We've evolved! (enrager.net becomes libcom.org)
May 1 2005 11:26
On the 1st of May 2005 enrager.net became libcom.org - a libertarian community and organising resource for Britain. After a year and a half, a lot of changes and massive increase in traffic we decided it was time for a change. Look below for more info and don't forget to update you're bookmarks and tell all your friends!
- Who?
The libcom group is a small collective of libertarian communists based in and around London, we maintain libcom.org, and as individuals are involved with a number of other groups and activity.
- Our Aims
We intend our site to be a resource for all people who wish to fight to improve their lives, their communities and their working conditions. We want to discuss, learn from successes and failures of the past and develop strategies to increase the power we, as ordinary people, have over our own lives.
Libcom focuses on working class organisation and education from below for the emancipation of humanity from all systems of economic and political authority. This is libertarian communism, a society where production is based on the concept "from each according to ability, to each according to need" and where humans organise themselves from the bottom up through the principles of face-to-face direct democracy, mandated delegation and federalism.
We identify with the wider historical context of class struggle, that is with those self-organised movements of workers and communities which have sprung up in various times and places, whether consciously libertarian communist or not. We are also influenced by the specific theoretical and practical traditions of anarchist-communism, social ecology/communalism, anarcho-syndicalism, the situationists, autonomist-marxism, council communism, and writers including Marx, Kropotkin, Cleaver, Bookchin and Pannekoek. However, we recognise the limitations of applying these ideas and organisational forms to contemporary British society, and emphasise understanding and transforming the social relationships we experience in our everyday lives, whilst learning from the mistakes and successes of previous revolutionaries and revolutions.
admin [at] libcom [dot] org
May 1 2005 13:39
#2
Umm do you wanna point out whats unaccessible about it?
May 2 2005 00:09
#3
made un-sticky cos no one responds to sticky posts 
May 2 2005 17:57
#4
random wrote:
as an intro supposedly to entice in even us uneducated people you could've explained in more accessible language. The above looks like an excerpt from a university essay rather than anything 'ordinary people' might relate to or understand. cant you people talk in less syllables?
Are you really uneducated? If so, blame your parents for being hippies.
Long words! The proles won't get it! For gods sake think of the proles!
Twat.
May 2 2005 18:22
#5
The average word length is that statement is over six and a half -- considering that includes words like '1st' then that means a lot of long words. In general I think: if you can't explain it without lots of jargon words you probably don't understand it yourself.
The reason for the statement having these properties is, of course, because it is a statement intended to be read by a very specific audience who know the language -- it is intended to differentiate libcom within the anarchist scene, it's not really a message for the 'general public'. Compare a-infos statement of intent, for example.
May 2 2005 18:44
#6
C'mon laz - first off since when is hard to read/understand defined by the length of words? We coulda written the whole thing in 'txt speak' ffs!
May 2 2005 18:50
#7
It's not defined by it, but it's a good rule of thumb. The words we use most tend to be shorter. I'm not saying that long words aren't appropriate, but that when we use specialised speech we should be honest about what we're doing.
May 2 2005 18:57
#8
Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:
The average word length is that statement is over six and a half -- considering that includes words like '1st' then that means a lot of long words. In general I think: if you can't explain it without lots of jargon words you probably don't understand it yourself.The reason for the statement having these properties is, of course, because it is a statement intended to be read by a very specific audience who know the language -- it is intended to differentiate libcom within the anarchist scene, it's not really a message for the 'general public'. Compare a-infos statement of intent, for example.
I'm one of the most anti-jargon people ever and I get really fucked off when people around me start indulging in self-indulgent intellectual wankery about...frankly, nothing...and yet I can't really see how that statement could be much simpler.
May 2 2005 18:59
#9
And say the same thing? Probably couldn't. Like I said, it's got a lot of specialised meaning in it. For a start, you can't spell Pancake any shorter.
May 2 2005 19:08
#10
As far as I can see the only words the "average" person might not understand are those referring to ideology e.g. federalism, syndicalism etc, but anyone who's got this far probably either knows what those things mean or isn't going to have to look far for a few clarifications. Random and Woodbine's argument is pretty self-defeating since the statement itself makes it pretty clear that libcom.org is a organising/discussion tool for libertarian communists, not a soapbox to the masses.
May 2 2005 19:16
#11
Well that's my exact point. Go and undertake a 5 Year Reading Comprehension Plan 
Another issue is that it's not just about the 'familiarity' of the words in question. Too many terms like 'organisation', 'delegation', 'federation' all sitting alongside eachother and the eyes begin to go all blurred on the page. That's a prose style thing, and also a specialised language thing.
May 2 2005 19:17
#12
redyred wrote:
Random and Woodbine's argument
<points>
See -- a Stalinist Almagam!
Top marks to those who get the Specialised Language reference, there 
May 2 2005 19:27
#13
To be honest, I agree with Redyred. There's an FAQ on this site which absolute newcomers would be better off examining than this statement, which is more specifying why Libcom is better than Enrager (if we forget the new post thingies for a second).
May 2 2005 20:54
#14
But surely the conscious chance from enrager to libcom can't be called evolutionary unless you're seeing evolution in some sort of lamarckian way.
May 2 2005 23:00
#15
Laz does have a point - it is well jargony. We should improve... and make sure all weird terms there are in the new Glossary
May 3 2005 14:00
#16
It is a bit jargony, definately not a statement that should be read by people that are new to the movement and the site, but for us it will probably make sense. Tailor the statement to the audience, and I think all of us understood it fine
so whats the problem?
May 3 2005 14:03
#17
because if you tailor the statement so that EVERYONE who reads it has a chance of understanding it, your able to reach more people, rather than just knocking your branches around the activist ghetto.
(anychance we can get the red turned to white or something, for those of us with eye probs it makes it quite hard to look at the page)
May 5 2005 13:28
#18
See what's new on libcom.org:
as an intro supposedly to entice in even us uneducated people you could've explained in more accessible language. The above looks like an excerpt from a university essay rather than anything 'ordinary people' might relate to or understand. cant you people talk in less syllables?