WOMBLES and CAG

159 posts / 0 new
Last post
gangster
Offline
Joined: 14-11-03
Feb 14 2005 10:21
Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:
yeah, what he said.

Reading over raw's earlier post I do also have to agree with barry that it comes across as unneccessarily threatening.

We have largely been thrown together by participating in waves of protest (eg stop the war, mayday, eco and other stuff). When these waves ebb, as they are doing now, the common causes that bind us are weaker and we start to focus on the differences. As movements decay, people turn on each other and abuse and threaten each other.

Let's not, eh?

Who needs COINTELPRO when we can do it ourselves!

Hmmm, I'm putting my views forward, and not saying anything more on this publically - PM me if you want a 'discussion'.

I believe in violence;) If you can't defend your ideas physically they are not worth ANYTHING... I appreciate this is 'not nice', but the 'real world' IS violent (go and have a look).... I am 100% with the Wombles, but I would go down to Freedom and 'sort you out' ON MY OWN if i wanted too;)

These discussion boards are almost total crap;) and more often than not it's the wankers from CAG that ruin it Mr. T grin red n black star

CAG is NOT a class struggle group, whereas the Wombles are. red n black star circle A grin

3rdseason
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Feb 14 2005 10:30

Firstly, I don't think the WOMBLEs would call themselves a class struggle group so I don't know why you call them that.

Secondly, please don't try and act the hardman on a messageboard. Its pathetic.

Thirdly, please don't use the Mr.T smilie its too cool for you.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Feb 14 2005 10:32

I'd agree with the suggestion you PM him 3rd rather than dragging all that personal abuse stuff up again.

gangster
Offline
Joined: 14-11-03
Feb 14 2005 18:13
revol68 wrote:
gangster what fucking age are you?

whatever happened to the proposed Wombles and Class War merger? grin

Old enough to be your 'da.

The merger was never proposed, it was an idea for discussion...

3rd season, as for saying that CAG are not a class struggle group it is easy to see that the Wombles have done tons of good stuff week in and week out, and internationally. Compared to what the Wombles have done, CAG IS NOT a class struggle group if you compare peoples respective sphere of influence within the class struggle as a whole.

ALso i like to be provocative... 'I want to hurt you so that I can hear you shouting my name'...

raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Feb 14 2005 18:38
Saii wrote:
Quote:

I repeat, your problem with their lack of a developed view of class politics does not equate with their having no function. They are a valuable resource with a number of bodies we can potentially use where we have common causes. If you have a problem, start a debate and encourage them to read deeper theory so they can build a class conciousness into their efforts, don't just fling insults and what could well be baseless accusations about their recreational habits.

Thank you Saii for your wise words. FFS! Who the hell do you think we are some immature 16 year old suburban skate punks!! For christ sake!

Maybe we have a class analysis, and maybe we realise our politics differently from setting up 'community' groups, or blindly supporting campaigns, or replicating the left, or dumbing down the political content we wish to express. Maybe we are "class struggle" but what then, so are the SWP, AWL, Workers Power there all "class struggle".. What did class war use to say "the more talk of class struggle the more talk of stalinism!".

Now everyone calls themselves class struggle, not neccesarily because that adds anything to their political actions (which in alot of so-called class struggle groups is reduced to no action at all) but because it makes the distinction between them (with the right ideas no doubt) and the clowns, hippies and middle class students (they usual seem to attach these daily mail stereotypes) which they percieve to be what the anti-capitalist/no global movement is/was.

So please, FFS communicate do not assume you know anything. Surely the purpose of critique of political action is for the critiquer to find out what the intentions were of the politics, it's organisational processess and to what extent the polticis was realised. i.e. do not assume that what turns out to be political action is/was the intended outcome, that means that it is usually part of a process, that there will always be disagreements and counter-positions (this is surely healthy) and that our (collective 'our') anarchist politics is a movement (dynamic, motion) rather than idealogy (static, enclosed).

What I find frightening is a political approach by some people involved in CAG to lose the meaning of even their own politics, (mutual aid, solidairty...etc)..Their postings seems to define and enclose anarchism in to a box with CAG 's name on it.

thankfully struggle is much more diverse than that

raw

raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Feb 14 2005 19:52

Yes we do have common ground: we are all opposed to statist and hierarchies, we are against capitalism and we try to operate and organise in an way which joins the ends and means of a struggle. We are anti-authoritarians. That is common ground.

The "activist milieu" you talk about is called autonomy. Thats why we have put alot of energy into things like social centres, a way for the movement in London to converge and give itself visibility. This has much wider social meanings, that's why they have been a big success in part in London. When you are in a situation when you are having 250-300 people a week walking thru the doors of the social centre (like we experienced in Ex-grand banks) then that develops your understanding on what poltics is needed in London. Autonomy and creating infrastructures to facilitate and protect movements, groups and individuals is paramount for us to realise our potential.

We are not being substitutionists our actions have been diverse and creative, we have experimented with content, on leaflets and posters, the forms our actions take. I think we have been quite diverse in our approach and also the people we have come across and that have engaged with us....not to say that we look at our past with a fondness but atleast there has been a patern of trying think of new ideas, theory and putting it into practice in the real world. The best theory is one which has come from real life experiences in a context people can relate to not text books.

gangster
Offline
Joined: 14-11-03
Feb 14 2005 20:38
Jack wrote:
raw wrote:
Yes we do have common ground: we are all opposed to statist and hierarchies, we are against capitalism and we try to operate and organise in an way which joins the ends and means of a struggle. We are anti-authoritarians. That is common ground.

roll eyes

Yes, and so do primitivists. Which shows what a fucking joke that so called 'common ground' is.

roll eyes roll eyes Erm, so exactly what is 'common ground', and does CAG have it? The common ground I see is occupied by the Wombles and not CAG who can't venture politically (or in solidarity) beyond bus stations in Colchester... Do you get it?

Raw wrote;

Surely the purpose of critique of political action is for the critiquer to find out what the intentions were of the politics, it's organisational processess and to what extent the polticis was realised. i.e. do not assume that what turns out to be political action is/was the intended outcome, that means that it is usually part of a process, that there will always be disagreements and counter-positions (this is surely healthy) and that our (collective 'our') anarchist politics is a movement (dynamic, motion) rather than idealogy (static, enclosed).

What I find frightening is a political approach by some people involved in CAG to lose the meaning of even their own politics, (mutual aid, solidairty...etc)..Their postings seems to define and enclose anarchism in to a box with CAG 's name on it.

thankfully struggle is much more diverse than that

I thought that was of a very high standard... [only the second time i have made such a comment on this website]

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Feb 14 2005 20:49
Saii wrote:
This would seem to be the crux of the problem, that despite a common adherence to non-heirarchy, anti-war, pro-green anti-GM pro-workers anti-bosses pro-mutual aid anti-capitalism ideologies, you are so blinkered as to assume the WOMBLES are of no use to you.

For the record I'm not 100% sure I'm anti-GM and I think the fact that most of CAG got nicked for the sake of that issue is a bit, well, crap.

And, like Jack says, primitivists also share that common adherence and yet our envisaged societies and analyses of capitalism are actually pretty different (I'd suggest even contradictory??) and as such, I consider it very hard to cooperate with them. It's not much different for non-class struggle anarchists to be honest. If you don't think it's class, your activism won't be based on overturning the class structure, so objectively, working with you would be counter-revolutionary. To be perfectly honest.

Moreover, I think I speak for all of CAG when I say we're far more interested in working with "normal" members of the working class (or women, if you're Jess tongue) than "fellow" activists. I can't really see in what kinda situation exactly CAG would require WOMBLES' help (and usually at demos, don't they offer their assistance, required or not, in the form of some pillows pushed down their Y-fronts??).

Quote:
If you have a problem, start a debate and encourage them to read deeper theory...

Simon, I'm sure you've figured out by now that I'm not the most "theoretical" of people. It's not really a theory issue, I'm sure Raw has read a bit of class struggle theory and decided on a wankier form of "anarchy" more akin to someone reading Vaneigem upside down.

Quote:
don't just fling insults and what could well be baseless accusations about their recreational habits.

Why not?? To a large extent, groups like the WOMBLES are responsible for how much of the general public perceive anarchists. It's not just me saying they do ketamines, it's several million people.

Quote:
You have what, seven members? That can do fuck-all and you know it. Add the WOMBLES, Norwich Anarchists, Ipswich Anarchists, Theatre of War, Cambridge action network however and you get enough for a noisy, potentially successful demo on a range of class based subjects.

Or maybe add some non-activists without dreadlocks and meaningless "poetic" rhetoric about fences and actually reach out to normal people by dodging some of the more ridiculous aspects of the anarchist scene??

Quote:
Until we have the Trade Unions on side, and have built up enough working class support, we have to work with what we've got

I think you're wrong about getting unions first. Totally wrong. As if there's a viable framework for lasting social change within the current union structure. The gains that can be made within that structure relate to the industries which they represent and as such, it's important to have them represented in the movement, but I fail to see why we should have to "woo" liberal unions.

Quote:
Even if we end up not needing them, it's always worth keeping them on-side because these people often end up in interesting positions, and not having them think we're a bunch of sectarian tossers they fell out with once is useful.

I don't really sweat on this one.

gangster
Offline
Joined: 14-11-03
Feb 14 2005 21:02

Here's a snapshot of OutRage and what it did 1990-1996;

http://members.aol.com/sisfridge/

CAGs limp 'analysis' [e.g. 'critique' of Wombles/Class War] was aimed at participants in class class struggle such as this... I must say I think doing actions iS ALWAYS more preferable to in action... Only those who do nothing make no mistakes... (and 'nothing' includes political work that is safe and predictable, within a very confined geographical area)...

lucy82
Offline
Joined: 31-05-04
Feb 14 2005 21:16

Raw said:

Quote:
yes we do have common ground: we are all opposed to statist and hierarchies, we are against capitalism and we try to operate and organise in an way which joins the ends and means of a struggle. We are anti-authoritarians. That is common ground.

and then

Jack said:

Quote:
Yes, and so do primitivists. Which shows what a fucking joke that so called 'common ground' is.

jack if common ground is a fucking joke, it would be wrong for any one who thought that to piss off supermarkets (in common with others) against GM foods cause its hardly the cutting edge of class struggle.

and alan, its bollocks to simplistically equate non class struggle anarchists (in your definition) with primitivism. its crude, populist (on enrager) and not useful.

Quote:
we're far more interested in working with "normal" members of the working class than "fellow" activists.

y'know, i'm sick of hearing "its class" being used to slag off other people who are getting people together - like Beyond ESF - that was fucking good and the sneering at other groups as if they have no understanding or communication with other people at all (because noone in the Wombles is working class are they? really?).

anyway, go CAG. cause clearly, you and you alone are the future.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Feb 14 2005 22:10
lucy82 wrote:
and alan, its bollocks to simplistically equate non class struggle anarchists (in your definition) with primitivism. its crude, populist (on enrager) and not useful.

This word "useful" keeps being bandied about. What the fuck does it actually mean people??

Quote:
Quote:
we're far more interested in working with "normal" members of the working class than "fellow" activists.

y'know, i'm sick of hearing "its class" being used to slag off other people who are getting people together - like Beyond ESF - that was fucking good

I actually went to a bit of Beyond ESF. It was great in terms of an anarchist knees up (well I thought so at the time anyway) but what kinda representation was there from the other 57.995 million people who occupy this country (not to mention the hundreds of millions of people from the European countries from whom hailed many of the attendees of this event)?? How exactly did BESF help the anarchist scene break out of its self-imposed ghetto?? For all the talk of CAG being secterian, what actual work has everyone else done to be non-secterian beyond this message board and people who possess Kropotkin/Vaneigem/a ket dealer's number??

Quote:
and the sneering at other groups as if they have no understanding or communication with other people at all (because noone in the Wombles is working class are they? really?).

Noone denies this. Jack actually said to them that we would offer solidarity to members of WOMBLES involved in organising at their workplaces (where logistically possible, obviously). As I understand it though, and as I've heard members of the WOMBLES say in meetings (and indeed, as Raw has said on this message board), they are voluntarily unemployed.

Quote:
anyway, go CAG. cause clearly, you and you alone are the future.

Obviously that's the stupidest possible thing to ever say and pretty much invalidates the rest of your post.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Feb 14 2005 23:55

Well I think someone should BIN THIS THREAD...

Personally speaking, I think the onus is on raw and other wombles to have the patience to ignore and deal with a certain amount of shit-flinging from some silly boys on enrager.

Man, Albert Meltzer must be laughing his gut off...

raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Feb 15 2005 00:19
revol68 wrote:
the problem with the Wombles is that they organise around an activist programme, which they try to give some sort of theoretical depth by misnaming autonomy.

Thats not true, we don't have a "programme" as such and I'm sure we should have one, one that isn't about doing activist things (what ever the fuck that is or is it just an attitude? How can you tell?).

revol68 wrote:
Your infastructures are based on the idea of buillding them outside the point of struggle, in some sort of merry autonomy land, this is a poor attempt at the social centres movement in Italy, the difference is that those social centres are much more organic and rooted than the attempt to import them into the UK as some sort red bases, also the reason these social centres have the "autonomy" they do is because of their connections with the reformed italian communist party which has a presence in local government. Of course the Italian social centre scene has the same shortcomings as any other activist shit, it's just less obvious cause of the deeper roots radical politics has within the italian working class than in britain.

The "point of struggle" is everywhere, not to see that there has been huge developments in capital to the point where it mediates our lives beyond the experiences of past generations is really mistaken.

It may be a poor attempt but at least we are attempting to achieve what we see is neccessary. The Social Centres in London are developing, with places like ramparts they have manage to create an internet radio station as well as really stir up debate in their local area regarding their "indian film festival which had hundreds of people attend".

Your analysis of the italian social centres movement is very weak and uninformed. It isn't a hegemonic movement and the concepts of social centre, becuase it exists in a different political reality, is different. We have never attempted to import the "italian experience" to London, there is however universal commons involved with occupying space. This does allow for a replication (i.e. more spaces opening up) and also a development (learning from each experience of social centre).

revol68 wrote:
The wombles are much closer to the autonomists of germany and holland who have misinterpretted autonomy as "dropping out" and creating a subculture of squats, shit parties and drugs. .

So all the german &dutch autonomes have got it all wrong. You cannot make such generalised statements and represent a whole movement over an undefined period of time as "mis-interpretting autonomy as dropping out". WOMBLES have never promoted this form of autonomy, indeed we don't see it as autonomy but people bury their heads in the sand. Alot of us have problems with the whole squat party/drug culture and have a pretty much good analysis on the negative aspects of drugs.

revol68 wrote:
You may have 200-250 people coming thru your doors but thats the kind of argument that the SWP put out. I mean you could have 250 people coming through your doors but since youse oppose any attempt to formulate a coherent programme or even some basic theorectical coherency it means nothing.

People are not looking for theoritical coherence, niether are we looking for it. What we are interested in is people involving and developing their ideas through a process of debate and experiences. When we have a social centre we use that as a real life example of self-organisation without bosses, a critique against property ownership and usage and an alternative to a life mediated by capital.

Raw

raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Feb 15 2005 01:02
revol68 wrote:
so you didn't make a post encouraging anarchists to drop out of work and focus on activism?

No, what I was saying was that people should look at participating in political action and not give "work" as an excuse for not parrticipating. i.e. viewing politics as only when it fits in a certain lifestyle. In the case of someone who see's work as getting in the way of participating politically, I suggest that they should re-prioritise how they want to spend their time and find ways to achieve it. This could be voluntary unemployement but I was by no means suggesting that this is the only way people can be involved in politics. And to go back to my origanal comments regarding this, I do see work as a disciplinary form of repression and social control and we should, collectively, try and find ways out of it....I think this is called revolution!

revol68 wrote:
the social centre experiance has been doen to death, it is nothing without a class base, a bunch of middle class counter culture drop outs are not an example of a post capitalist society.

It hasn't been done to death, there are problems involved in it...but hey thats life, about overcoming problems. If we can't organise to fucking occupy spaces and self-manage them then what the fuck are we doing. Surely we try and project our vision of a new world in the shell of the old.

revol68 wrote:
as for your claim that the point of struggle is everywhere, well yes it is, but you seem to think that your social centres create a social space autonomous from capital, when in actual fact they are interwoven with the texture of capital, notice the social demographic of those involved in it? Notice how those with a comfortable background can afford to be most involved, notice how the the wombles relies on donations from it's minted supporters. .

Don't tell me what I think, thats my job! Social Centres are ways that a radical movement can grow and expand the social impact of it's actions. When we mobilised for the march against a death in police hands, there were 500 people on it. Many of which were familiar faces to our social centre, we were also thanked by the family of the man (Kebba Jobe) for bringing such a large contingent (around 80 people).

All the money raised for our activity has been raised by our hard work. We organise raves, benefits...etc. We don't have ANY rich backers, unless you know differently.

revol68 wrote:
I have no problems with social centres in themselves, what i despise is this fetishising of them that makes them a goal in themselves. yes theory is produced by activity and struggle but if you have no idea what you are aiming for in the first place then your actions wil be pointless and the subsequent theory will be shite. People on a strike may have hundreds of different views but there is a basis of unity around a common goal, winning the strike. But what is the common thread through the wombles? vague notions of autonomy? a political programme that is soo wide as to be meaningless? yes things will be learnt from the social centres experiance but what i would suggest is that youse begin to think about developing a serious analysis and drop this broad church shit that will lead to constant inertia.

When the aim is revolutionary change i.e. a classless society based on self-organisation and human dignity, then there always need to be a reassess of political analysis and orientation. When we started we did the White Overalls thing because we saw that, in the context of the police repression, it was the most important thing. As we have developed we put energies in social centres, prisoner support (which has probably taken up at least 2 years of our focus having people sent down for 1 year as well as on the thessaloniki hunger strikes)...I think the biggest thing we've done was BEYOND ESF (over 80 workshops, 100 groups and 2,000 people) as well as providing free accomodation for 900 people <--sorry to blow our collective trumpet but I'm proud of that! And yes if CAG people came atleast we had representatives from the colchester working class there!

Raw

nosos
Offline
Joined: 24-12-03
Feb 15 2005 01:05
raw wrote:
And yes if CAG people came atleast we had representatives from the colchester working class there!

Well that's me convinced! black bloc

gav's picture
gav
Offline
Joined: 22-09-03
Feb 15 2005 01:39
raw wrote:
No, what I was saying was that people should look at participating in political action and not give "work" as an excuse for not parrticipating. i.e. viewing politics as only when it fits in a certain lifestyle. In the case of someone who see's work as getting in the way of participating politically, I suggest that they should re-prioritise how they want to spend their time and find ways to achieve it. This could be voluntary unemployement but I was by no means suggesting that this is the only way people can be involved in politics.

I wasn’t gonna reply to this thread coz basically I couldn’t be arsed but this quote just pulled me out of my armchair. How you feel justified in saying this is amazing. I mean, let's say I'm an anarchist single mum who works eight to ten hours a day, do you still think I only view my politics as and when it fits into my lifestyle? I mean really mate, this is mental!

The fact that you don't see a problem with these sort of comments really shows the difference between activist politics and the kind of politics revol and Jack are talking about i.e. genuinely radical libertarian communism. Where you see political struggle as something which people have to fit into their schedule as they would time at the gym, a more radical approach would be a political praxis based in the everyday experience, struggles and desires of working class people.

Some people have now been stimulated to post their thoughts/critiques of the WOMBLES approach. I think the absence of critiques of CAGs position has been quite telling. One criticism has been to downplay the importance of their bus station campaign (calling it a bus stop, bus shelter, etc) in a very patronising way. This rejects the subjective experiences of working class people from Colchester, and the issues they are concerned with. Are they wrong? The other main criticism is to throw around comments like "localism" without providing any evidence for this.

Thora
Offline
Joined: 17-06-04
Feb 15 2005 07:57

roll eyes at CAG and this whole thread. I agree with Lazlo and Lucy.

Jack - Wombles jokes may be awesome, but possibly awesome in an "in the pub" way, rather than a "communiques on the internet" way...

Anyway, can't we all just get along? :greenblackstar: violet black star :greenblackstar:

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Feb 15 2005 10:05
Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:
Well I think someone should BIN THIS THREAD...

Why?? Isn't this what the WOMBLES wanted, CAG (and Friends of CAG) critiquing their politics and activism??

Grace
Offline
Joined: 19-07-05
Feb 15 2005 10:11
Thora wrote:

Anyway, can't we all just get along?

Man, I thought nobody else would share my point of view and I'd be the lame one going "isn't this all a bit too, like, hostile, maaaaaan" hehe. Thora, you are the voice of reason.

As a member of CAG I would like to point out that, like Jack, I wouldn't have any problem with associating with the WOMBLES, Class War or whoever in situations where we agreed on the cause, and I do feel that the hostility between groups on enrager has got out of hand. Threats and suchlike seem to me to be pretty excessive and unproductive. Not everyone can agree on every aspect of their politics and as others have said there is a lot of common ground, so surely minor differences in the anarchist *movement* should be accepted? Or am I naive and liberal? embarrassed

LeonardfromLeom...
Offline
Joined: 20-09-04
Feb 15 2005 10:25
Grace wrote:
Thora wrote:

Anyway, can't we all just get along?

As a member of CAG I would like to point out that, like Jack, I wouldn't have any problem with associating with the WOMBLES, Class War or whoever in situations where we agreed on the cause, and I do feel that the hostility between groups on enrager has got out of hand.

I am a member of CW. I don't think any of us have ever met any CAG members, and so on a "we speak as we find" basis have no reason to slag off CAG. (Gangsters ramblings on this site should be set aside for what they are, the ramblings of a lone maverick, that are noticeably never backed up by anyone else in the group)

If you succeed in setting up and maintaining a good class struggle group in your town, that is good news.

When you were setting up your action against the Queen's visit to Colchester however, you specifically ruled out working with Class War on these boards, by stating that you were looking for "anti-royal resources, but you did not want any Class War shit".

Things like that rather contradict the sentiments of your post above.

Will the real CAG please stand up?

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Feb 15 2005 10:32

This is what the thread is testing I think.

Quote:
Thank you Saii for your wise words. FFS! Who the hell do you think we are some immature 16 year old suburban skate punks!! For christ sake!

I was arguing from what I've heard of CAG's view of you, which seems to be summed up by saying that you have no depth to what you do. Other than that, I don't personally have much interest in the issue of your politics. I quite like the people I've met thus far who associate with the WOMBLES, I've heard some horror stories about certain members' attitudes when criticised (largely confirmed on this thread incidentally) but other than that I have little ability to make that call myself, hence arguing against their attitude in terms of their own position.

From what you've been writing here though you seem to have an incredibly mixed-up view of people. The idea that transitory social centres can have more than the most short-lived of effects for example is laughabe. You may well have brought people in the door and started debate, but any good influence you may have had in that community was gone the instant you left. People don't continue to hold faith in people who leave them.

That's not to say you deliberately did so, it's to point out the limitations of the squatted social centre as a concept. One thing CAG has got right, and you have not, is that they are staying in one place, with one community, and making a name for themselves there. That isn't localism disregarding every other issue, it's recognising that roots and trust can only be built over years of consistent effort.

Gav has pointed out the sheer crassness of suggesting that people who aren't total activists aren't somehow trying hard enough. I spoke last night to a guy from round my way who held that attitude for years, but discovered once he had a kid, a job and a life that it was actually bollocks. There are from what I can tell thousands of people all over the country with this view, the activists of less than a decade ago. They were hugely interested in building a libertarian community and lending a hand where they could, what they weren't interested in was leaving their child on its own while they spent all their free time being activists, or leaving it in a cold dirty squat.

Alan...

I'm not saying you have to sleep with these people, but they aren't going away and they will continue to be vocal. In all probability we'll have to deal with at least some of them for the next 20 years or so. Frankly I don't have the time, and neither should you, to be wasting on fermenting a pointless feud with them. Most of the 'class' recuits to this board are ex-wombles types in the first place ffs if you set up an artificial 'us' and 'them' mentality it will be harder to draw from that. Patience and a good attitude go a very long way under these circumstances.

Quote:
I think you're wrong about getting unions first. Totally wrong. As if there's a viable framework for lasting social change within the current union structure. The gains that can be made within that structure relate to the industries which they represent and as such, it's important to have them represented in the movement, but I fail to see why we should have to "woo" liberal unions.

You seem to have a very one-dimensional view of unionism here. Yes there are alot of liberals in unions but the crucial thing is that ALL the really useful left militants will be, or will have contacts in, the trade union system. They have resources, history and in some cases respect that will translate if we associate with them on actions and local issues. I'm not saying lick their arse, I'm saying engage with them and draw them into supporting us.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Feb 15 2005 11:16
gav wrote:
I think the absence of critiques of CAGs position has been quite telling.

I've not criticised CAG's politics because I *mostly agree with them*. What I really, really, dislike, is the way some people express their politics, which uneccessarily creates bad feeling. Like Thora said, it's one thing to talk like that down the pub with your mates, and quite another thing to say those things on a public message boards which we use for libertarian organising.

As I said before, the petty and self-satisfied way in which the critiques of scene activism have been expressed allows people to ignore their actual content.

raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Feb 15 2005 11:19
gav wrote:
raw wrote:
No, what I was saying was that people should look at participating in political action and not give "work" as an excuse for not parrticipating. i.e. viewing politics as only when it fits in a certain lifestyle. In the case of someone who see's work as getting in the way of participating politically, I suggest that they should re-prioritise how they want to spend their time and find ways to achieve it. This could be voluntary unemployement but I was by no means suggesting that this is the only way people can be involved in politics.
gav wrote:
I wasn’t gonna reply to this thread coz basically I couldn’t be arsed but this quote just pulled me out of my armchair. How you feel justified in saying this is amazing. I mean, let's say I'm an anarchist single mum who works eight to ten hours a day, do you still think I only view my politics as and when it fits into my lifestyle? I mean really mate, this is mental!

No I didn't mean that for christs sake! I was arguing against a view point of somepeople who see politics as a hobby, only when it fits into their life style. I was also describing as situation when someone views politics as something outside of their situation.

Sorry I didn't make my self clear and re-reading what I wrote, it isn't very clear.

gav wrote:
The fact that you don't see a problem with these sort of comments really shows the difference between activist politics and the kind of politics revol and Jack are talking about i.e. genuinely radical libertarian communism. Where you see political struggle as something which people have to fit into their schedule as they would time at the gym, a more radical approach would be a political praxis based in the everyday experience, struggles and desires of working class people.

Revol and jack, genuine radical libetarian communist? Yeah and I'm pissing in the wind, right? And on everyday experiences and desires of working class people, you mean us (collective 'us'), you talk of the working class as abstracted from yourself. Surely the "desires of working class people" means the desires of anyone who's working class, right?

Tell what that means, what are the desires of "working class people"? I know my desires, perhaps that of my friends, are they valid?

gav wrote:
Some people have now been stimulated to post their thoughts/critiques of the WOMBLES approach. I think the absence of critiques of CAGs position has been quite telling. One criticism has been to downplay the importance of their bus station campaign (calling it a bus stop, bus shelter, etc) in a very patronising way. This rejects the subjective experiences of working class people from Colchester, and the issues they are concerned with. Are they wrong? The other main criticism is to throw around comments like "localism" without providing any evidence for this.

The jibe against the bus station campaign was merly in keeping to CAG's level of "critique" and you could surely have read that.

Raw

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Feb 15 2005 11:26
Grace wrote:
surely minor differences in the anarchist *movement* should be accepted?

But they aren't minor differences, and as such they go to prove how there is no "movement", anarchist or otherwise. Generally speaking, CAG and WOMBLES do their own thing and the two don't cross, apart from when Jack is bored on Enrager. How exactly "we can work it out" is beyond me.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Feb 15 2005 11:29
LeonardfromLeominster wrote:
When you were setting up your action against the Queen's visit to Colchester however, you specifically ruled out working with Class War on these boards, by stating that you were looking for "anti-royal resources, but you did not want any Class War shit".

Things like that rather contradict the sentiments of your post above.

Will the real CAG please stand up?

Who said that?? Lemme, he begins with "J" and ends with "ack".

My only real exposure to CWF (Gangster's insanity excepted) has been through London Calling, which I thought was awful, and hearing of your proposed Toffbusters action, which I thought was even worse.

That said, most of the openly CWF members on here seem to post a lot of sense, which kinda belies the quality of your propaganda. confused

raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Feb 15 2005 11:30
Saii wrote:
From what you've been writing here though you seem to have an incredibly mixed-up view of people. The idea that transitory social centres can have more than the most short-lived of effects for example is laughabe. You may well have brought people in the door and started debate, but any good influence you may have had in that community was gone the instant you left. People don't continue to hold faith in people who leave them.

Yes this is a problem, when the social centre gets evicted but surely it's about continuing after your evicted. But anyway the people involved in the last social centre keep in touch by either coming to meetings or recieving emails from our mailing list.

Saii wrote:
That's not to say you deliberately did so, it's to point out the limitations of the squatted social centre as a concept. One thing CAG has got right, and you have not, is that they are staying in one place, with one community, and making a name for themselves there. That isn't localism disregarding every other issue, it's recognising that roots and trust can only be built over years of consistent effort.

Yeah and our 'community' is a city of 11 million people called london. I'm sure that even CAG members will leave colchester one day, to say that they will always be around is wishful thinking. And we have tried to stay in a geographical area (Stoke Newington/Hackney for 12 months, Camden/Kentish Town 10 months)...when you have people in your collective from all over europe (greece, spain, italy, france) living all over london, to fixate on where you live is difficult, especially when people move all the time, the only stability is via a squatted political space.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Feb 15 2005 11:34
Saii wrote:
Alan...

I'm not saying you have to sleep with these people, but they aren't going away and they will continue to be vocal. In all probability we'll have to deal with at least some of them for the next 20 years or so.

Like I said, the only real point of contact between myself and the WOMBLES would be this forum, and probably the odd evil down a corridor at annual anarchist knees ups.

Quote:
Most of the 'class' recuits to this board are ex-wombles types in the first place ffs if you set up an artificial 'us' and 'them' mentality it will be harder to draw from that. Patience and a good attitude go a very long way under these circumstances.

True, but it seems to me that this thread has shaped out quite well, in that Raw is getting huge bodies of criticism from several different angles, which was what he always called for.

Quote:
You seem to have a very one-dimensional view of unionism here. Yes there are alot of liberals in unions but the crucial thing is that ALL the really useful left militants will be, or will have contacts in, the trade union system. They have resources, history and in some cases respect that will translate if we associate with them on actions and local issues. I'm not saying lick their arse, I'm saying engage with them and draw them into supporting us.

Then we pretty much agree.

raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Feb 15 2005 11:39
alan_is_fucking_dead wrote:
True, but it seems to me that this thread has shaped out quite well, in that Raw is getting huge bodies of criticism from several different angles, which was what he always called for.

Very wishful thinking, that in no part lets any of you lot of for doing the states work, spreading rumours about my friends personal habits and calling us cops.

Like I said I prefer political critique and now I'm responding, if people want to settle for petty abusive mesages and accusations then I will respond to that of these boards.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Feb 15 2005 11:41
Quote:
Yeah and our 'community' is a city of 11 million people called london. I'm sure that even CAG members will leave colchester one day, to say that they will always be around is wishful thinking. And we have tried to stay in a geographical area (Stoke Newington/Hackney for 12 months, Camden/Kentish Town 10 months)...when you have people in your collective from all over europe (greece, spain, italy, france) living all over london, to fixate on where you live is difficult, especially when people move all the time, the only stability is via a squatted political space.

This is the BIG problem with your kind of politics from what I can see, it's entirely based on these constantly moving travellers, rather than on people who are going to stick to a community for years or decades. London is not a community of 11 million people, it is an urban bloc of thousands of different communities. CAG may or may not be planning to stay where they are permanently, but the point is they have nailed the idea that you don't just stay ten months here, twelve months there all over the shop chasing after an ever-moving circus of floating activists. it shouldn't matter where they live, it should matter where you live.

Quote:

Like I said, the only real point of contact between myself and the WOMBLES would be this forum, and probably the odd evil down a corridor at annual anarchist knees ups.

Don't talk shit Alan.

raw
Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Feb 15 2005 11:46
revol68 wrote:
I'm working class and i enjoy laughing at the WOMBLES and their misguided attempts to import social struggle that is removed from the desires and needs of the working class.

Now following your logic then working class desires and interests include laughing at the wombles, they do, but that isn't the point, i could have made the claim that I desire to shit on a stick and run after kids. Therefore there is obviously a need for distinction between the individual whims and wants of someone who happens to be working class and the working class as a social group.

Yes it follows that logic, so how can you reduce something has massive and diverse (which is the working class) to a "social group". Your looking at the working class as a hegemonic mass, with a defined set of desires. I'm asking you and Gav, what are the "desires of the working class"?

Topic locked