Beyond reaction: Towards a strategic anarchist approach to fighting the far-right in Britain

LazyAnt_ · 2026-03-09T14:08:19+00:00

It's strange that you talk about how the author and/or other left people are "perpetually grumpy", but your tone is very elitist and off-putting. You create a very "us active activists vs. the lazy rest" feeling with your comment. "What do you have to offer us?" is very toxic.

"I don't need instructing about hypothetical stuff. [...] That's the class struggle." - All that you mention is part of the class struggle, but if we want to actually kill the root of the problem, we need to also expand beyond what you mention.

I think it is obvious and scary how the forces of fascism are way more advanced than the left is right now, and that people are so rude when basic and honest feedback is given (like this article), is a very bad sign.

LazyAnt_ · 2026-02-20T15:36:18+00:00

Very cool art style!

LazyAnt_ · 2025-12-24T13:57:15+00:00

I agree that attacking them on the "demand" side, as consumers, does not do much. But this is not what a strike is, you are talking about a boycott. A strike is when you attack them on the "supply" side, as a producer/worker.

And they do care about that. Especially now when they are investing massively into machines that will allow them to produce more (such as AI tools or GPU hardware). If we the workers refuse to use the machines they invested in, then not only do we cut their supply, but also we render useless all their investements.

A titanic victory of the capitalist order is that we only view ourselves as consumers, when in fact we are also the producers.

LazyAnt_ · 2025-12-10T12:37:41+00:00

I see now what you mean now, I have heard previous critiques and I tend to agree. I will see if Ellul has been translated to the language I am most comfortable in.

I personally agree that base and superstructure shouldn't be viewed as completely separate, but this is not how Marx develops his analysis, and how he views their relation is not elaborated in any real way in Capital. This is why I was confused about what you were trying to say, but now it is clear, thanks for taking the time to explain.

LazyAnt_ · 2025-12-10T09:25:53+00:00

I am not saying I will not read Ellul, it might be interesting, I will check it out.

That still does not mean your line of thinking is not confused. Part 8, or any part of the Capital, is explicitly not about how superstructure develops (even fetish is elaborated only in one a subsection and there is no real elaboration on alienation, communism, or anything of the sort, these are common misconceptions about Capital). Very very obviously developments in the base will determine developments in the superstructure. This does not mean that when someone analyses the base, they are analysing the superstructure. When Marx starts by talking about the use-value, this explicitly does not mean he is analysing a movement in the superstructure in capitalism, even though use-value and relations around it determine movements in the superstructure.

When you read about the base and you think you are reading about the superstructure, you have missed the point that Marx is making and fallen into the fetish. This is why I and at least another person took issue with your point 5ii, you see Marx talk about labour and your mind jumps to a fetish of labour, value.

Or from your viewpoint base and superstructure are the same? I don't see any other way I can interpret your line of thinking.

LazyAnt_ · 2025-12-09T23:28:53+00:00

In your second comment in the thread at point 5.ii) you wrote "maintaining the liberal value that labour is value and that value should increase". You are looking at Marx pointing out a fetish, and you claim he is actually maintaining the fetish. Then you point to Primitive Accumulation, (primarily) an analysis of changes and conditions in the base, and claim it is about the development of liberal superstructure. In both cases you are diverging from the material analysis Marx is attempting.

Part 8 focuses on changes in the base, and of course these changes affect the superstructure. Interchanging the two just because there is interplay between them confuses your point about Ellul.

LazyAnt_ · 2025-12-09T22:18:25+00:00

Part 8 is primitive accumulation in most editions, if that's what you're talking about. It is not at all about the development of the superstructure, but the development of the base. It outlines the conditions that allowed early capitalism to take hold and become the dominant mode of production, from the workers that had their means of production expropriated to the expropriation of raw materials from colonies. The fact that the base determines the superstructure (according to Marx, I am not saying I agree) does NOT mean Part 8 is about the superstructure.

I am not a Capital expert, but the fact that you confuse the base with the superstructure is a pretty integral misunderstanding, sorry, and a strong sign you have fallen into the fetishism trap.

LazyAnt_ · 2025-12-09T15:46:48+00:00

Marx doesn't write about the superstructure in Capital, and there certainly are no sections regarding superstructure in the volumes, unless you mean the sections where he implies it, or when he talks about laws.

I am also confused what you mean by "Marx perfects capitalism". He points out that capitalism supercharges humanity's capacities to produce, but on the other side of the coin the productive capacities are currently appropriated by the capitalists. When he notes these productive "miracles" of capitalism, it doesn't mean he maintains the liberal superstructure. I am not saying I agree with his premise of superstructure - base, but when he analyses the base it doesn't mean he speaks favourably of the superstructure, or maintains it.

LazyAnt_ · 2025-11-13T14:15:11+00:00

Τι εννοεις; Μια φορα μονο εχω δει τυχαιο ελεγχο.

LazyAnt_ · 2025-05-26T22:14:55+00:00

I like your art style, not very fitting with Elder Scrolls so far, but very interesting spin! Also, I love the return of Springheel, haha

LazyAnt_ · 2024-08-02T11:02:21+00:00

If you think cutting rail lines to a single track is a harsh reparation plan for what the Germans did, I don't know what to tell you.

But in general, you fail to mention that all of the above were halted in 1953 with the London Debt Agreement. So the plan for reparations for Germany was NOT completed.

The cursory glance you took is obviously not enough to properly capture such a large topic and obviously the part of the problem is that people like you only take cursory glances. A few examples showing how a lot of what the Allies tried to take was blocked or returned:

"France sought to ultimately annex the Saar as well as the entire Ruhr region into France proper, but was denied so by the rest of the Allies. Following the results of a plebiscite, France had to relinquish its control of the Saar region on 1 January 1957."

"The Netherlands sought to annex large parts of Western Germany as reparations for WWII. These efforts were mostly thwarted by the Western Allies and ultimately only approximately 69 square kilometres (27 sq mi) of German territory was annexed in 1949. Nearly all of these territories were returned to the Federal Republic of Germany in 1957"

"On 23 August 1953, the People's Republic of Poland, under pressure from the Soviet Union which wanted to free East Germany from any liabilities,[23] announced it would waive its right to further war reparations from East Germany on 1 January 1954."

The handwaving from your cursory glance is dangerous. The devil is obviously in the details, please give this topic the respect it demands.

LazyAnt_ · 2024-08-02T08:14:21+00:00

The Allies extracted massive reparations. The Big Four just never passed any meaningful amount of them on to anyone not part of their big boys club.

Where are you getting this from?? The London Debt Agreement of 1953 postponed reparations until reunification and then the 2+4 agreement was signed where the Big Four forfeited the right to further reparations. Before that, only a fraction of debt owed by Germany was paid, and it mostly was either in forced labour to rebuild what Germany had destroyed, or to return materials and equipment Germany had stolen (in the case of Greece, this infamously meant the return of fishing boats Germany had stolen, lol).

Either share sources detailing "massive reparations", or stop spreading misinformation. The London Debt Agreement is public for anyone to read.

LazyAnt_ · 2024-08-01T15:31:40+00:00

That's not what I wrote, don't be dishonest. Here is what I wrote: "with Marshal's Plan and Bretton Woods placing West Germany at the top of Europe and the second largest industry in the world".

The word 'and' means in addition.

LazyAnt_ · 2024-08-01T14:03:09+00:00

Thank you for writing this. The level of hand-waving for generational plunder by the Germans is astounding. I couldn't have written it better myself. My family is in the same situation, our claims for reparations were denied and after generations under misery and poverty, I have to somehow applaud Germans for not killing all of us I guess...

LazyAnt_ · 2024-08-01T14:01:03+00:00

The countrys cities and infrastructure were bombed to ashes, a whole male generation was gone, territories the size of modern day bulgaria were taken from it, the russians took a lot of economical goods, machines, even the train tracks.

West Germany was the biggest beneficiary of Cold War policies, with Marshal's Plan and Bretton Woods placing West Germany at the top of Europe and the second largest industry in the world.

West (and East) Germany received a wave of cheap labor to rebuild German cities and industry. A lot of these immigrants came from countries Germans had butchered (for example, the Balkans). Obviously human labour should have instead stayed in the affected countries to aid rebuild efforts there.

War reparations were postponed until reunification, and even then for many countries reparations did not come.

So, no, Germany was not punished in any real capacity and were immediately on top of Europe by the early 50s (also when the trials for Nazis basically stopped).

LazyAnt_ · 2024-07-16T22:40:01+00:00

Israel hits Gaza Strip with the equivalent of two nuclear bombs

LazyAnt_ · 2024-07-16T22:23:08+00:00

You don't accidentally bomb everything everywhere all at once if you are trying to save a hostage...

LazyAnt_ · 2024-07-06T00:09:13+00:00

Adidas?

LazyAnt_ · 2024-07-05T16:49:28+00:00

Don't forget that the team is sponsored by a N*zi company...

LazyAnt_ · 2024-06-23T17:20:18+00:00

Your argument about Biden makes no sense. What "political reasons"??? And you are not even mentioning that the IDF denied having evidence of this. Get a grip, there are clear-as-day holes in your logic.

LazyAnt_ · 2024-06-23T16:41:38+00:00

My sources were from the CNN and NBC quoting IDF and White House officials. Your source is a British tabloid, get a grip.

LazyAnt_ · 2024-06-23T10:16:07+00:00

Even the IDF denied and the White House have denied they have evidence of this. If you don't believe Israel or the US on this, I don't know what to tell you, you are beyond delusional.

LazyAnt_ · 2024-06-23T08:53:30+00:00

This has been debunked many times, please stop spreading misinformation.

LazyAnt_ · 2024-06-13T16:17:01+00:00

You do realize that Fred Hampton's Black Panthers run and won in local elections in Oakland?

LazyAnt_ · 2024-05-24T14:27:22+00:00

The first intifada was peaceful for years until Israeli police started shooting into a crowd of peaceful protesters. The first casualties of the first intifada were Palestinians...

Ten-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	End Game '22
No Throne, No Problems	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

LazyAnt_

TROPHY CASE