Why this article has been removed?

The ICC and the ICT adhere to the same political tradition, and their differences are on far less basic issues than those of TC, Aufheben, TPTG etc.

I have posted on this site for however many years but not that much. Most of my internet posting I've done on revleft and most of my political activity I've done in Turkey. Libcom never really formed that big a part of my political life to be honest.

Libcom is, of course, lib(ertarian) com(munism). It is not called ultra-leftism. Besides, ultra-left as far as I know originated as a slur.

It sounds like a detergent brand.

I obviously disagree. I don't think the specific "ultra-left" international milieu they are characterized to be inside (which to my knowledge they don't characterize themseves to be a part) has got anything to do with the whole thing and also I think that they are not in anyway an isolated group. Otherwise, of course, most of the rest of my own points in this thread haven't been answered - and I ain't complaining.

On the ultra-left thing yes, you've cleared it up and thank you. Even if, however, we consider them to be a part of that specific milieu it doesn't have any relevance to the point nor answers the question why they did it, nor does it in any way point to them being an isolated group.

I am not trying to be mischievous, but your description of the mass emergency theory struck me as familiar, and of course it would be as it is from the same researcher. Would the following characterise key aspects of related research into crowd psychology and demonstrations:

Conventional wisdom in protest situations is that crowds in demonstrations (such as G20 or anti-austerity protests) are an unruly mob. X's research sees this as incorrect and that in reality they are characterised 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, X's research suggest they can be part of the solution. An example would be that X would advocate in demonstrations that getting up communications with and amongst protestors is of prime importance in resolving the public order situation, rather than delaying this until 'order' has been 'restored' - ie not treating crowds in demonstrations as a public order situation at all.

I'm not taking the mick, I'm just trying to make a serious point.

And no I would not suggest that people have no contact with the police at all. I was 'first on scene' at a fairly horrible accident recently and had quite a lot to do with the police (a mini-mass emergency, if you like) in to trying to get medical aid to various people involved (the first police who arrived, by sheer chance, didn't even know where they were!). But what I didn't do was offer them an insight into how to co-opt crowds into self-policing.

I love libcom when everyone has to triple-check each word to ensure it can't be misinterpreted, but I guess that's what happens with smears like Aufheben-gate.

Yes sure. My point was that, since policing football matches isn't a form of political repression, evidence of an academic collaborating with cops on policing football matches cannot be used as evidence against my claim that this academic's work is useless for police tactics of political repression. Hence Aufheben's claim stands that Stott's work is "politically irrelevant, rather than practically or ideologically damaging".

hum...emphatically in bold or whatever, in their answer they do it in very ambiguous way to say the least...

I mean, to say it's harmless is defending it in a way, because it is not harmless. so saying it is is a way to defend it.
the fact that they say it is harmless doesn't mean it is, it just mean that they have a poor judgement concerning it.

They say "we obviously reject fully the liberal-reformist assumptions, language and aims of the paper." How in the hell is that in any way ambiguous?

Have you actually read it out of interest?

I read the parts posted here and some parts following links from here.
and I think it is not harmless and that pretending it is is a mistake.

well with respect, i don't think you really know what you're talking about. the parts posted here are a series of decontextualised quotes, and it's foolish to form an opinion based on that. of course that's what TPTG are relying on. who can be bothered to read an academic paper? and even then, who can be bothered to further familiarise themselves with Stott/Reicher's project to pacify the police to put the paper in the context of the reformist agenda it represents? So everyone just carries on opining about things on which they are - quite literally - ignorant. It's like writing a book review based on some extracts someone else reads to you.

I'm still not convinced.

many objections can be made (on the basis of the texts, of Aufeben answer to TPTG, of what you and others are saying here to defend J).

one for exemple. you say that :

well defending a project of pacifying the police (and the project is also to pacify the protestors) through crowd control/crowd psychology is not harmless.

anyway liberal reformists are not harmless. they are opposing proletarian class struggles and are political opponents. and you know that.

to be perfectly honest i'm not sure how to have a rational conversation with someone who insists on passing judgement on things they haven't read. although i suppose it's honest of you to tacitly admit reading it couldn't possibly change your mind, which is obviously made up.

here you go again, talking about something which you haven't read. i suspect this is pointless, but: i'm not defending the paper. i reject it. you can tell this by reading my words, such as "one more time for the hard of thinking, saying you should understand something is not a 'defence' of it." maybe block capitals would help? or extra large print?

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEFENDING THE CONTENT OF SOMETHING AND INSISTING YOU SHOULD READ THAT CONTENT BEFORE FORMING AN OPINION OF IT.

The only way the paper gives the police to 'pacify' crowds is by giving them what they want so that they don't feel repressed and resort to violence. That's impractical when it matters, and harmless when it doesn't.

'no i won't read what i'm commenting on, i'll just repeat my position and assert you're lying'. i call Dunning-Krueger. i've sat in a seminar where Stott displayed a flyer for an event i was involved in as an example of what should still receive the full force of the law (TSG, specifically). i didn't feel at all threatened. why? because the police don't try and shut down anarchist breakaway marches calling for direct action and occupations at the behest of liberal academics - the thick fuckers managed to work that one out all by themselves.

State responses to emergency situations are projects of repression. By Aufheben's account, this is what J.D.'s research and presentations are about. He does work to help the state manage crowds during crises. I don't need to slog through academic bullshit to call foul on his involvement; he has confirmed (and affirmed!) it in the response letter. Not only does he do it, but he "stands by his research". It is not 'just a job' but something the dude believes in and thinks is humane.

But J.D. didn't actually write any of it, honest! Just move along now...

Yes, I believe that. I saw it firsthand in New Orleans.

That press release where J.D. says, "Our recommendations form part of a new agenda for the mass democratisation of crowd management. We have designed interventions based on our approach and have shown that they work" is actually consistent with the Aufheben statement defending his research as "humane".

I'm curious about the "interventions" he designed.

as I said I read enough to know what it is about.

and anyway, we don't have to read the bible in full to know that yes it's a load of nonsense, but still religion is harmfull...

I know you are not defending the content of theses publications, and i didn't say that you do. what I said and I say it again is that saying it is harmless is a way to defend it, defending its harmlessness not its content if you want.
but still it is a mistake. (and you are also defending the fact that it's okay to be associated with them since they are bourgeois ideologists but harmless bourgeois ideologists).
and you know as everybody involved in this discussion do, that liberal reformists are opposing proletarian struggle, defends the foundations of bourgeois rule (and crowd control theory/crowd psychology is another way to do it), and it has a an impact, maybe not much impact on what the police actually do, but anyway it is an ideological defence of the power of the bourgeoisie, and it has also an impact as such.
such people are active political opponents of the workers revolutionnary struggles and as such they are not harmless.
maybe they are not the biggest threat, but still they have to be opposed.

and when you say, like, "nevermind it's okay to associate with them 'cause they're harmless" you are not exactly opposing them... and I think it is problematic.

i still think it is pretty unfair to compare J to New Orleans. The argument against J's work is that it pacifies class struggle. There was no passification in New Orleans (well, there was, but militarily, which is completely at odds with what J is be accused of)

I got a PM from Samotnaf this morning (looking at the PM it was sent to a number of people who had posted on this thread) linking to a very comprehensive new article on libcom, not only about J's work and the blindly unquestioning support from Aufheben and libcom, but an extremely interesting discussion on a whole range of related issues including psychology and academia. The text has been pulled by libcom, so I can't quote from it. The article linked to a second letter from TPTG, which also appears to have been pulled but I have checked and it is on indymedia.

Samotnaf had luckily included this link in their PM, which I think sheds a lot of new light (or rather, confirms everything that was already obvious). Note the publication.

Tommy Ascaso:

You can say that with a straight face (or two)?
Though admin have hidden this, it's still available here :

http://libcom.org/blog/aufhebens-crowd-controlling-cop-consultant-strange-case-dr-johnny-mr-drury-14102011

so you can tell what bullshit he's spouting (they made it very clear that if i decided to put up a fairly different version of this 2 months ago they'd take it down, so hardly a free decision not to publish: there's a lot more evidence here than either I or the TPTG had got hold of in August...plus there are loads of other differences)

but hurry hurry hurry - whilst shocks last - admin might put this into liquidation, not just board it up.

and the tptg's second letter is here:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/media/2011/10//486741.pdf

Mm I only scanned it before I went to work, some of it might be worth discussion for the Aufheben people I dunno but thought the fact it used real names* when the libcom admins had made their position on name-and-shame tactics fairly clear was uncalled-for grandstanding.

And the fact it was published at 4am in the morning (when all the admins were going to be asleep) so when the admins take it down for breaking guidelines they get called out for censorship is particularly unpleasant coming from someone whose personal aggro towards libcom admins has never been censored.

For clarity, I don't know whether J's [edit: sharing crowd behavioural theory with the police] and increasingly don't care - this kind of gossipy bullshit (be that TPTG, libcom, Aufheben or anyone else who's gotten on a high horse about it recently) between people who rarely see each other, if ever, is the kind of pointless guff that makes class struggle anarchism look like a laughing stock.

So an academic is doing something you disapprove of, big deal. If you have this much of a problem with the man go and see him and talk direct to the people he works with - who are the only ones this potential conflict of interest actually affects - rather than bashing the keyboard with your Big Book of Superiority and achieving very little other than getting everyone at each others' throats online and providing a huge belly-laugh for whatever state assets are reading this thread.

---

* I mean fuck even Mark Kennedy wasn't outed with pics until he'd confirmed he was an undercover

"Snitch"? "Mark Kennedy"? I think this is the kind of "gossipy bullshit" and inference everyone could do without.

Jesus christ way to go after the wording rather than the content, will edit "snitch" (but will leave up the Mark Kennedy comparison, because my point with using that is not to say he's like Kennedy but to point out he's being treated with less respect than an actual police mole!)

"disapprove of"? you're making a molehill out of a mountain - Kennedy destroyed the trust and confidence of, and induced paranoia into, those he slept with and those he got friendly with, but that was probably just a couple of dozen or so people (don't want to minimise this - it was obviously personally devastating for these people). D has destroyed the trust of and confidence of his friends and comrades, perhaps less people directly - but what he is doing in promoting innovative ideas for the state potentially intensifies misery for all those who try to contest this world - and all you can say is "big deal"; indifference is the first victory of the state and of this society - if you minimise this, you've got everything upside down. The research of D's team potentially, over time, could effect possibly millions if the movement against capital doesn't become more intelligent, and that's not hyperbole - it already has effected thousands with its kettling ideas ( that ocelot,as far as I remember, has pointed out) and with its divide fluffies from spikeys methods, still not very well applied (we all know how quick thinking cops are ); but, as I said in the so far censored text, ideology

Have you looked at the "Chaos Theory" article, Rob Ray? I seriously recommend you don't say anything more until you do.

Yeah, for you, personally, "big deal." Policing is not going to change significantly due to any research this guy does because it's already highly efficient - the reason Stott is ignored for example is because they don't need that sort of research, they have far better funded and directly experienced tactical resources in house.

So the only reason to have a go is because "this guy does something I think is reprehensible." Which is fair enough if you work with him and want to break ties, but you don't even live in Britain ffs, his impact on your life is precisely zero. White-knighting this shit from halfway across Europe on the other hand is causing an increasingly poisonous row over a guy who I've not even met - and I move in the same circles and live less than two hours' travel away from him. That's how pervasive his influence is on the movement.

Afaic the only people this directly affects is Aufheben and those others who he comes into direct contact with. So talk to them direct, have a clear and balanced conversation rather than throwing accusations around in a very public space, accusing anyone who disagrees with your approach of acting in bad faith.

Because this shit brings more heat than light. It backs people into a corner so Joseph K talks about snitch-jacketing and you talk about Jim being two faced. And it looks like a bunch of schoolkids whining at each other (or worse, Prime Minister's Questions) to any casual reader who might come a-calling.

I think we should all follow Joseph Kay's advice and make sure that we all read this article that JD co-authored in the Police Review, and get as many other anarchists who may have heard of this debate, to read it as well, so as to properly inform their opinions.

this is the same thing, J added as third author. but don't let that stop the shit stirring.

The second letter by TPTG seems to make it clear why they had problems contacting Aufheben - namely, that the same person they were suspecting of being a cop collaborator was the only person Aufheben would allow themselves to be contacted through. I'm not sure their management of this problem was the best, but frankly, considering the actual evidence they provided, it's quite clear that this person is a long-term cop consultant, and this is something that anyone who is going to work with Aufheben or who reads their work deserves to know.

Frankly I find the Libcom group's response to this quite appalling. I understand that the information provided in TPTG's second letter was not available to you lot, and that you are apparently personally close to some people from Aufheben, but you should have the responsibility to check things out on your own before taking someone else's word about such a serious allegation, exactly because it is so serious. As it stands now, I think you owe the TPTG an apology - I'm not sure if they handled this in the best way diplomatically, but they were not smearing - they were making a well-founded allegation against someone who now seems to be covering his tracks, and you were all aiding him, whether knowingly or not. I will assume the latter, but responsibility needs to be taken nevertheless.

Yeah, you know, that excuse may work once, but on two papers on the same subject? Starting to get a bit iffy. If you then correlate it with J's other work, as well as his original university homepage, in which he prides himself on his work with NATO and the police, and which he since edited (and is also available in the second TPTG letter), it starts to look that the mere formality is his repudiation of this consultancy work, rather than its content.

Having a consistent argument now becomes "a bit iffy". Classic.

tbh tho, pretty much impossible to take serious anyone still mouthing the 'NATO consultant' line.

I'd probably agree that some of the libcom admins have gone overboard with the retorts, however to me that's pretty understandable, I work with various of them a fair bit and if one of them was accused of being a nark or something and I felt the evidence wasn't 100% clear I'd be pretty sharp in having a go at anyone trying to splash it around.

That is far more understandable than denunciations being splashed around which are inevitably going to just cause a massive bunfight over a frankly rather unimportant issue (I mean have you seen what's been going on recently? Is it really healthy to have gossip about some random academic picking up more posts than the Wall Street protests?).

From Aufheben's reply:

So they had at least two methods of getting in touch. What's more, why did they not want to talk to him direct? That'd be my first port of call.

That really is clutching at straws. I can't see how anyone can deduce anything from him being the third author listed other than he is one of three authors?

I'm sure there's a joke somewhere about people being in denial about a psychologist. But it's hardly funny, is it?

It's not a "consistent argument". All people here with actual academic experience have argued that it is unlikely that someone will be included in a paper if they didn't contribute to it or did not stand behind its conclusions. But even if that had happened once, twice makes it seem like a pattern.

Before he changed his online profile, it had:

Tell me how seriously any of that should be taken.

Yeah? You'd talk to someone you thought was working with the cops? Regarding accusations that they were working with the cops? Also, you are citing Aufheben's official version, which is contradicted by TPTG's version, to whit:

Unlike you I'm not automatically going to take Aufheben's word on this.

How do you think Mark Kennedy was confronted, by easter egg hunt?

Seriously like it's not that hard to go down an internet cafe and use an alias if you're really bothered about security - but the single most important part of any investigation imo if you're looking for the full story on anything is to talk to the accused before you bring down the gavel - otherwise you head into Kafka territory.

Comparing a small, potentially persecuted radical organization to an all-encompassing government is kind of lacking in proportion. But never mind, you can add this up to the list of poor judgment calls by TPTG for all I care, that still doesn't paint Libcom or Aufheben in a better light.