Why this article has been removed?

480 posts / 0 new
Last post
Blasto
Offline
Joined: 17-11-10
Oct 12 2011 15:39


Quote:
another note: libcom is doing an far better job outing j to his bosses than tptg,

There are three different things going on which it might be useful to pull apart:

Anonymity
Libcom has an privacy policy, and I think everyone on this thread has respected that as far as they can, but it is evidently not fully possible in this instance.

Substantiation
Making unsubstantiated claims would absolutely have been out of order. Also having been accused of not reading Js work as well has having the nature of that work disputed by Aufheben inevitably leads to links to papers, publications and even his own words substantiating TPTGs concerns over his involvement in designing policing "interventions". Even just providing quotes from articles reveals the author - pop the quote in a search engine and ba-boom.

"Outing"
J has published work in his own name in academic journals which describe his involvement in the left and in direct action. I linked to one an earlier post. His politics were therefore in no way a secret from anyone, least of all academics. Infact he had gone to some length to show how his being in and of the left gave him a particular advantage in his research of crowds. So the whole accusation of "outing" and "acting like right wing press" seems to me a total red herring and just an attempt to rubbish the argument.

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Oct 12 2011 15:43

Meinberg, fair play, should probably go back and do that.. but people forget that this isn't our job, we do this in our spare time, between work, family responsibilities and the rest of our lives.. it'd genuinely be really great if people just did that off the bat..

Piter, seriously, I get your point (and you're probably right that it's different), but to be honest I find it kind of ironic (not in the insulting way, just in the way that sometimes shit jumps out at you) that with my comment you're all "ah, well, that's a fundamentally different kettle of fish coz of x, y and z" whereas with this stuff with J there's zero nuance and he's just teaching cops how to put down protest!

I'm not trying to fling mud at you and say you're doing the work of the right-wing press, I'm just drawing similarities.. so let's not feign this "I'm so shocked you would talk about me this way" nonsense and deal with the issue at hand.. which I feel I've done quite well (not wanting to be big-headed like), but do you have any more questions?

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Oct 12 2011 16:37
Quote:
I don't have a clue about why they are doing this. But in my opinion, political pointscoring happens all over the left and ultra-left.. people talk shit about each other, take a personal disliking to people and dress it up as political, pass on and exaggerate gossip, whatever..

Why take a personal disliking to a group and one of its members at the other end of the continent though? Does the TPTG know Aufheben members close enough personally to take a personal disliking of them?

Quote:
TPTG being serious and seasoned militants doesn't change this. I know serious militants who have serious beef with other serious militants that I know that stretches back to the 1980s (or further back even).. there's nothing about being a serious militant that means you can't act like a twat sometimes as well

What I'm trying to say is that I know them and don't think they would do something like this for any petty reason or simply based on gossip.

Quote:
This isn't to say it's definitely malicious on TPTG's part, it could be any number of things like language or whatever else..

Well, perhaps you aren't at least definitely saying that but a lot of people seem to be.

Quote:
but to say that they do lots of great work in Greece doesn't say anything about this imo..

Maybe it shouldn't but to an extent it does or perhaps some think it would. For those who defend Aufheben try explaining the reason by portraying the TPTG as "an ultra-left group", which is in a "tiny milieu", saying this is why they did this because this insignificant amount of people like gossiping among themselves. This is, consciously or unconsciously, an attempt to discredit the TPTG's claim by portraying them as something they are not, and neglecting what they actually are. And of course, it is much easy to say that this is smear when it's coming from a "tiny, isolated ultra-left sect" than when it is coming from a group of militants very active and experienced in the struggle in Greece, not at all isolated but quite the contrary even influential with the general anti-Stalinist/Trotskyist milieu in that country.

Fall Back's picture
Fall Back
Offline
Joined: 22-09-03
Oct 12 2011 17:14

Leo - I think you're taking "ultra-left" in the negative sense here. I meant it in the positive sense. Same as I'd call End Notes, TC or Wildcat ultra-left - it's not an insult or pretending they are something they are not.

Tiny mileau is simply a statement of fact - we're talking, what, 100 people max worldwide here. Obviously this is tiny. Even compared to the (small!) standards of revolutionary groupings, this is incredibly small.

And I never referred to them as "isolated" or a "sect".

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Oct 12 2011 17:37
Quote:
Our opinion is that it is. TPTG made no attempt to contact Aufheben. When they contacted third parties who were aware of the facts, (who weren't exactly friends with Aufheben) they were told this was known and that several details were wrong. Several facts contained within the piece were explicitly corrected. However, there is no mention of any of this – not even to dispute the validity of denials.

This really stands out.

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Oct 12 2011 17:55
Quote:
Leo - I think you're taking "ultra-left" in the negative sense here.

It is almost universally used in the negative sense.

Quote:
I meant it in the positive sense. Same as I'd call End Notes, TC or Wildcat ultra-left - it's not an insult or pretending they are something they are not.

I don't think they define themselves as ultra-left or are particularly close to TC (although they have good relations with the Wildcat group in Germany if I recall correctly).

Quote:
Tiny mileau is simply a statement of fact - we're talking, what, 100 people max worldwide here. Obviously this is tiny. Even compared to the (small!) standards of revolutionary groupings, this is incredibly small.

Except they see themselves as a part of a quite large milieu in Greece, what is called the anti-authoritarian milieu. In their open letter they describe themselves as an "anti-authoritarian communist group", and more specifically I know that they see themselves as the communist wing of the Greek anti-authoritarian movement.

Quote:
And I never referred to them as "isolated" or a "sect".

Well, I wasn't trying to talk about what anyone said specifically but more generally the tone and its implications.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Oct 12 2011 18:02
Quote:
So the whole accusation of "outing" and "acting like right wing press" seems to me a total red herring and just an attempt to rubbish the argument. the left gave him a particular advantage in his research of crowds. So the whole accusation of "outing" and "acting like right wing press" seems to me a total red herring and just an attempt to rubbish the argument.

It's not quite the same thing, but given that recent "outing" articles have included direct quotes from libcom, iirc, it is pertinant to any discussion of anonymity on here.

The less personal information a passing hack can pick up from here, the better.

Fall Back's picture
Fall Back
Offline
Joined: 22-09-03
Oct 12 2011 18:35
Leo wrote:
It is almost universally used in the negative sense.

not on libcom - in fact, I'd go so far as to say that anyone using it negatively on here would be roundly mocked.

I already posted describing Aufheben as ultra-left, in a post defending them, so given these contexts, I'm honestly not sure where you'd get the idea that it was meant negatively.

Quote:
I don't think they define themselves as ultra-left or are particularly close to TC (although they have good relations with the Wildcat group in Germany if I recall correctly).

I think it's pretty much uncontroversial they exist as a broad international mileau - they have summer camps together and they have even historically published stuff together (the mileau rather than TPTG - iirc this was before TPTG were really on the scene) - http://libcom.org/library/aufheben/pamphlets-articles/stop-the-clock-critiques-of-the-new-social-workhouse

"Ultra-left mileau" is as good a descriptor for that mileau as any - and certainly it's the most commonly used.

Quote:
Except they see themselves as a part of a quite large milieu in Greece, what is called the anti-authoritarian milieu. In their open letter they describe themselves as an "anti-authoritarian communist group", and more specifically I know that they see themselves as the communist wing of the Greek anti-authoritarian movement.

I don't see the relevance of this. I obviously wasn't talking about their role within Greece. Internationally, they are part of this broad, loosely defined current. If I described you as being part of the small left communist mileau, you wouldn't go off about how you see yourself as the communist wing of the Turkish workers movement (or whatever), would you? How they see themselves in Turkey is utterly irrelevant in the context of what I said.

Quote:
Well, I wasn't trying to talk about what anyone said specifically but more generally the tone and its implications.

Well, you said "tiny, isolated ultra-left sect". In double quotation marks. Alongside things I'd actually said. Which Implies that's what I called them, or implied that they were, which I didn't.

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Oct 12 2011 21:42
Quote:
not on libcom - in fact, I'd go so far as to say that anyone using it negatively on here would be roundly mocked.

I already posted describing Aufheben as ultra-left, in a post defending them, so given these contexts, I'm honestly not sure where you'd get the idea that it was meant negatively.

It's a reflex of being accused of it more than often I suppose.

Quote:
I think it's pretty much uncontroversial they exist as a broad international mileau - they have summer camps together and they have even historically published stuff together (the mileau rather than TPTG - iirc this was before TPTG were really on the scene) - http://libcom.org/library/aufheben/pamphlets-articles/stop-the-clock-critiques-of-the-new-social-workhouse

I don't think the TPTG can explicitly be considered a part of that specific milieu. They are quite critical of some of these groups, at least not just Aufheben but TC as well.

Quote:
"Ultra-left mileau" is as good a descriptor for that mileau as any - and certainly it's the most commonly used.

I am not sure whether its the most commonly used, as I said it is something I've most commonly seen used as a slur.

Quote:
I don't see the relevance of this. I obviously wasn't talking about their role within Greece. Internationally, they are part of this broad, loosely defined current. If I described you as being part of the small left communist mileau, you wouldn't go off about how you see yourself as the communist wing of the Turkish workers movement (or whatever), would you? How they see themselves in Turkey is utterly irrelevant in the context of what I said.

Well yes but surely there is a difference. We of course as well as the TPTG, libcom, the better anarchists etc. all see themselves as a part of the revolutionary wing of the working class. My organization sees itself in general as a part of the communist left, and we see the communist left as a part of the general revolutionary milieu internationally.

Yet we in Turkey are politically isolated: even our most basic positions opposing parliamentarianism, trade-unions, nationalism and national liberation are still so new that even the majority of the local anarchists have a hard time swallowing them and they regard not just us but the small minority of anarchists who have similar positions in the same way the Stalinists and the Trotskyists do, in other words as "ultra left sectarians" even though these are not the terms the anarchists use. So the general revolutionary political milieu which we consider ourselves a part of here in Turkey is itself extremely small and isolated.

Yet this is not the situation in Greece. The TPTG not only consider themselves to be but practically are a part of a not at all a small political milieu. And compared to the what they call the "anti-authoritarian" milieu in Greece, not only is what we consider the revolutionary milieu in Turkey very small, but so is the one in England which is much bigger than the one in Turkey. So regardless of their affiliations internationally, which I don't think can be defined as a part of a network of TC etc. anyway, these people are not isolated and operate in a very wide milieu.

Quote:
Well, you said "tiny, isolated ultra-left sect". In double quotation marks. Alongside things I'd actually said. Which Implies that's what I called them, or implied that they were, which I didn't.

Fair enough, I should have been clearer.

whatisinevidence
Offline
Joined: 10-10-11
Oct 12 2011 22:32

Let's go back to what Aufheben wrote:

Quote:
As TPTG know, The talks to the ‘policing major incidents’ meeting, the CBRN centre, and Civil Contingencies Secretariat were each about his research on mass emergencies. They were part of the dissemination of his research to the emergency services and other relevant organizations that he is expected to do as part of his work at the university. The ‘blue light services’ work closely together; and so talking about emergencies means probably talking to cops as well as the others. His University encouraged this, and it would have looked odd to refuse to communicate with the cops. So he accepted this as a small cost of the overall job of research work... This argument provides a possible justification for emergency response strategies prioritizing communication and provision of information (lack of which survivors find distressing and frustrating) over control. He stands by this research work as worthwhile and even humane.

According to Aufheben, J.D. does research and presentations for the state (including the police; the "probably" is insulting) about how to respond to crowds during emergencies. Further, J.D. "stands by this research work" for the state as "worthwhile and even humane".

Does anything else need to be said?

Jason Cortez
Offline
Joined: 14-11-04
Oct 12 2011 22:35

A civil servant would do the same, what is your point?

Blasto
Offline
Joined: 17-11-10
Oct 12 2011 23:29
Jason Cortez wrote:
A civil servant would do the same, what is your point?

I mean no offence at all, but I am a bit at a loss with some of the comments on this thread. Has the concept of recuperation gone out of fashion or something? Is being self-critical no longer considered de rigueur? Is the phrase "the revolution starts from within" just too flares and kipper ties?

There are jobs and there are jobs. Most of us accept that in order to exist in this reality we reproduce our own alienation. But reproduce our own repression?

It seems that it is only because either (a) J is an academic or (b) Aufheben say so, that some people think this acceptable - a "small cost" for his research as Aufheben put it. So just what exactly is his research worth to Aufheben then, that they consider it justifies training cops?

It is insanity that people are so stridently defending this. Would you train cops? Has everyone just gone utterly soft in the head to think this is okay? Perhaps as well as a critique of academia, an explanation of the role of the police needs a brushing off?

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Oct 12 2011 23:31
Blasto wrote:
So just what exactly is his research worth to Aufheben then, that they consider it justifies training cops?

Mate, this has already been covered, he doesn't train cops..

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Oct 12 2011 23:36
Juan Conatz wrote:
Quote:
Our opinion is that it is. TPTG made no attempt to contact Aufheben. When they contacted third parties who were aware of the facts, (who weren't exactly friends with Aufheben) they were told this was known and that several details were wrong. Several facts contained within the piece were explicitly corrected. However, there is no mention of any of this – not even to dispute the validity of denials.

This really stands out.

I second this.

and to go back to the right wing press analogy. Well. Has the man had a fair trial? or has he had a trial by parochial ultra-leftist social media? I don't think it would have matter one iota to the larger outcome (assuming he is 'guilty' for whatever), if he had been given a chance to have his say before this was spattered all over the internet...

Blasto
Offline
Joined: 17-11-10
Oct 13 2011 10:05

Sorry - double post.

Blasto
Offline
Joined: 17-11-10
Oct 13 2011 10:03
Ed wrote:
Blasto wrote:
So just what exactly is his research worth to Aufheben then, that they consider it justifies training cops?

Mate, this has already been covered, he doesn't train cops..

According to Aufheben he does, probably. As has been pointed out, describing an event called ‘policing major incidents' as probably involving the police is a tad disingenuous.

Quote:
I'm not sure if you've noticed this but the talk he gave was on mass emergencies, not crowd control on protests. His research into the way crowds behave was used by others who do try to get the police to follow their methods...

And these 'others' don't include the police themselves? Isn't being being trained in crowd psychology simply just that, regardless of what 'humane' packaging you wrap it in? If J and Aufheben want to justify it by hanging is on a "mass emergencies" hook, then isn't that just another example of extremely poor judgement?

And publishing research in academic journals about the behaviour of protestors in conflict with the police - who does that serve? The protestors? No. So who exactly? Surely there are much better ways to make a living?

This was the point of my post – isn't a degree of self-criticism important? Isn't an understanding of recuperation? And if a person can't be self-critical, and their close circle can't be critical, then don't be surprised when others are.

As I have said, I have no beef with Aufheben in any other respect - they have contributed some superb analysis, and the same goes for Libcom. I have rarely posted but frequently read the blogs, which are invaluable. But this issue is something that they and libcom refuse to even recognise as problematic. Their absolute rebuttal and response to those who have raised concerns is honestly deeply concerning.

Blasto
Offline
Joined: 17-11-10
Oct 13 2011 10:04

Sorry - triple post. Libcom is running VERY slow.

ocelot's picture
ocelot
Offline
Joined: 15-11-09
Oct 13 2011 10:22
Ed wrote:
ocelot wrote:
But on a practical level, lets take the example of informers recruited by Brit intelligence in the Six Counties in the late 60s and early 70s, as told in Fred Holroyd's book and others.

How on earth could it be practical to draw on British counter-insurgency during The Troubles in this instance? That's absolutely bonkers..

We're not limiting ourselves to this instance. We're talking about the general question of whether or not the subjective aims of people interacting with state forces determine the social reality of their actions. Which is pefectly relevant to distinguishing between what Stott thinks he's trying to do with his work with the police, and what the police are actually getting out of that work - i.e. intel on how to make their public order policing more effective (which is what Aufheben are specifically denying, btw).

Ed wrote:
Moreover, you've missed the point and added a confusing dialogue which seems to fuse J and this Stott character together..

You clearly missed the part where I said I was reducing the problem space to Reicher, Stott & co, and leaving the question of J's relationship to their work, to one side. As previously mentioned, Stott did join in the TSDC and various football fan groups as an "insider" participant in the pursuit of his research. The only "fusion" element is the invocation of the Aufheben excuse given - in the section where they defend Stott and Reicher's work, not J's , N.B. - of "too many mediations".

Ed wrote:
yeah, of course we (as in all of us in this discussion) are critical of Stott and his piece and probably wouldn't invite him to political meetings because he is a liberal academic (and plays the function of the liberal academic).. however, why would we even invite him to a meeting? Why would he want to come?

It appears that some of us in this discussion, at least initially, accepted the defence of Stott in the Aufheben reply, at face value. So no, there is no agreement on that, and that's the point I'm focusing on, because it's a straightforward political question that has nothing to do with the charges and counter-charges around what J may or may not have been involved with (about which I know nothing specific).

Secondly, my problem's with Stott are nothing to with essentialist or ontological questions about his being a "liberal academic". I don't have problems with lots of liberal academics who do research on plant life, art history, cancer, 19th century socialist literature, etc, etc. My attitude towards Stott would be unchanged as to whether he was a liberal, a conservative, or a bnp-voting racist (he's not). The contents of his head do not concern me, rather the consequences of his actions. That's what I take as basic for any materialist politics.

So the whole "sure we don't like him because he's a liberal" position is actually evading the central point. Do you accept that the work of people like him, who gather research as participants, from the inside of movements, and then process that research and pass it on to the police, via seminars, texts and trainings, is aiding the police in evolving their counter-protest policing or not? And if not, why not, in the face of the evidence, already alluded to, of specific tactical advice coming from these academics and being deployed against us by the police in identifiable protest events?

The underlying issue here is the tendency of people who elaborate sophisticated politics in "peacetime" - i.e. in conditions free from any stress - to revert to unthinking or opportunistic politics at the first sight of trouble. Given that politics effectively only really matters in whether people make the right decisions or the wrong decisions in the most desperate situations, only "politics under fire" is real politics. In this case, under the relatively minor stress of a perceived online threat to a friend and comrade, people involved in Aufheben and Libcom both, apparently, have come out with some completely untenable politics in their somewhat panicked efforts at defence. If you can't even hold a proper political line under relatively minor stress, what chance have you got when people really are being killed or jailed forever? Worse still, experience teaches that some people are so lame that rather than admit that some of the things they said under stress, were a mistake and/or politically absurd, they then spend the rest of their days trying to rearrange their political frameworks to retrospectively justify hastily adopted opportunistic positions, forced on them by the contigencies of the moment. (look at the Bordigists for example - Bordiga chose to stop fighting against Mussolini, rather than go into exile, now all bordigist believe that fighting against fascists is objectively counter-revolutionary in any and all situations, including Spain 1936 for e.g.). Hopefully the people involved are bigger than that, and will learn the lessons and move on. That's all I have to say on this matter.

no1
Offline
Joined: 3-12-07
Oct 13 2011 11:01
ocelot wrote:
The contents of his head do not concern me, rather the consequences of his actions. That's what I take as basic for any materialist politics.

That's precisely the thing you're not getting. You assume that Stott's advice gives the police some sort of powerful psychological mind control techniques. However that's not the case. Stott's advice would be useful to the police in a world where the function of the police is to facilitate peaceful protest. We don't live in such a world. In the actual world we live in, his work is useless to the police.

Blasto
Offline
Joined: 17-11-10
Oct 13 2011 11:14
no1 wrote:
ocelot wrote:
The contents of his head do not concern me, rather the consequences of his actions. That's what I take as basic for any materialist politics.

That's precisely the thing you're not getting. You assume that Stott's advice gives the police some sort of powerful psychological mind control techniques. However that's not the case. Stott's advice would be useful to the police in a world where the function of the police is to facilitate peaceful protest. We don't live in such a world. In the actual world we live in, his work is useless to the police.

So when we read this,

Quote:
These ideas have already transformed policing in several European countries through the team’s consultancy, led by Dr Stott. The researchers conclude that, if implemented in the UK, they would be equally effective in minimising crowd violence here.

it's just them fantasising? Phew!

Fall Back's picture
Fall Back
Offline
Joined: 22-09-03
Oct 13 2011 11:21

Just to clarify the mass emergencies stuff here, as I suspect people are unlikely to read the original dry academic research papers. As far as I understand it, a brief abstract is thus:

Conventional wisdom in emergency situations is that crowds in mass emergencies (such as 7/7 or natural disasters) is they are a panic-stricken mob. J's research sees this as incorrect and that in reality they are characterises more by mutual support and reason. The view of the mob is problematic as it shows the crowds as part of the problem - contrary to this, J's research suggest they can be part of the solution. an example would be that J would advocate in emergencies that getting up communications with and amongst survivors is of prime importance in resolving the emergency situation, rather than delaying this until 'order' has been 'restored' - ie not treating crowds in mass emergencies as a public order situation at all.

J addressed emergency services about this. This would have included police - they have a fairly major role in disaster response. Now, if you think any contact with the police, ever, in any context is unacceptable, then sure, you're going to object. You aren't going to be convinced. But for the rest of us, I honestly don't think there's much to object to in delivering a lecture where he told various emergency services that they shouldn't see survivors in emergencies as part of the problem. It's not radical or communist in any way - but then, J isn't a 'radical academic' - he is a radical who happens to be an academic.

no1
Offline
Joined: 3-12-07
Oct 13 2011 11:30
Blasto wrote:
So when we read this,
Quote:
These ideas have already transformed policing in several European countries through the team’s consultancy, led by Dr Stott. The researchers conclude that, if implemented in the UK, they would be equally effective in minimising crowd violence here.

it's just them fantasising? Phew!

It's from a university PR statement, what do you expect them to say? That academic research is a waste of time and money, and that noone gives a crap about it?

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Oct 13 2011 11:41

Can people also please stop peddling the lie that Aufheben defend Stott & Reicher's work. They emphatically reject it. Three times. Twice of those in bold. What they do say is you need to understand what it says: Stott & Reicher are trying to pacify the police by persuading them to facilitate crowd aims (and addressing them on the police's terms to do so, which jars if you hate the cops). This cannot possibly pacify the class struggle, because the police aren't going to facilitate class struggle. This is because contrary to the liberal wordview, the police's role is to enforce the rule of the capitalist state, not be servants of universal human rights and facilitators of non-violent social change (jesus, liberalism laugh out loud ). Of course I suspect most of the critics haven't read, let alone understood the paper and related literature before passing judgement. But if you do, you need to understand what Stott & Reicher's project is (i.e. liberal reformism trying to soften policing), otherwise you'll miss the point. And one more time for the hard of thinking, saying you should understand something is not a 'defence' of it.

More generally, it's hard to take most of the questions here in good faith. If people have genuine questions for Aufheben, why are they being speculated about on an internet forum rather than, you know, asking those questions of Aufheben? If people are acting in good faith, maybe that would be more productive than joining in with those whose agenda is otherwise.

Shorty's picture
Shorty
Offline
Joined: 13-06-05
Oct 13 2011 12:21
no1 wrote:
In the actual world we live in, his work is useless to the police.

So useless that he is "Director of the Football Match Commander Training Course at the Scottish National Police Training College."

from http://www.liv.ac.uk/Psychology/staff/cstott.html

I want to come back to the other points later as I'm going to reread the letter, the response and the article itself.

What still gets me is the idea that police tactics haven't changed over the last 2 to 3 decades and that academia has had no influence on said changes in police tactics.

Fall Back's picture
Fall Back
Offline
Joined: 22-09-03
Oct 13 2011 12:36
Quote:
What still gets me is the idea that police tactics haven't changed over the last 2 to 3 decades and that academia has had no influence on said changes in police tactics.

Thinking the work of specific academics is unrealistic, based on false premises and idealist isn't the same as saying academia has no effect. And even if someone did think this, I don't see how you get from this to read it as "policing tactics haven't changed over the last 2 or 3 decades".

Tbh tho, the entire tangent is ridiculous. Aufheben and J clearly and unambiguously reject the work. In the context of discussing a piece labelling J as a cop collaborator, whether Aufheben think some research that they reject is practically applicable is basically irrelevant.

Fall Back's picture
Fall Back
Offline
Joined: 22-09-03
Oct 13 2011 12:56
Leo wrote:
I don't think the TPTG can explicitly be considered a part of that specific milieu. They are quite critical of some of these groups, at least not just Aufheben but TC as well.

So? ICT are more than "quite critical" of ICC for example. They're still in the same mileau. No one is claiming they're a politically unified formal political tendancy - hence, I used the word mileau.

Quote:
I am not sure whether its the most commonly used, as I said it is something I've most commonly seen used as a slur.

To be honest, you've posted on the site for over 5 years. I'd have thought by now you should have picked up that on a site explicitly influenced by the ultra-left, with a poster who has *in the same thread* used the term positively that you can take the "it's usually a slur" line. It's like me taking issue with you calling them communist, since that term is 'mostly used' to refer to Stalinism.

Sorry if you don't like the term - but as I said, it is by far the most common term for that broad mileau - you are the only person here who thought I was using it as an insult. That suggests the problem lies in your interpretation.

The rest of your post has absolutely no baring on what I said. You're talking about entirely separate issues. Perhaps it's a language thing, as you've made an issue of English not being your first language. Either way, I don't think there's any point discussing these points further - I think the meaning is clear, and the way you have presented it is completely inaccurate, but I hope I've cleared it up now.

Shorty's picture
Shorty
Offline
Joined: 13-06-05
Oct 13 2011 13:27

It was more "academia has influenced the change in police tactics". And it would appear the unrealistic, idealist and based on false premises work of Stott has influenced it.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Oct 13 2011 14:07

Isn't slamming Stott a bit pointless though, given that a) he's not a communist b) he's not in or associated with Aufheben and they specifically reject his work?

no1
Offline
Joined: 3-12-07
Oct 13 2011 14:18
Shorty wrote:
no1 wrote:
In the actual world we live in, his work is useless to the police.

So useless that he is "Director of the Football Match Commander Training Course at the Scottish National Police Training College."

from http://www.liv.ac.uk/Psychology/staff/cstott.html

OK, you're right, I phrased that badly, but let me try again: in the actual world we live in, his work is useless when it comes to police repression of working class struggle.

I don't think football is a form of working class struggle, and I don't think policing of football matches is a form of repression. Do you think it is? If Stott trained police in effective ways of arresting rapists, or of solving cases of arson attacks, etc - would that be the same thing as collaboration with state repression in your opinion?

In any case, none of this has got anything to do with J or Aufheben, except for the fact that they reject Stott's project.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Oct 13 2011 14:36
no1 wrote:
I don't think football is a form of working class struggle, and I don't think policing of football matches is a form of repression. Do you think it is? If Stott trained police in effective ways of arresting rapists, or of solving cases of arson attacks, etc - would that be the same thing as collaboration with state repression in your opinion?

Policing of football matches is often pretty horrible, treating everyone with suspicion, coralling people like cattle etc. Fairly repressive in fact. Of course Stott's a football fan (iirc), which is why he tries to persuade the police to be nicer (see his stuff on Portugal). I'm not sure what the police not deploying riot police against fans until there's actually a riot has to do with pacifying the class struggle, or Aufheben, J or anything really though. Hence Aufheben's claim that it's politically irrelevant.