Thoughts on the movement, or why we still don't even Corbyn - Joseph Kay and Ed Goddard

Registering to vote in the 2016 Labour leadership election raised £4,588,525.

It’s a lonely world these days for an anti-parliamentary socialist with all politics seeming to have taken a back seat to the current Labour Party shenanigans. While the deluge of establishment groupthink currently arrayed on Corbyn is as disgusting as it is cynical, we're still not pinning any hopes on him in the (now quite likely) event he comes out on top in the next leadership election.

Look, it could well happen that the left may, against all odds, take control of the Labour Party NEC and make the party more member-led. That’s something I would have given very long odds on a year or so ago (but then again, the same is true of Leicester City winning the Prem so maybe 2016 is the year for long odds!).

That said, if you think the Labour Right play dirty, wait til you see the CBI, the City of London and the IMF join in while the media dial up the smears to 11. As sneaky and disingenuous as individuals like Tristram Hunt, Angela Eagle and Owen Smith are, they’re all also largely inept and charmless, as their botched coup and embarrassing public appearances demonstrate. They’re like The Orphans in The Warriors, easily rolled over at the start but not nearly as fearsome as the other opponents on the journey back to Coney Island.

The same will not be true as we draw up to General Election time, and even less so if Corbyn were to win; the likelihood he'd be able to pass reforms that harmed the interests of big business, without massive pressure from a disruptive extra-parliamentary social movement, is very slim… all the slimmer for the fact it won’t be Tom Watson playing ‘Good Cop’ to Chuka Umunna’s ‘Bad Cop’; it will be the Murdochs and other ‘captains of industry’ hamstringing even mild social democratic reform through non-cooperation, sabotage and public smears.

Without such a movement, a Corbyn (or any other social democratic) government would not have a leg to stand on. Yet with such a social movement, the role of such a government becomes different: the role will be to mediate and to limit; to separate ‘responsible’ representatives from ‘unruly’ elements and give carrots to the first while doling out sticks to the latter.

Ultimately, extra-parliamentary forces largely determine parliamentary possibilities so even if you want parliamentary reform, it necessitates building grassroots power and a capacity to take disruptive action - strikes, occupations, demonstrations that block transport hubs etc - that such reform will become realisable. And, of course, when such extra-parliamentary forces are forcing reforms, parliamentarism ceases to appear as a ray of hope and becomes an obstacle.

It’s at this point that the usual response is “can’t we do both?”. “Can’t we build an autonomous grassroots working-class direct action movement AND fight to reform the Labour Party into a left-wing electable vote-winning machine?” And the answer to this is: theoretically, yes. But practically there are only 24 hours in a day, two-thirds of which are usually spent either sleeping or working. What has become clear with the recent coup (if it wasn’t already) is that reforming the Labour Party won’t be as easy as paying £3 to vote Corbyn as leader. It means getting involved in your Constituency Labour Party, pressuring your MP, possibly deselecting them, which, as Novara’s recent guide to deselection makes clear, could potentially involve “years of hard work in branches and constituencies across the country”. Which is fine; as the old cliché goes, ‘they wouldn’t call it a struggle if it was easy’. The point is whether the Labour Party is the best place to expend all that energy in struggle.

From our point of view, there can be no ‘UKIP of the left’; pro- and anti-systemic politics just don’t work in the same way like that. But it is worth thinking about how the extra-parliamentary left in Britain could use similar resources to what's currently being chucked into the Labour Party and, in that sense, it's oddly useful looking at the US extra-parliamentary right, with its vast media infrastructure of talk shows, blogs and ecology of organisations. Sure, they’re financed by millionaire/billionaire capitalists and we’re not (nor should we be). But working-class people collectively pay millions into unions, £4.6 million into the Labour Party in 48 hours and donate thousands of hours of voluntary labour into similar organisations. So the resources are there and it’s worth thinking about how an extra-parliamentary social movement could make use of them.

Money isn’t always a limiting factor but it often helps, certainly with media infrastructure, training, equipment and organising events.

In terms of action, it’s all about finding points of leverage:

  • Sisters Uncut have been doing fantastic work around domestic violence and housing. Their recent occupation of an empty council house in Hackney has highlighted cuts to both and created a base for organisation far more quickly than involvement in the Labour Party ever could.
  • Housing Action Southwark and Lambeth have been doing excellent work around housing and building their eviction phone tree. Similar could be said of the recent UCL rent strikers
  • IWW, Solfed and IWGB have all had some decent industrial organising, particularly Solfed amongst hospitality workers in Brighton and the IWGB amongst cleaners and couriers in London (the IWGB have also organised a London Courier Emergency Fund to help ‘self-employed’ couriers when they have accidents and can’t work)
  • There’s also a Black Lives Matter UK group in the works which promises to be very exciting

So what is to be done?

The fact is that outside of a lot of major cities, there isn’t a whole lot of extra-parliamentary direct action organising going on and often it’s the Labour Party/Momentum or nothing. And it’s also obviously a lot easier to get involved or support existing groups than start one from scratch. Given all that, a potential strategy to help isolated groups could look something like this:

1) Build alt-media and social networks; Novara are doing very well at this (despite becoming a bit too Labour-centric for our tastes) as are Media Diversified. The Occupied Times also produce a very high quality print publication. And, er, obviously us at Libcom.org..

2) Utilise contacts built through alt-media networks to organise a loose tour of direct action groups around the country aiming not merely to hold meetings but to seed new direct action groups. Would require organisations to put up a few people willing to travel and talk within a given area, pool resources etc.

3) Focus shouldn’t be on building particular organisations but supporting people to organise in a locally appropriate model: if they want to form an IWW branch/Solfed local/Sisters Uncut chapter, then fine. If they want to organise a non-affiliated Solidarity Network or housing action group, also fine

The same concerted effort over years that would go into the Labour Party could instead be used to grow direct action groups in localities across the country.

Obviously, there aren’t 180,000 people itching to get involved in extra-parliamentary direct action; what’s being sketched out here is how a few million quid and thousands of activist hours could help develop a movement separate from the Labour Party, and lamenting all that’s gone into that party (and scepticism over Corbyn more generally) does not mean passively accepting Tory rule. It just means we prefer barking up the right (tall and difficult to climb) tree than the wrong (accessible, appealing) one.

For more tips on how to get involved/start different kinds of organisation, check out:

But more importantly, check out some of the great groups mentioned in this blog post!

This blog post is a padded out version of a thread on Joseph Kay's twitter.

Posted By

libcom
Jul 22 2016 21:18

Share

Attached files

Comments

Chilli Sauce
Jul 30 2016 03:54
S. Artesian wrote:
fingers malone wrote:
Look, the OP isn't about the Labour Party, it's about what effective forms of direct action grassroots organising we already have going on, and how we could spread them into new areas, given access to the necessary resources.

That's not how I read the OP. The OP is an appeal to those who are attracted to, sympathetic with, tempted by, the Corbyn wing of the Labour Party to not think, feel, act as if that holds the potential for... what? The OP is not exactly clear on that-- making substantial left reforms in the UK? making the Labour Party the vehicle for left reforms in the UK?

So the analysis, of the failure of analysis of Labour Party is relevant, and in truth, critical to the appeal. So the issue of "left reforms" is an issue critical to the discussion.

Quote:
I definitely could've used a better word choice by saying 'misdirected' instead of 'directionless' but it's quite obvious that there is an implied 'politically' before 'directionless' that I'm absolutely certain you know I meant, but whatevs. "Hawking a religion" FFS.

The bottom-line of what I'm getting at is if there exists both a practical and a theoretical argument for or against something, and we are creating outward looking propaganda, 100% of the time the practical argument is going to be more effective.

I know what you wrote. I'm pretty sure you didn't mean what you wrote, and I say that. Doesn't change that what you wrote, with or without the implied "politically" is patronizing to the bone.

As for the "bottom-line" -- since when is arguing that "there aren't enough hours in the day" to capture the Labour Party and make it an engine of reform-- a practical argument. It's no argument at all.

Where is there a practical argument for rolling back the attacks of capitalism in the OP? A practical argument for advancing the struggle, locally and internationally, in the OP, when the struggle itself is not even defined. Is it for reforms? Is it to build a network of dual power "stem cell" formations that can challenge a ruling class and its system, its mode of accumulation? Those aren't theoretical questions.

People are attracted to Corbyn because they think he can change the institutions of power, which are the relations of accumulation. It's not "theorizing" to articulate that you can't change those institutions separate and apart from confronting those relations, and building organizations that in fact can replace those relations in their totality. So how do we do that? I don't think the OP proposes anything that will have an practical success.

S., an assumption of good faith would make you a much nicer person to be around on these forums.

S. Artesian
Jul 30 2016 13:13

Chilli--

Thanks for sharing.

petey
Jul 30 2016 16:19
S. Artesian wrote:
Chilli--

Thanks for sharing.

i agree, it was a good point.

S. Artesian
Jul 31 2016 20:55

And thank you too, Petey.

Although, I thought presupposing good will or good faith or good whatever meant actually engaging with what people say...

So is that what this is about-- helping people with political direction find some meaningful activity? Was the OP a bit short on explaining why reforming Labour, and/or "left reform" in general is a dead end... for reasons other than the length of the day?

And exactly what were the "practical" arguments made that, according to Jesuit.., trump theoretical arguments every time?

Do you, or Jesuit, or Chillli think that it's a viable tactic or strategy to advocate working as external parliamentary pressure groups to "catalyze" reforms enacted by parliament itself?

I am sure the authors have nothing but the best intentions. In fact I think everyone, (almost everyone really) has nothing but good intentions, good will, and is so shot through with goodness that I hear a heavenly choir hit it on the downbeat every time I log on, I read a post or a comment.

And I even try to be nicer, as subjective a category as that may be. So where does that get us with the matter at hand.

Not nice enough? I agree. Excepting myself, everybody is nice enough. Except maybe Stephen, but that's a personal judgment. Everybody is nice enough. Now what? The OP is, IMO, weak, and doesn't accomplish what it obviously wants to do-- present an alternative to Corbyn-ism, and the Labour Party left.

Chilli Sauce
Jul 30 2016 20:52

To be perfectly honest, S., I don't really think there's a huge value in engaging with you.

But, if you're serious, no one is not telling you not to make criticisms. But even if the analysis is bad or somehow plays into reformism (not that I think it does), you can say that without calling the article "weak" or maligning the intentions of the authors.

I mean, how long have you been on this site, do you really think the JK and Ed intended this article to somehow promote "left reforms"? If you think that's the article somehow projects that idea, fine, say it. But when people get frustrated with you, it's probably not because what you're saying, but how you're saying it.

Anyway, enough with the derail, that's the last thing I'll say on the matter.

S. Artesian
Jul 30 2016 21:56

Just to clarify: here's what I wrote.

Quote:
So the limit is....the same theoretical limit to the appropriation of surplus value? So many hours in a day? Theoretically, yes? Practically? Only if you forego sleep? Well how about a bit of the old division of labor? Half the comrades enter the Labour Party "to reform it into a left-wing electable vote-winning machine." The other half work outside the party, as a pressure group.

To me, this piece reads like attempt to guide people away from the Labour Party based not on what the party has been, is now, and will fundamentally remain (until it disintegrates); on its function in, of, and for capitalism regardless of its leadership, but rather on the basis of expediency.

This will sound familiar to those of us on this side of the Atlantic. That's been the mantra and the approach of those urging "dual approaches" to the Democrats; and/or building "local solidarity networks." And on the other side of the Atlantic? Doesn't that sound a whole lot like those advocating working with the "left-wing" of Syriza and/or the less radical iterations of autonomie "politics" --- without the programmatic areas for either/or/both collaboration and opposition?

Quote:
What has become clear with the recent coup (if it wasn’t already) is that reforming the Labour Party won’t be as easy
Wait, if there wasn't the attempt to unseat Corbyn in the Labour Party, that wouldn't be clear? And worse or better yet, is that, reforming the Labor Party, the goal? Coups or no coups?

The article as I read it fails to make the critical points-- that the Labor Party is an institution of capital; that the task is not to build "extra-parliamentary networks" to "pressure," or "reform" the Labor; nor to build such networks simply to build them. There has to be some kind of strategy, no? So method for building a critical mass that has shared goals; the fundamental shared goal being the overthrow of capital.

Now if you disagree with that, then please disagree with it and show me where it's inaccurate. The intentions of the authors, their work histories, their CVs etc. are irrelevant to me and to the people they are addressing.

Every comment I've made here, save my response to Stephen's habitual trolling, and the "play nice" admonitions, has been made without sarcasm and without rancor.

I responded to Jesuit's post after he accused Alf (and myself since we share the position) of trying to engender perfectly created communist babies with a libcom pedigree, when neither of us had indicated any such thing. Talk about good faith....

Yeah talk about good faith.... because that's all it is.. talk

Quote:
it's probably not because what you're saying, but how you're saying it.

Sorry, what is painfully clear based on your comments and Jesuit's is that is exactly what I'm saying that gets your knickers in a twist.

There's nothing wrong with calling an article, appeal, leaflet, proposal "weak." That's not an insult. That doesn't impugn anybody's motives or integrity. It's an assessment of the viability of the proposal.

The fact that you can't make that distinction says a bit more than you would like it to....about you.

factvalue
Jul 31 2016 06:27

Good post SA.

EDIT: I can't think of anyone on here who has been consistently 'nice' throughout all of their exchanges, so there's definite moral fibre in your taking another of your lone stands, this time against the usual double standard of hypocrisy.

Alf
Jul 31 2016 09:12

Sometimes, it's true, Artesian says stuff that isn't very nice. But is calling the OP "weak" the best example Chilli can give of his bad behaviour on this thread? That argument, dare I say it, is a little weak. And indeed, calling the OP "weak" is perhaps the softest criticism you can make of it. As I said before, I think Artesian has pointed to the key problems posed by the OP (avoiding the implications of the capitalist nature of the Labour party, and dangling the lure of entering into competition with Corbynism), and so far there has not been much by way of a response to this.

Spikymike
Jul 31 2016 14:03

I think this discussion, where it hasn't been diverted, is anyway starting to go round in circles but I will sign off by just saying I agree that the opening text is weak and confusing on both the function of the Labour Party and on reforms and reformism even if you consider that some of the activities of recommended groups are worthwhile in themselves.

Khawaga
Jul 31 2016 17:44

Sure, the OP could be stronger in pointing out the structural function of parliamentary parties in capitalism, but it was clearly written for a specific audience that needs convincing. Let's face it; a lot of our analyses of society sounds like conspiracy nonsense to most people. The OP doesn't read like that, which is a good thing if you're trying to communicate beyond the boundaries of our sect.

Edit: wanted to add that the chosen title for the piece reflects the audience of the piece. They get the reference to the meme.

Chilli Sauce
Jul 31 2016 18:28
Alf wrote:
Sometimes, it's true, Artesian says stuff that isn't very nice. But is calling the OP "weak" the best example Chilli can give of his bad behaviour on this thread? That argument, dare I say it, is a little weak. And indeed, calling the OP "weak" is perhaps the softest criticism you can make of it.

Alf, I guess you somehow missed the second part of this statement?

Quote:
But even if the analysis is bad or somehow plays into reformism (not that I think it does), you can say that without calling the article "weak" or maligning the intentions of the authors.

And now I'm annoyed because I'd intended to pull back from this discussion. I just think, basically, there are legitimate criticisms to make of lots of things, including articles on libcom. But, in the majority of articles written by regular posters - in this case, 2 admins ffs - we can assume that, whatever the shortcomings of the article, it's not a secret plot to somehow "advocate working as external parliamentary pressure groups to "catalyze" reforms enacted by parliament".

S. Artesian
Jul 31 2016 21:10
Quote:
we can assume that, whatever the shortcomings of the article, it's not a secret plot to somehow "advocate working as external parliamentary pressure groups to "catalyze" reforms enacted by parliament".

Priceless. And this from a person who whimpers and moans about "good faith." Exactly where is the good faith in claiming that my criticism of the weakness, the lack of clarity of the article regarding "left wings" reformism, the Labour Party means I suspect the authors of a "secret plot"?

Where is there any evidence to back that sort of bullshit pseudo postulating?

I provided that as a question to Jesuit, and you, trying to determine what exactly he finds in the article that is "practical" and trumps the "theoretical" every time.

Just in case you missed it, the article states this:

Quote:
and even less so if Corbyn were to win; the likelihood he'd be able to pass reforms that harmed the interests of big business, without massive pressure from a disruptive extra-parliamentary social movement, is very slim

and this:

Quote:
Ultimately, extra-parliamentary forces largely determine parliamentary possibilities so even if you want parliamentary reform, it necessitates building grassroots power and a capacity to take disruptive action - strikes, occupations, demonstrations that block transport hubs etc - that such reform will become realisable. And, of course, when such extra-parliamentary forces are forcing reforms, parliamentarism ceases to appear as a ray of hope and becomes an obstacle.

and this:

Quote:
“Can’t we build an autonomous grassroots working-class direct action movement AND fight to reform the Labour Party into a left-wing electable vote-winning machine?” And the answer to this is: theoretically, yes. But practically there are only 24 hours in a day, two-thirds of which are usually spent either sleeping or working.

I guess that's an example of practice trumping theory-- the old "only 24 hours in a day" routine.

There's nothing secret nor conspiratorial in the vague formulations, the implausible explanations, and the evident confusion in the article and I have never implied that there is. But they are vague formulations, implausible explanations, and evidence of confusion nonetheless.

I guess since your argument that etiquette requires not calling weak articles weak didn't fly, you feel it necessary to try something a little more flamboyant.

Clearly it's not how I say things that twists your knickers. It's what I'm saying. You're annoyed? For Fuck's Sake. Who gives a shit that you are annoyed? Hold your breath and count to ten.

factvalue
Jul 31 2016 21:28

Now now SA, don't forget that

Chilli Sauce wrote:
no one is not telling you not to make criticisms.

Chilli Sauce
Jul 31 2016 21:55

S, I'm not sure what to say. Perhaps in real life you're friendly and comradely, but your online persona is deeply unpleasant and you seem far more concerned with point scoring than actually engaging in productive conversation. I'm not even gonna bother with you, mate.

Factvalue, to quote your buddy, thanks for sharing.

S. Artesian
Jul 31 2016 22:01
Chilli Sauce wrote:
S, I'm not sure what to say. Perhaps in real life you're friendly and comradely, but your online persona is deeply unpleasant and you seem far more concerned with point scoring than actually engaging in productive conversation. I'm not even gonna bother with you, mate.

Factvalue, to quote your buddy, thanks for sharing.

That's rich. As if friendly, unfriendly has anything to do with the fact that you distort what others say and write to score your own points.

I have zero interest in scoring points. You seem to be the one racking up the cue scores with appeals to "good faith" and being nice, leavened of course with suggesting that those you disagree with are imputing secreting conspiracies among others.

You're not going to deal with me? Your loss is my gain.

factvalue
Jul 31 2016 22:26
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Factvalue, to quote your buddy, thanks for sharing.

Sharing is caring, and tbh it isn't not nice to be not nice to be sure.

fingers malone
Jul 31 2016 22:34

I really wish that on this website we had discussions that helped us win the class struggles that are so essential to our survival as human beings.

factvalue
Jul 31 2016 22:40

That would involve reason and ethics enough to not shut down genuine debate arising from authentic and relevant critique.

fingers malone
Jul 31 2016 22:49

Did I do that?

[edit] Ok I will try to say a bit more then. Personally I've had loads of people explain things to me all my life about the parliamentary system and parties and representative democracy and why this isn't how we will change our lives and I think I understand it. What I feel is massively, massively lacking is a better understanding of why our direct action grassroots actions are so difficult, why the groups (which do a lot of really good work) are concentrated in a few small areas of the country like Lambeth or Haringey or Brighton, why people are so attracted to some types of political action and not others, these are things I do not have answers to and desperately want answers to.

If I come across as trying to shut down discussion then I apologise. I suppose what I am perhaps doing is saying 'please can we talk about this please can we talk about this' over and over again when people obviously want to have a different discussion, perhaps that is annoying, if it is then I accept that.

[cross posted with fact value]

factvalue
Jul 31 2016 22:45

No, not at all, you have been an real example of comradely comportment, as always, but there aren't enough of you to prevent the fevered egoism, and it's intolerable, and I'm fully culpable myself so no finger pointing intended.

factvalue
Jul 31 2016 22:56

I think what you've described is perfectly reasonable and gets at the crux of it, there should be room for all points of view, even if they're not being expressed in the way everyone might approve of/not get offended by. As you said, the point is to win class struggles which threaten our lives, and failing to listen while picking fights over the aesthetics of expression is focusing on appearances rather than reality, and that's intolerably stupid if we want to get anywhere at all.

Red Marriott
Jul 31 2016 23:56
factvalue wrote:
As you said, the point is to win class struggles which threaten our lives, and failing to listen while picking fights over the aesthetics of expression is focusing on appearances rather than reality, and that's intolerably stupid if we want to get anywhere at all.

I disagree – the mode of expression is part of social relations, how we interact. And the egotism of some here they apparently see as justified cos in the argument THEY’RE RIGHT. But it’s easy to be right in the wrong way and so be very wrong. There are some who regularly ferment bad feeling and draw antagonism from others and it’s egotistical, competitive and boring and constantly derails discussions into the trading of personal insults – which turns discussion into competition. The people who are most regularly involved in that need to grow up and not think that being able to win an argument justifies being a boring egotistical arsehole.

jesuithitsquad
Aug 1 2016 01:18
khawaga wrote:

Sure, the OP could be stronger in pointing out the structural function of parliamentary parties in capitalism, but it was clearly written for a specific audience that needs convincing. Let's face it; a lot of our analyses of society sounds like conspiracy nonsense to most people. The OP doesn't read like that, which is a good thing if you're trying to communicate beyond the boundaries of our sect.

Edit: wanted to add that the chosen title for the piece reflects the audience of the piece. They get the reference to the meme.

this is exactly fucking it.

the point that i've tried to make throughout is that this piece isn't written as a contribution to theoretical communist thought. it's not even written for anarchists or communists or whatever. it's written for people who think they are working to protect migrants and defend the 'social contract' by joining the labour party in support of corbyn. presumably, the article is intended to turn a few people away from the dead-end of electoral politics and towards direct action, so it's speaking to people where they are politically today. so, in some ways it's inevitable that we would have some criticisms. it's not written for us.

this was the point i was trying to make when i made the 'communist babies' comment, which was clearly a tongue-in-cheek, intentionally hyperbolic comment and in no way an accusation directed at SA or Alf.

SA, the very fact that you see it as an accusation is part of what people are getting at here. When you then proceeded to intentionally misread my post about about "directionless people,' admit you are intentionally misreading it, and yet continue the polemic as if the misreading was my actual intention (ie "religious fervor," etc.) is the other part of what people like chilli mean when they talk about debating in good faith and point scoring. though, if you felt attacked, i apologize.

Quote:
Quote:

it's probably not because what you're saying, but how you're saying it.

Sorry, what is painfully clear based on your comments and Jesuit's is that is exactly what I'm saying that gets your knickers in a twist.

Quote:
Clearly it's not how I say things that twists your knickers. It's what I'm saying. You're annoyed? For Fuck's Sake. Who gives a shit that you are annoyed? Hold your breath and count to ten.

no, SA. it REALLY is how you're saying things. notice for example, the way people react to spikymike and alf for contrast.

the truth is you've made some legitimate points in this conversation and i've spent some time contemplating your points (despite my instinct to ignore you due to your approach), but when you couch your arguments in a way that impugns intentions and misrepresents others, it is very tempting to dismiss everything you say. in fact, as i recall, no one has even fundamentally disagreed with you or Alf here. people have only contextualized the article, which for some reason, both of you refuse to acknowledge.

the thing is, most regular posters here probably share 99-100% of your politics, so what's the point of being so aggressive? like fingers said above, we are such an insignificantly small group of people. maybe save the vitriol to those who've actually earned it?

khawaga wrote:
Let's face it; a lot of our analyses of society sounds like conspiracy nonsense to most people. The OP doesn't read like that, which is a good thing if you're trying to communicate beyond the boundaries of our sect.

hopefully, those people won't read the comments below the article because this storm in a teacup will do absolutely nothing to dissuade them from thinking we're a bunch of nutters.

ETA: as usual, spot on by RM. none of us are immune from being assholes, myself included.

petey
Aug 1 2016 01:23
Red Marriott wrote:
factvalue wrote:
As you said, the point is to win class struggles which threaten our lives, and failing to listen while picking fights over the aesthetics of expression is focusing on appearances rather than reality, and that's intolerably stupid if we want to get anywhere at all.

I disagree – the mode of expression is part of social relations, how we interact. And the egotism of some here they apparently see as justified cos in the argument THEY’RE RIGHT. But it’s easy to be right in the wrong way and so be very wrong. There are some who regularly ferment bad feeling and draw antagonism from others and it’s egotistical, competitive and boring and constantly derails discussions into the trading of personal insults – which turns discussion into competition. The people who are most regularly involved in that need to grow up and not think that being able to win an argument justifies being a boring egotistical arsehole.

yyyyyup

S. Artesian
Aug 1 2016 02:01
Quote:
i made the 'communist babies' comment, which was clearly a tongue-in-cheek, intentionally hyperbolic comment and in no way an accusation directed at SA or Alf.

more priceless bullshit from priceless bullshitters. When you, Jesuit, say it, it's clearly "tongue in cheek," but if I say "what is this bullshit about 'directionless people needing help to live a meaningful life, a religious appeal?' it's bad faith, it's going over the line.

Note, I didn't complain one bit about your commie baby/libcom pedigree remark then, and I'm not complaining about it now. Quite all right by me. Doesn't even count as an irritant where I come from. But you get all "FFS" about it, and then Chilli and the rest of the crybabies join in.....

You can take your hypocrisy, and your whining, and peddle it to somebody who gives a rat's ass. I do not.

jesuithitsquad
Aug 1 2016 02:13

awesome. well done SA.

S. Artesian
Aug 1 2016 02:45
jesuithitsquad wrote:
in fact, as i recall, no one has even fundamentally disagreed with you or Alf here.

jesuithitsquad wrote:
Alf wrote:

Quote:
I think this reduces the scope of the problem of the Labour party to the amount of ‘organising hours’ in the day, and does not really explain why this and related institutions are by their very nature hostile to the “autonomous” movement of the working class

.
I couldn't disagree more.

You make the call

jesuithitsquad
Aug 1 2016 03:07

nope, no point scoring going on whatsoever.

i was actually responding to the part of alf's post where he says this:

Quote:
Reading this thread makes me think that I have underestimated the influence of the new corbynismo in the anarchist movement; that it can't be limited to an obvious expression such as the Anarchist Momentum group.

as the rest of my post shows, but no worries! scoreboard for SA!!

S. Artesian
Aug 1 2016 05:14

My god, you're tedious.

Look, the OP tries to appeal to those who are attracted by Corbyn but not sure what to do next. Fair enough. I think the reasoning provided by the OP for what those who are attracted to Corbyn should do next is weak; glosses over distinction between reformism and actions that develop, dare I say it, class consciousness.
.
I made one post on that. And then I responded to Fingers' post, pointing out that in fact the issue of the Labour Party was a real issue, introduced by the OP itself, not by those who take exception to the OP. And I concluded that exchange with a comradely "no problem" with the direction Fingers thought the discussion should go. And I had no intention of carrying this any further. Until you and Chilli stepped in with your whinging

Here's the issue I care about:

Quote:
People are attracted to Corbyn because they think he can change the institutions of power, which are the relations of accumulation. It's not "theorizing" to articulate that you can't change those institutions separate and apart from confronting those relations, and building organizations that in fact can replace those relations in their totality. So how do we do that? I don't think the OP proposes anything that will have an practical success.

You can engage with that or not, that's up to you. The rest of this stuff -- being nice, good faith, - is in my opinion, just a waste.

Noah Fence
Aug 1 2016 06:33

This thread is fantastic. It could have been over almost before it started but it's turned into a sort of grinding, slow motion game of intellectual ping pong. Long may it continue. Unfortunately though, there is something of the dark inevitability of Greek tragedy about it that tells me it will soon complete its journey up its own arse and then we'll all be left twiddling our thumbs - a great shame but into each life some rain must fall I suppose and I shall use my umbrella of smugness at having known from the start the simple and obvious answer to the question posed by the OP so beautifully condensed by Comrade Artesian

Quote:
not sure what to do next

which is, of course, stop being so fucking silly, to protect me from the existential precipitation.

If I'm going to pick a side I suppose I would just about land on Artesian's but I must take exception to this;

Quote:
My god, you're a tedious wanker

You're over egging the pudding there comrade. You don't know what a tedious wanker is until you meet a guy I know IRL who's actual name is Mr Tede. No bullshit, this is true, he recites classical literature in a horrible nasal voice at business dinners etc to scrape his meagre living and when introduced to you will say 'I'm Tede. Tede but not tedious, I hope, haha!'.
Anyway, hopefully when it's all over you can all kiss, make up and dance around the mulberry bush together before moving on to the next giant Libcom word wank. Not for too long though, you guys got the cheese and I need my chunks!