to make it a nonnsafe space for the animals to live and kick them all out.

Well, yes, we have enemies. You, in that kind of project, would have enemies. Communism isn't about making friends with everyone, it's about identifying your potential allies and finding ways to make common cause over those aligned interests. If you are talking about industrial capitalists and their employees...well, generally those aren't your neighbors living next door, those are people sent in from elsewhere to destroy someplace that isn't even their home.

the point is I can think of a multitude of projects where I wouldn't want a local community to have more power and control over a project unless necessary.

Certainly, and communism doesn't insist that local community neighbors are the only possible partners you might have. It also stresses the important of working with those of affinity to you: the term I prefer, is friendship, although as you pointed out this isn't the clearest way to express what I mean. 'Friend' has baggage, linguistically, I was mostly using it in response to ziq's essay that made the rounds earlier which I found very interesting

I think what u call communism in a world where everyone is like someone on raddle would be pretty effective to use for most projects. But for many of my goals my community is a major opponent.

Yes, ibid my earlier point about clarifying what I mean by "neighbors and friends". both are important, and both can be part of communism, they are the two main groups I target with my communist praxis that I attempt. I have long abandoned the notion of parties, vanguards, or other formal organizations which seem like dead ends. When all of the statecraft and illusory social categorization etc is stripped away...these are the two basic categories of people you can work with, imo. People you share desire/perspective with (regardless of how close they are to you), and the people who are close to you (whose alignment of desire and perspective with you may need to discovered, experimented with, and/or cultivated)

To summary, I was trying to distill it down to the basic elements, but like I mentioned earlier in the thread it can be difficult to do this on Raddle because I feel we are talking past each other in important ways. I feel other communist may understand my language better, but of course many of them have politics unrecognizable as indeed communist to me. I suppose I wish, well, that there was a space for communist like me to talk openly online without all of this confusion, where we can assume some things as understood and move on to more interesting tactical and strategic questions on how to implement.

Ideology....ideology...a tricky thing to think about

4

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

So, for example, "neighbors" can be:

  • people you live next door to

  • people you are forced to go to school with

  • people you are compelled to work with

  • people who otherwise are part of some shared social space with you, essentially out of accident or social systematization

Friends can be anyone who shares your affinity and goals, with regards to whatever project or endeavor is at hand that we are discussing. Often times, these people might be far away, but sometimes they are your neighbors too.

3

lettuceLeafer wrote

absolutely, there are limits to communism. for me, i think it is not a universal ideology-- I think this is part of our disconnect, perhaps you are extrapolating from discussions with other communists their assumptions around the universal coherence of their ideology-- i don't share that perspective, for what it's worth. I think there are limits to when communism is an appropriate framework or approach, and you gave a great example.

I think most of my confusion is in the desire to call this communism when it just seems like a tactic many people use although most popular with anarchists. I think most major users of this site would agree with what u call communism is a good idea, but yet I don't see the benefit of calling yourself a communist just for using the tactic of building and utilizing stronger community bonds.

If I shed my any inferences and just take your communist faq at face value I think definition wise I would fall under communist. Though, I feel like a definition that makes me a communist isn't extremely helpful considering the history of communist and what basically most other communist believe.

Certainly, and communism doesn't insist that local community neighbors are the only possible partners you might have. It also stresses the important of working with those of affinity to you: the term I prefer, is friendship, although as you pointed out this isn't the clearest way to express what I mean. 'Friend' has baggage, linguistically, I was mostly using it in response to ziq's essay that made the rounds earlier which I found very interesting

I think friend is a pretty useful term but I think especially with criminal activities having a relationship with those you work with that keeps business and personal things somewhat separate is a good idea. Most of the time when I work with people I would call them my friends but in crime I think the relationship must be so dramatically different for security reasons that I wouldn't call it friendship.

So know that I understand your position better I'd say I don't really have much of an important issue with what u call communism. I'd say its pretty good actually. Maybe I'm a anti communist except for CB's communism.

I don't think I find much value in your definition of communism as it applies to many people who seem fundamentally not communist. Though I think that is more pedantic issue than anything I find important or worth discussing.

I love talking about tactical and strategic questions and I find issues of understanding theory and ideology dreadfully boring. Though it does seem necessary for different people to communicate effectively sometimes.

3

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

I feel like a definition that makes me a communist isn't extremely helpful considering the history of communist and what basically most other communist believe.

Well, those "communist" are incoherent, they do not even want communism in their actual life, just a "transitional state toward eventually communism". I just disregard them, because I want to use words that accurately define who I am and what I do, etc

Which is why I don't really call communism, communism, with my interactions with neighbors. Only with friends, might I call it, and if they have some bias towards the language I find another descriptor etc

yet I don't see the benefit of calling yourself a communist just for using the tactic of building and utilizing stronger community bonds.

Well, it destabilizes communism's appropriation by leninist and others who do not want communism in any tangible or real sense.

Socialist don't simply stop using the word because Nazis exist. Anarchist and libertarian do not simply stop using the word because fascists use a lot of anarchist imagery, tactics, and rhetoric. Why should communism simply silence itself, when authoritarians appropriate cool thing?

Again, this FAQ, and my use of the word generally, is only aimed a target audience of friends under my definition. In general, I think it is highly important to consider audience when speaking, so as to do the best praxis that you can.

I think especially with criminal activities having a relationship with those you work with that keeps business and personal things somewhat separate is a good idea.

Well, I don't consider crime in a communist (or anarchist) sense, a business, exactly. It may involve money, selling things, etc, but it's not intended to reproduce capitalist logic or dynamics-- it is intended to disrupt them. It is intended to build another dynamic, or a plural of new dynamics, which are counter-hegemonic. To do that, you must do that with people you have affinity with, invariably.

Reproducing alienation of hegemonic dynamics is something to be resisted by me, but if you would prefer it differently that is fine, we must all have our own approach. Of course, you are right that you should not necessarily be intimate in all ways with everyone you have affinity with-- it's a case-by-case thing, but I don't see a reason to really separate these domains of friendship and business. My whole life is rather spent on blurring defined roles, queering relationships, and building both autonomy and mutuality between people who have barriers set up between them. There are both risks, and rewards, available with this approach, and frankly in crime I am of the opinion that it is much safer to do business with people you can trust due to mutual interest and affinity, than with people just in it for the money or other hegemonic motivations.

I don't think I find much value in your definition of communism as it applies to many people who seem fundamentally not communist.

Well, as I see it, it's not about people being communist, but rather actions and goals that a person has. So it's not about identity, to me.

Though I think that is more pedantic issue than anything I find important or worth discussing.

But you are discussing it with me now? I hope this conversation has not bored you, there is no need to discuss it if you do not find it interesting or stimulating, by all means.

Maybe I'm a anti communist except for CB's communism.

Sorry, can you clarify this? My apology

I love talking about tactical and strategic questions and I find issues of understanding theory and ideology dreadfully boring. Though it does seem necessary for different people to communicate effectively sometimes.

Well, the way I see it, this is a tactical and strategic question, isn't it? I'm trying to use language not to express some personal identity or performativity, but instead to describe the actual quality of our actions,

2

lettuceLeafer wrote

Well, those "communist" are incoherent, they do not even want communism in their actual life, just a "transitional state toward eventually communism". I just disregard them, because I want to use words that accurately define who I am and what I do, etc

Which is why I don't really call communism, communism, with my interactions with neighbors. Only with friends, might I call it, and if they have some bias towards the language I find another descriptor etc

but my point is you are the only communist I have heard of who defines it like that. Why co-opt a term made up by Marx when u are just going to radically redefine the term that it looks almost nothing like what it originally meant. It just seems to lump you in a crowd of Marxists who won't like u while alienating u from possible sympathizers and accomplices.

Well, those "communist" are incoherent, they do not even want communism in their actual life, just a "transitional state toward eventually communism". I just disregard them, because I want to use words that accurately define who I am and what I do, etc

I'm not just talking about tankies I'm talking about anarcho-communists too.

, but I don't see a reason to really separate these domains of friendship and business.

I mostly agree with everything u said but I think bussiness relations and friendships are worth being seperated as my goals with a friendship and goals with a bussiness partner are completely different. I want to have a supportive relationships with friends while with bussiness partners I want to work together to meet a mutual goal like manufacturing something, distributing something or providing a service. Achieving thes goals requires vastly different actions. Also when crime is involved I don't necessarily want to be sharing personal information in the case of police informant. The risk of loosing contact with children or going to prison for life can make even the most diehard friends turn on each other. Information concealment is a great idea. This will ovi differ on a case by case basis but I see these relationship as dramatically different as friendships even if there is some overlap. The boundaries that need to be set will be far different which is why I differentiate.

Well, as I see it, it's not about people being communist, but rather actions and goals that a person has. So it's not about identity, to me.

I wasn't really talking about what they identify. I think there are many people who identify as anti communist whos actions would fall under acting as a communist in your FAQ. So there are many who act as communists who identify as noncommunist.

But you are discussing it with me now? I hope this conversation has not bored you, there is no need to discuss it if you do not find it interesting or stimulating, by all means.

of course. I find it interesting.

Sorry, can you clarify this? My apology

oh, I understand why u were confused. I abbreviated your name but I did it at CB not CR. So I meant to say "Maybe I'm a anti communist except for Celebratedrecluses's communism.". Meaning that I'm anti every communism except the kind under your definition.

Well, the way I see it, this is a tactical and strategic question, isn't it? I'm trying to use language not to express some personal identity or performativity, but instead to describe the actual quality of our actions,

I think its mostly an agreement of good ideas for tactics but talking about meaning of words n stuff. There is some tactical stuff mixed in ig.

2

celebratedrecluse OP wrote (edited )

but my point is you are the only communist I have heard of who defines it like that.

In my actual life, I am not alone. it's online, where there is the disconnect.

Why co-opt a term made up by Marx when u are just going to radically redefine the term that it looks almost nothing like what it originally meant.

Actually, Marx did not invent the term communist or socialist, they pre-date him significantly and from my perspective, my use of it is closer to the older uses than to scientific socialism. Both terms were invented by the "utopian socialists" of the 18th and 19th centuries, for example the London Communist Propaganda Society coined the english language use of "communism" in 1841, 7 years before Marx wrote the manifesto. And this is a difference with a distinction, because Marx's politics were significantly different and opposed to the utopian socialists, who in turn were generally speaking closer to the perspectives and positionalities of contemporary anarchists than to contemporary MLMs. At least, if you ask me my opinion on that.

Marx also barely talks about communism, he mostly critiques capitalism and describes transitional socialism.

It just seems to lump you in a crowd of Marxists who won't like u while alienating u from possible sympathizers and accomplices.

Well, I don't call myself a marxist for that reason. I don't want to be lumped into that crowd, but I also don't really feel a need to cede the term communist to people who have no desire to do communism

I'm not just talking about tankies I'm talking about anarcho-communists too.

Yes, let us talk more on this. I am interested to get more into this part of the subject, of course Leninist and Stalinist and Trotskyist...etc...are absurd and enemies to communists of the people

So there are many who act as communists who identify as noncommunist.

Indeed, there is much confusion, and my definitions are not necessarily aligned with everyone's vocabulary. I try to describe things as effectively as I can based on audience, which is why I might not describe communism as communism to my neighbors, but also is the same reason I am mostly quiet on communism as communism on Raddle. Which this thread, is trying to pull at the edges of, and push conversation in a nother direction, because Raddle is a space of affinity rather than neighborhood, for me. So there is room perhaps, to have this talking.

I mostly agree with everything u said but I think bussiness relations and friendships are worth being seperated as my goals with a friendship and goals with a bussiness partner are completely different. I want to have a supportive relationships with friends while with bussiness partners I want to work together to meet a mutual goal like manufacturing something, distributing something or providing a service. Achieving thes goals requires vastly different actions. Also when crime is involved I don't necessarily want to be sharing personal information in the case of police informant. The risk of loosing contact with children or going to prison for life can make even the most diehard friends turn on each other. Information concealment is a great idea. This will ovi differ on a case by case basis but I see these relationship as dramatically different as friendships even if there is some overlap. The boundaries that need to be set will be far different which is why I differentiate.

This is the most interesting part of your comment/reply, because it pushes on an elision I decided to make (friendship being an affinity, as well as a relationship). In reality, you are right, there are many different types of affinity and partnership, and no two friendships are alike as a result. I will think on this and come back to the FAQ with a more serious and differentiated/developed set of language for the various types of affinity one could engage in, and I think this will make the FAQ better. Thank you for bringing this up

2

lettuceLeafer wrote

In my actual life, I am not alone. it's online, where there is the disconnect

Ok that makes sense then. I think where I live if I called myself a communist the only other communist around would really not get along with my ideas. So it's not useful for me but it makes sense for u to use it if it helps u build affinity with others.

Actually, Marx did not invent the term communist or socialist, they pre-date him significantly and from my perspective, my use of it is closer to the older uses than to scientific socialism

Ah ok

Yes, let us talk more on this. I am interested to get more into this part of the subject, of course Leninist and Stalinist and

I think my valuing of anarchist ideas comes entirely from practical purposes and stuff I can feasibly see myself doing in my life. While most anarcho communist thought is idealistic and disempowers the individual and advocates for tactics so large and impractical that most have no real ability to practically do them. Which leads to most of their praxis focusing on changing hearts and minds or trying to change things on a national level which almost all ways leads to electoral reform.

I think the world has so many issues that threats need to be analyzed and decide which ones are the worst. J agree with many critiques of private property and markets but I find them to be far more useful in positively influencing major problems than the cons associated.

Anarcho communists often works a such racists for their cons and bad but don't really offer no practical solution.

Anarcho communist often rejects doing something somewhat negative to do something far more positive as it has negative and could theoretically have been done more communistically.

Also the praise of revolution is an issue as well.

I think almost all anarcho communist have an ideology that disempowers them and encourages them to empower others rather than empower and help catalyze gains of autonomy.

2

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

I think almost all anarcho communist have an ideology that disempowers them and encourages them to empower others rather than empower and help catalyze gains of autonomy.

Yes

I think my valuing of anarchist ideas comes entirely from practical purposes and stuff I can feasibly see myself doing in my life. While most anarcho communist thought is idealistic and disempowers the individual and advocates for tactics so large and impractical that most have no real ability to practically do them.

effective and incisive communist commentary dissects the notion of individuality and its reproductive factors in our social life. Communist analysis reveals that our survival is only viable when our body is working in concert with both the human and non-human "others" that emerge to us, manifesting outside our body. Contemporary biological science shows conclusively that our own body is in fact a confluence of multiplicity, full of cooperative and competitive elements which work in concert to create a diversity of life and conscious experience.

The implications for anarchy, are that a humanistic rhetoric and simplistic ideology, characteristic of the modernist (Pre-1945) world, are no longer applicable or meaningful. It renders the appeals to "individual liberty" and "human rights" as ideological shorthand for liberal-modernist prima facie assumptions, rather than effective inducements of a contemporary academic authority to back up their arguments.

In my opinion, the contemporary anarchist and communist is better off discarding weakly supported though widely repeated notions of individuality, and focusing instead on the ways in which they interact with others. Viewing this as a dichotomy between "individualism versus collectivism", with the latter as a totally non-autonomous state of being or praxis of doing, is ludicrous. A sophistocated and serious analysis of contemporary knowledge about the material world, shows that this binary is created by the hegemonic society, in order to purposefully erase the diversity of ecology and life. In reality, there are all kinds of interaction, and yet you rarely see in the flesh, these platonic forms that our language seems to point to.

So to conclude my arguments, you are not wrong that most anarcho communist have an ideology that disempowers them. However, this is not a unique feature of their ideology, it is a constituent factor in all fringe ideologies under hegemonic liberalism. What would make a positionality dangerous, is a capacity and willingness to engage more seriously with altering material causalities. Which, unfortunately, has nothing to do with most fringe ideological rhetoric, whether reactionary or revolutionary in its framing.

3

_caspar_ wrote

"Communist analysis reveals that our survival is only viable when our body is working in concert with both the human and non-human "others" that emerge to us, manifesting outside our body."

while I also take it to be so, its a bold leap to claim communist analysis revealed this understanding. varied indigenous knowledges, less dominant philosophies arising out of civilized societies, and really anyone unconvinced of the human/nature split across many periods have known this.

one of the (admittedly annoying) tendencies I often come across in communist discourse is that it seems very concerned with being at the forefront of almost anything. as if the universe can and will be (if it isnt already) understood through it. much like science as it informs itself, as if the current scientific understanding will not change in a matter of years. which is funny given you immediately followed with pointing to the science. maybe its the historical determinism thing, or the teleology embedded in the perspective that it makes it sound like gospel.

I agree with you on the individual/collective binary being a problem, in spite of my relying on it too often to think through ideas. but then why double down on the collectivist side of that coin (unless you understand communism to be something outside of that collectivist end of the binary)? both the failings of materialist metaphysics and latent idealism of Marxist analysis are another misleading binary that prevents the very ecological relationality I think you are describing.

criticism aside -- I dont think the gap in our perspectives is very wide, the difference there is interesting and important to me. I value the many well put responses you often post here, and the taking seriously of these ideas.

3

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

its a bold leap to claim communist analysis revealed this understanding.

I don't think so, i am just asserting that communist analysis is one way to understand something. There can, and absolutely are, multiple paths and disciplines of knowledge, which can have overlapping conclusions or other epistemological elements. I am citing what is familiar to me, and appears to me, was at hand in the discussion. But yes, by no means am I a universalizing sort of communist. That's not part of my goals, but there are certainly all sort of people who have less agreeable outlook on the topic of their self-importance. There are absolutely communist, and many other people, who are far too self-absorbed to do anything but alienate people systematically.

makes it sound like gospel.

No, it's just a materially grounded and, as you correctly point out, constantly evolving understanding of the world and what may be useful to us as we try to seize and forge our desires.

(unless you understand communism to be something outside of that collectivist end of the binary)

Yes, absolutely. It is a way of talking about how to approach attacking and reorganizing the problem of resource distribution, which involves appealing to mutualistic relationships. I am also anarchist, although I hesitate to say "anarcho communist" or other variations similar to that any more because of the social baggage and ossified character of the anarchist communist subculture in the countries i am in and near at the moment.

So this idea of me: is that they are both useful approaches in various contexts, not that I am attempting to create a hegemonic universalizing correct or static ideology.

both the failings of materialist metaphysics and latent idealism of Marxist analysis are another misleading binary that prevents the very ecological relationality I think you are describing.

I'm not a marxist, I think he has interesting ideas which are illuminating in specific ways but I am not a follower or disciple of him or any of the particular outdated scientists that people bring up. I just said, I am a communist, and I value a materialist basis for discussions of praxis and politics/anti-politics. There is of course metric tonnes of value in recognizing the peril of scientism, of understanding the shortcomings of particular scholars and of various tradition/hivemind of scholars and ideologies. I view communist, and anarchist, discourse as a space which is hostile to that way of approaching things, and I think ridiculous people who have such a shallow engagement with communism that is rooted in glorified celebrity culture, whatever it's trapping. Unfortunately, there are anarchist like this too, and even the people somewhat ideologically resistant to it still frequently behave like it in their microsocialities, subculture, and clique. It really makes one think. But I am fully with you on the frustration with this sort of problem, regardless of any divergence in our understanding of who is performing it.

criticism aside -- I dont think the gap in our perspectives is very wide, the difference there is interesting and important to me. I value the many well put responses you often post here, and the taking seriously of these ideas.

I don't think so either, I feel a strong affinity for this web forum even though there are some explicitly anti communist discourse. I feel criticism of what communist are doing is really important, and helps try to solve this deeply rooted social problems in its way. I don't believe in "unity" discourse, it's ridiculous. But I do believe in affinity, in regenerative and co-supportive relations between those of affinity, and I'm glad for your kind word.

3

lettuceLeafer wrote

yeah I think the sorta anarcho capitalist individuality is a extremely poor idea. I sorta more meant I as an individual can try to create situations where I can meet a few trusted likeminded folks to work and enjoy life with to do my goals. Tho there is quite a lot you can do as one person u are severely limited without accomplices.

When I was talking about collectivism I was more talking on a far grander scale. Of having large democratic voting commities or generally just having plans of need like 20+ people before you can really do anything. Often times almost all of my plans can be done inefficiently alone or with another person or somewhat effective with a small group. I don't really have any plans where I see myself working closely with a medium or large group of people. While often goals of communists look far differently.

But yeah I agree with what u said. Similar analysis and though processes have been massively helpful in making my goals and methods far more effective.

2

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

I don't really have any plans where I see myself working closely with a medium or large group of people.

Your life is dependant on a thousand unseen hands. The place you live, the food that you eat, the water you drink, all of this required collaboration with people whose names you largely don't know. You say you don't have any plans with a large amount of people, but anyone who buys anything to survive, is participating in such a plan. It's just not your plan.

Communism is about meeting those people, and trusting or not trusting them directly, rather than a global marketplace kerfuffle organized by and for the people who see us as cogs in a machine.

If you don't want to be in any such plan, you can plant a food forest, live in a self-constructed dwelling, build a raincatch and hope for the rain. But if you can't do this, and so if you need to rely on others to survive...

Why not make it your plan?

1

lettuceLeafer wrote

I think the necessity of life is that there is a limit on time and resources. Currently my rather small ambitions takes an incredbile amount of time and resources. Both which I'm pretty limited in. I don't make it my plan as in terms of practicality. I pick what I find most important to focus on and decide that others plans for doing things such as food water ect are good enough. Extremely unideal but not unideal enough for me to allocate the resources to change. Radical activity faces an extremely uphille battle and battles must be picked, most battles I will avoid and focus on the most productive battles to win.

This is a highlight on one of the disagreements with anarcho communism. I don't belive in a grander plan for the future. There is what I can and will do. Any other grander plan is irrelevant and I will not allocate the resources to achieve such a plan.

2

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

Any other grander plan is irrelevant and I will not allocate the resources to achieve such a plan.

Sometimes, a broader vision is motivating, and sometimes it is constraining. I can understand this perspective, and I don't think it necessarily conflicts with being a communist either. However, some communist projects may require a different mindset, so there is certainly some amount of divergence here. Feeling out the details is something I think an essay may help me with.

1

lettuceLeafer wrote

Yeah I'm kinda like the opposite of an idealist. I usually assume that every small projects will fail so I focus on fighting for enjoyment sake. So making a plan more complicated than someone I can feasibly do in the next 5 years is a but antithetical to my entire anti authoritarian process.

I'm not against others doing it who find it helpful but I am critical as I find giving up on grander hopes to be extremely motivating.

2

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

I usually assume that every small projects will fail so I focus on fighting for enjoyment sake.

actions aimed at producing a difficult to describe sensation of joy, are a pursuit of an ideal form which does not really exist materially. I would say that is more idealist, in the philosophical sense. I think part of the misalignment is that you are using idealism in a more colloquial sense, which is understandable given this is a casual conversation.

There are very materially grounded plans which take a long time to do. For example, growing ginseng in the forests, it is most often harvested every 7 years, sometimes longer in order to improve the medicinal qualities of the roots.

1

lettuceLeafer wrote

If I thought ginsing would be useful to grow I would grow it for the enjoyment of starting a gingsing plant and watching it grow. If I'm still interested in 7 years sweet I have cool ginsing to distribute.

But I wouldn't grow ginsing mainly for the purpose of having gjnsing in 7 years. I might close gingsing as a plant to grow for fun bc it has the potential to blossom a potentially new enjoyable activity but I would grow it for the enjoyment in the now.

I wouldn't say it's idealist as this mindset has had significant improvements in the activist efficiency and lead to my most successful projects.

3

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

I wouldn't say it's idealist as this mindset has had significant improvements in the activist efficiency and lead to my most successful projects.

fair enough, that is not an idealist framework in that case.

I might close gingsing as a plant to grow for fun bc it has the potential to blossom a potentially new enjoyable activity but I would grow it for the enjoyment in the now.

Interesting. I suppose I have an unexamined utilitarian bias in my thinking-- food for thought, certainly.

2

lettuceLeafer wrote

I wouldn't advocate this framework for everyone. Its just that one of the biggest barriers to my projects atm is having the emotional fortitude to do them. Blending the difference of recreation and anarchist project solves this issue by making my recreation the project so I don't really force myself to do it. Just my instict with free time is often to work on a project. This isn't all I do as I care about other things as well its just nice to spend a couple hours a day on a project not forcing myself or having to exert a lot of effort on a project. Since I do it for enjoyment sake.

Its kinda like watching a movie or reading a good book. I don't want to do projects all the time but in free time I often get cravings to work on the project and I find it fun. Which makes my life less stressful and more enjoyable in the moment and helps create a better life for me long term as a by product. Its a far from perfect method but I've been enjoying the results and trying to integrate the mindset further into my life.

2

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

a ludic mode of production is an interesting approach, it has scalability issues no doubt but i think it could be useful for various time and place and people. I am glad it has helped you do more of the things you want to do.

2

lettuceLeafer wrote (edited )

god damn, 4chan called it wants its edgy jokes back

threatening to kill cool raddle users is fucked up. Though I'm not surprised since u have some fetish for killing people for no real reason.

3

d4rk wrote

it's a monty python reference

6

lettuceLeafer wrote (edited )

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=schrodinger%E2%80%99s%20douchebag

It can't be a joke if the person u are threatening to kill doesn't get that its a joke.

1

d4rk wrote

RIP to authorial intent then, recluse accurately described my views in another post do you honestly think I have a death wish with them?

1

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

Ah, that was you? I'm sorry for my rude manner, I wasn't aware fully that it was your posts. Perhap bluntness is not so bad, but I do like to be respectful to people I am actually in interaction with, even on the internet.

I am rather pleased yet, I understood what for you meant, as we are both speaking a tertiary common language and speaking of rather esoteric things. Communication is so difficult sometimes, it is rewarding when it is successful isn't it?

5

zoom_zip wrote

barthes already said “rip to authorial intent” in 1967

4

d4rk wrote

you do make a point, although he does use post-structuralism to call mythology bourgeois so there is a flaw in his methodology

0

mima wrote

To be fair, your writings are often incomprehensible to us that it's blurring the line between seriousness and humor. You should probably link to the reference next time. :P

But that might probably ruin the joke. I guess nigahiga was right after all: all jokes are offensive now.

3

lettuceLeafer wrote

authorial intent doesn't mean shit. All that matters is how your comments are perceived. Your authorial intent would be clear if you bothered to clarify with CB when they didn't get the joke, but u didn't so u don't care about your joke being understood either. U only made sure to tell people that it was a joke when I called u out and not the person who u were joking towards didn't get the joke and perceived it as semi serious.

2

MHC wrote

They kicked me out!

0

celebratedrecluse OP wrote

Hm,?

2

lettuceLeafer wrote

thats basically my response to everything MHC posts. They just seem to come along everyonce and a while and make short cryptic ununderstandable comments on peoples stuff.

2

MHC wrote

I complained at a meeting. As a committee member couldn't bring himself to answer an ordinary member's e-mail. Then I got summarily excommunicated!

1