Critique of libcom.org
Apr 21 2006 17:42
Some interesting, and some amusing stuff on this thread. Only fair we share it with you lovely people.
anti-politics are probably getting pissed off with us talking about ourselves, so I'm inviting pilpil to continue the discussion over here since he's registered. Doubt the rest of the people on that thread will though.
Please, please don't turn this into a board war, keep comments on this thread rather than diving in on there if at all possible.
It starts 4-5 posts down.
http://anti-politics.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=933&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
Apr 21 2006 19:54
#2
They're actually just called the Socialist Party (the England and Wales comes because they're not active in Scotland because of the SSP) - SPEW is a joke by another Trot group.
Annoying tho, for about 3 years I thought they actually were that. 
Apr 21 2006 21:06
#3
Good grief, I just followed that link to that anti-politics forum. 
I take it is American based? I sometimes think LibCom forums can get a bit nasty and negative, but it was like having a vision of hell or something! Everybody calling each other the biggest bastards under the sun and no real dialogue - just attack and counter-attack. I guess the sort of post-situ, anti-organistional spontaneist scene is alive and kicking (fuck out of anybody who is a 'leftist anarchist' )in the US of A? 
I'm off to have a beer.
Apr 21 2006 23:37
#4
I was pretty annoyed so I posted, but I think I was quite reasonable.
I defended the blog, largely because they slagged it off and then used their unreasonable criticisms to attack John.
Apr 22 2006 01:30
#5
You were extremely reasonable.
Pilpil was onto something. LibCom is really taking off and I think everyone around here's been noticing it...
Apr 22 2006 07:57
#6
I hope I made it clear in the first post - pilpil's comments were very interesting and although I think he read a lot into one or two very quick comments people made, he's got some very good points.
OliverTwister, yeah there's been three or four massive jumps in traffic since September, although the past two months make the previous ones look almost insignificant.
For example this month we've already had as much traffic as June, July and August combined last year. That was initially just hits on the blog, but whoever it was looking at it some of them have stuck around elsewhere as well.
Apr 22 2006 09:03
#7
There's something buried on one of rth's posts which does emerge as slightly reasonable though (and it's about the only thing):
Quote:
ignore the current wave of repression hitting the USA
I have wondered why that hasn't come up here. It does look like the FBI have gone on the offensive again, but I've seen very little about it anywhere apart from hysterical crap and prisoner support stuff. What's not catching people's attention.
Apr 22 2006 09:51
#8
Bear in mind, the americans make enough noise without libcom's help, there's infoshop, indymedia etc. Personally I quite like to hear what's going on elsewhere as well, and I like that the news people (all two/three of them) go after stories which aren't all from the world's most media savvy country.
Course if you want to get more of the US stuff on here, you only have to contribute on the newswire...
Apr 22 2006 12:12
#9
ticking_fool wrote:
There's something buried on one of rth's posts which does emerge as slightly reasonable though (and it's about the only thing):Quote:
ignore the current wave of repression hitting the USAI have wondered why that hasn't come up here.
You seriously wonder why it hasn't come up here? Cos no one has posted it! I have now split related posts into a new thread in Current Affairs, and hey presto, it's now on here:
http://libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9587
We don't know exactly who "rth" is, he's almost certainly one of 3 people. I checked the websites for the projects he is involved in - londonsocialcentre, wombles and precarity, and there's no mention of it on there either, so I'm not sure on what grounds he's criticising us. He would also have been very welcome to post something on the forums or news.
Apr 22 2006 12:27
#10
Quote:
We don't know exactly who "rth" is
well partly going by your description, if it's who i think it might be (which i'd better not say in case i'm wrong), it's strange and a bit sad. he's such a nice politie thoughtful chap in real life.
Apr 22 2006 12:31
#11
Yeah lets not say who it is.
If they are serious they will take themselves seriously and say what they mean.
Apr 22 2006 12:38
#12
welll, nooo, i wasn't going to say... 
maybe it's not who i'm thinking about.
although i would say (and this statement is precautionary not reactive so nobody should take offence) that people really shouldn't generalise about the 'type of person' involved in stuff like londonsocialcentre. there are always one or two bad eggs in a lovely big box of... erm... tasty eggs.
(n.b. i am one of the latter 
)
still, whoever rth is, they're a bit over the top. some interesting thoughts otherwise
Apr 22 2006 12:39
#13
ftony wrote:
welll, nooo, i wasn't going to say...
yeah dont worry didnt think u were going to, just incase it cross someones mind.
Gotta do the sensible admin thing
Apr 22 2006 12:39
#14
ftony wrote:
welll, nooo, i wasn't going to say...maybe it's not who i'm thinking about.
although i would say (and this statement is precautionary not reactive) that people really shouldn't generalise about the 'type of person' involved in stuff like londonsocialcentre. there are always one or two bad eggs in a lovely big box of... erm... tasty eggs.
(n.b. i am one of the latter
Hey yeah of course we know that, don't worry! I mean I hope people wouldn't generalise about us because of Jack! 
Apr 22 2006 12:40
#15
Quote:
some interesting thoughts otherwise
on the forum in general, that is
Apr 22 2006 15:57
#16
McCormick wrote:
Good grief, I just followed that link to that anti-politics forum.
Many of the anti-politics regulars are from the US west coast and know each other personally.
Yes it can be pretty nasty although contentless insults of the sort Revol seems to specialise in here are not usually tolerated. However much of the nastiness stems from the fact that AP is not meant to be a generic anarchist forum. So when some primitivist or platformist shows up saying how crap the board is or why we should go back to the stone age or why I'm a scab (for not joining the union) they tend to cop a lot of shit. They usually go away after that.
If you're a leftist anarchist you won't like it and you won't be welcome so don't go there.
cheers
Pete
Apr 23 2006 00:37
#17
Who's stunted growth? He's got a bit of a weird stalker thing going there
Apr 23 2006 02:07
#18
Thora wrote:
Who's stunted growth? He's got a bit of a weird stalker thing going there
It's obviously someone we all know.
Apr 23 2006 04:12
#19
To be honest, I stopped reading after some halfwit referred to obesity, asthma, skin complaints, heart disease and cancer as "psychosomatic"
On the off chance that this genius is reading this, this indicates one of two things, either:
- You don't know what psychosomatic means or;
- You're a mentalist
[/]
Apr 23 2006 05:16
#20
Peter wrote:
McCormick wrote:
Good grief, I just followed that link to that anti-politics forum.Many of the anti-politics regulars are from the US west coast and know each other personally.
Yes it can be pretty nasty although contentless insults of the sort Revol seems to specialise in here are not usually tolerated. However much of the nastiness stems from the fact that AP is not meant to be a generic anarchist forum. So when some primitivist or platformist shows up saying how crap the board is or why we should go back to the stone age or why I'm a scab (for not joining the union) they tend to cop a lot of shit. They usually go away after that.
If you're a leftist anarchist you won't like it and you won't be welcome so don't go there.
cheers
Pete
what? Like your a gobshite poseur who has rushed to embrace a crude left communism?
Perhaps.
Apr 23 2006 10:19
#21
revol68 wrote:
what? Like your a gobshite poseur who has rushed to embrace a crude left communism?
Yes, a classic revolism.
Pete
Apr 23 2006 10:34
#22
revol68 wrote:
what? Like your a gobshite poseur who has rushed to embrace a crude left communism?Perhaps.
Come on now...
Thora - that stunted growth's not even a very good stalker. The stuff about that person's dad isn't even true!
Apr 23 2006 11:49
#23
um i've posted two crap replies on the thread re: the muggers. probably shouldn't have bothered, or at least put some thought into what i was saying 
nm
Apr 23 2006 11:56
#24
Thora wrote:
Who's stunted growth? He's got a bit of a weird stalker thing going there
Ah having just seen his latest post attempting to slag me off I see he's montevideo. He's used those exact same phrases to try to slag me off before. What an odd little fellow.
Apr 23 2006 11:57
#25
NB. montevideo is someone off U75 forums. For those of us who dont live on the internet
Apr 23 2006 13:19
#26
John. wrote:
Thora wrote:
Who's stunted growth? He's got a bit of a weird stalker thing going thereAh having just seen his latest post attempting to slag me off I see he's montevideo. He's used those exact same phrases to try to slag me off before. What an odd little fellow.
Well if he's monte, I can guess who rth is. And I know who blackbeard is too 
Apr 23 2006 13:21
#27
madashell wrote:
To be honest, I stopped reading after some halfwit referred to obesity, asthma, skin complaints, heart disease and cancer as "psychosomatic"On the off chance that this genius is reading this, this indicates one of two things, either:
- You don't know what psychosomatic means or;
- You're a mentalist
I try to read anti-politics, but mostly I find it too hard going. And that pro-child sex abuse thread really put me off them.
Admin - subsequent discussion split to here:
Apr 24 2006 15:21
#28
At the end of the day, some of these critiques are quite valid. The committee of nine are not elected into that position by a membership; two-thirds of them are independent and not subject to any recall from an 'organised' anarchist grouping. Being independent - you can say you're for this and for that and to certain extent be all things to all people. Now, I am NOT in any way saying this is a fact. But, it seems to me that if the independents cannot, in some way, be 'validated' the membership can never be sure that the information received by them, (through the joining process), isn't used for more sinister purposes. Not, that there is any way I am suggesting there is a plant amongst the committee of nine. Just that the structure is so loose, and without the usual checks and balances, that it could be infiltrated.
Of course, if all the 'leading names', ie; Nick (AF), ??(SF), ??(CW) etc are happy with the structure and the six of the committee of nine, then I am sure that us mere members would be satisfied as to it's integrity. But to get the 'leading names' to agree...
Apr 24 2006 15:27
#29
PissedOnceMore wrote:
The committee of nine are not elected into that position by a membership; two-thirds of them are independent and not subject to any recall from an 'organised' anarchist grouping. Being independent - you can say you're for this and for that and to certain extent be all things to all people. Now, I am NOT in any way saying this is a fact. But, it seems to me that if the independents cannot, in some way, be 'validated' the membership can never be sure that the information received by them, (through the joining process), isn't used for more sinister purposes. Not, that there is any way I am suggesting there is a plant amongst the committee of nine. Just that the structure is so loose, and without the usual checks and balances, that it could be infiltrated.
You don't seem to understand how the group of us that run the site are organised. None of us are elected by any anarchist organisations, some of us are in anarchist organisations and some of us aren't. We are a closed group with a directly democratic structure, the only way someone can join the group is with the agreement of the existing members so we're not really vunerable to be infiltrated by anyone. I think it's quite clear that we don't use the information we get when people register on the forums for sinister purposes (the only info we get is an e-mail address anyway!).
Apr 24 2006 15:29
#30
PissedOnceMore wrote:
At the end of the day, some of these critiques are quite valid. The committee of nine are not elected into that position by a membership; two-thirds of them are independent and not subject to any recall from an 'organised' anarchist grouping.
But that's not the critique anyonr has made here. Apart from you.
Quote:
Being independent - you can say you're for this and for that and to certain extent be all things to all people. Now, I am NOT in any way saying this is a fact. But, it seems to me that if the independents cannot, in some way, be 'validated' the membership can never be sure that the information received by them, (through the joining process), isn't used for more sinister purposes. Not, that there is any way I am suggesting there is a plant amongst the committee of nine. Just that the structure is so loose, and without the usual checks and balances, that it could be infiltrated.
How exactly is a tight and closed group easier to infiltrate than an open one?
What details could we even 'harvest' if we wanted to? Peoples email addresses?
Quote:
Of course, if all the 'leading names', ie; Nick (AF), ??(SF), ??(CW) etc are happy with the structure and the six of the committee of nine, then I am sure that us mere members would be satisfied as to it's integrity. But to get the 'leading names' to agree...
Well, I think the fact that AF and SF host their websites here, and AF, SF and CW all host their forums here kinda implies they at least don't hate us.
But that's not even the point - libcom isn't a resource than 'belongs to the movement' or any such utopian liberal shite. It's a website with certain specific aims and objectives. There is a group that set it up (well, 7 of us - 2 joined later) and who run the site. We don't claim to be anything else, nor do we want to be. We're accountable to each other and the group as a whole. Others help out, and are appreciated, as are all the people who post on the forums. But when it comes down to it, libcom is a website operating within a captialist society; not a fucking workers council.
There was some interesting critique of socialnerve.com in the anti-politics thread (i.e. that they some to be run by some authoritarian group which is not upfront about their politics).
Did some research - it links to both 'hands off venezuela' and 'in defense of marxism' (of course, it also links to Haymarket Books [ISO] and World Can't Wait [RCP]...)
As an aside, does J. K. Rowling know that there is actually a trot group named SPEW?
