DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Anarcho-leftism & the politics of libcom

178 posts / 0 new
Last post
Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Jan 16 2013 17:45

Thanks Wiggleston and no1. I'll have a look at some of his stuff.

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
Jan 16 2013 20:06

I can't work out if that Мѣньскь post is a joke or not.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jan 16 2013 22:29

I have to say, I actually think this

Quote:
examining the problems associated with the often unhealthy relationship between academia and our small pro-revolutionary milieu.

is an interesting and worthwhile question.

The problem is that (1) a ridiculous amount of conjecture, assumption, and just straight-up disinformation has been put forward regarding the JD case and (2) those arguments are couched in language, to quote Samotnaf, like this:

Quote:
unthinking loyalty to the party line

And in those instances, I think this topic is getting the treatment it deserves.

Buridan
Offline
Joined: 16-01-13
Jan 17 2013 00:37

It seems that I might not be putting my case very well on this thread. I am currently trying to get my head around these issues myself. It seemed to me that discussing this particular case was useful in my attempt to understand the nature of serious resistance to capitalism and where this resistance is actually located.

Chilli Sauce raises what might be the central problem for people discussing the issue of JD and contemporaneous, and rightly ongoing, involvement with the police and Aufheben. She/He says she/he thinks that the discussion of “the problems associated with the often unhealthy relationship between academia and our small pro-revolutionary milieu” is worthy of discussion.

I think this is the key question. Chilli Sauce goes on to say that lots of disinformation has been put forward in regard to JD and that these conjectures are couched in obscure, or obscurantist, language. I am not so sure that there has been so much actual ‘disinformation’ about JD – I think that those who oppose his dual role as a communist and as a prominent social scientist are just sadly misguided.

They are, as I have mentioned above, so misguided that they should not be allowed airspace on a site like this, which should always be focussed on working on the ground and moving forward (as petey rightly says: “could we get back now to the basic work of talking up the idea of collective action with workmates? thx.”).

But perhaps Chilli Sauce’s thought that discussing the relationship of academia to the pro-revolutionary milieu reveals a similar attitude to those who claim to oppose JD?

If we are to ‘have problems’ with academics being part of the real movement to destroy this present society then we are misunderstanding what the real movement has to be. We are disregarding all the work that Aufheben, and Barrot before them, has done in their daily practice and their theory to build this real movement. We are also in grave danger of alienating all the students and academics, and post-university professionals who are such valuable and important, indeed crucial, contributors to this site.

This doubting, which Chilli Sauce is honestly and bravely expressing should really be addressed properly here. Otherwise I can see this site splitting into some kind of ‘workerist’ vs ‘intellectualist’ arena. As I have said above, we need to properly reconfigure our idea of class – tbh I did think this had largely happened here. Which is why we now term working class those sectors we used to term middle class, and why we here support and defend JD and Aufheben from the malicious, pathetic and anti-revolutionary whinging of the complainers.

The point is that, as I said in a previous post, the ruling class is now miniscule. What we have on the planet is a huge mass of proletarians. These proletarians are gradated in terms of social power and responsibility, but they are proletarians – or workers – nonetheless. Libcom has done and dusted the debate about teachers, for example, and what class they are in – as the majority on Libcom agree: they are working class! Any other description defeats the whole program of the real movement. It also makes useful work on a site such as this virtually impossible, due to the healthy prevalence of teachers, academics, students, and other professionals here. Do we really think that this site would even be in existence if it wasn’t for this healthy cross-section of the working population amongst Libcom and its administrators?

I was intrigued by Mr Jolly’s list of members of his SolFed local. It could be assumed that this list is trying to prove some kind of workerist credential. I believe, however, that the list displays the healthy cross-section of proletarians I mentioned above:

Computer programmer
[This technical job would have been termed middle class, or at least labor aristocracy, in the old money]

Lorry Driver
[Presuming the driver doesn’t own their own rig then this is working class in the old money]

Plumber
[In the old money a plumber usually occupies a petit-bourgeois (small business) position, or is on the way to that position. Often also works outside the official economy]

Teacher
[Definitely middle class in the old money – but rightly now regarded as working class]

Academic
[Same as teacher]

unemployed
[In the old money this category might be called lumpenproletarian, but nowadays this category is almost impossible to categorise due to cultural factors – their class would depend on their parents, their outlook, etc – BUT in reality anyone who is unemployed must now be regarded as working class – in the way we are all proletarian/working class now]

takeaway delivery
[Definitely working class then and now, but is this a transitional job for a young person?]

admin person
[In the old money this would depend on what kind of admin person this is. In the new money this person is definitely working class no matter what they administer]

Nurse
[In the old money this person would be working class as long as they weren’t in charge of anyone – but in the correct new money even the nurse managers are working class]

If we tally up these Old and New definitions we find that:

In the old definition 3 out of the 8 jobs were working class, with unemployed being relegated to lumpen. (38% working class, 50% middle class, one lumpen).

In the new definition we find that all eight categories, 100%, are working class.

Now this breakdown of Mr Jolly’s list isn’t just for fun – his list shows quite clearly how our definitions have slowly changed over the last century (thanks in large part to revolutionary academics) – and more importantly, how our daily practise and theory has aligned itself over time to reality. We have caught up with reality and this is crucial to our project. Mr Jolly only seems to have a problem with the ‘academic’ member of the local, but his actual revolutionary practise correctly eliminates that doubt.

If, however, Mr Jolly were to let himself slip into seeing this group as a combination of old-fashioned working class and old fashioned middle class then he would risk slipping into a workerist mindset which can only hinder the building of the movement, as well as alienating the academics and future academics in his local, on this site and in the wider community. This is unlikely though since in his daily praxis Mr Jolly is expressing the modern and correct view of class and using this to inform his revolutionary work.

Is this the debate which we need to have in forums such as this (as Chilli Sauce intelligently suggests)? I think perhaps we do. We can begin I think, as I have done, by openly supporting what JD and Aufheben have been trying to achieve over the last couple of decades. As Rob Ray has said, we can trust JD as a comrade. It is now time to situate his work in the context in which it has always existed, as a part of the revolutionary movement, part of the long-running Aufheben project and as a part of the project which we know as the building of the real movement.

[I have just realised that this is a really long post - sorry about that.]

Mr. Jolly's picture
Mr. Jolly
Offline
Joined: 28-04-11
Jan 17 2013 00:57
Quote:
'SolFed' is overwhelmingly composed of middle class academics

I was just replying to this, proving that SolFed, in my local anyway, is made of of people employed in a variety of different sectors and are not in the majority, academics. I fail to see how that is 'workerism' I think you need to check the definition...

Buridan
Offline
Joined: 16-01-13
Jan 17 2013 01:18

Yes, and you made your point very well. You prove by your practise that you are not workerist (that is, not against the other academics on this site, for example), and SolFed's theory of the working class is rightly inclusive of what might previously have been termed middle class sectors.

What I was alluding to was the tendency by some to flaunt their 'working class' credentials in opposition to the 'middle class' (I was saying that if you went down this road, which I realise you would never, of course)'.

As I have said, and as Solfed proves by its work in the real world, the concept of the middle class has no real meaning anymore - we are all workers. It is only through this formulation that we are able to continue our pro-revolutionary activity in our daily lives, in our working lives, on this site and elsewhere.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jan 17 2013 09:16

B, I not sure what you're talking about with "old money" and "new money", but most of us here on libcom would agree broadly on points:

(1) Class in determined by the relationship to the means of production.
(2) A class analysis is a structural tool. It's not there to classify individuals.
(3) The term "middle class" is a cultural one and has, at best, a very, very limited utilility for a communist analysis.

As a correlation to point one, it follows that teachers and academics who do not own the means of production and/or do not have the power to hire, fire, or discipline are workers.

Furthermore, all jobs--to one degree or another--support capitalism ideologically and materially, so I don't think there's much value in trying to seperate off intellectual/"professional" labour as some sort of special case.

Some suggested readings, if I may:

http://libcom.org/library/class-class-struggle-introduction-draft
http://libcom.org/blog/when-we-say-class-what-are-we-talking-about-08122...

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jan 17 2013 09:30

Straw poll: What percent of those in the left communist anti-academia camp are university educated?

(a) All of them, obviously.
(b) None. It's just that when they were really proley miners, they spent so much time on strike they had the time to read the complete works of Marx and take out a subscription to Aufheben.
(c) Such questions are counter-revolutionary, comrade.

ocelot's picture
ocelot
Offline
Joined: 15-11-09
Jan 17 2013 11:34
Chilli Sauce wrote:
B, I not sure what you're talking about with "old money" and "new money",

Then I'll translate. "Old money" is the actual class politics of the person behind the sock puppet Buridan account, created specifically on this thread to spoof a position that is the direct opposite of the actual views of the writer in the hopes of eliciting quotes from what they perceive as "the JD defence team" for use in their next logorrhoeaic diatribe against "the great conspiracy".

See, this is the kind of thing that happens when people start legitimising posts that are either a) purely abusive; b) snark; c) "humourous"; d) "satirical". By throwing away the basic principles of honesty and "say what you mean, and mean what you say", you end up with this kind of stupid game playing which is actually a barrier to the development of any productive dialogue. The wages of sin may not necessarily be death, but they are generally at least bullshit...

Anyway, obligatory troll-hunting dispensed with...

Chilli Sauce wrote:
but most of us here on libcom would agree broadly on points:

(1) Class in determined by the relationship to the means of production.
(2) A class analysis is a structural tool. It's not there to classify individuals.
(3) The term "middle class" is a cultural one and has, at best, a very, very limited utilility for a communist analysis.

As a correlation to point one, it follows that teachers and academics who do not own the means of production and/or do not have the power to hire, fire, or discipline are workers.

Furthermore, all jobs--to one degree or another--support capitalism ideologically and materially, so I don't think there's much value in trying to seperate off intellectual/"professional" labour as some sort of special case.

I think this is too simplistic and it winds the clock back to the 1950s (at least). Let's take two concepts the operaisti introduced to criticise the productivist utopianism of official Communism.

1) The role of technology within capitalism as being not external or neutral in relation to the class struggle, but immanent to it.

2) The importance and difficulty of conricerca - i.e. participant research that is partisan to the side of the workers, rather than fulfilling its default bourgeois-allocated role of studing the working class all the better to police and exploit it.

In relation to 1) then, we can move away from the idea that the issue at hand is specifically about academics. It is perfectly possible to be involved in the development of technology - as technical worker (another operaist concept) - without necessarily being an academic. It is not the formal relations of employment status and employer, but the actual content of work carried out. Its not about academia, its about technology. And technology is not neutral - it is not the universal evil that primmos and "anti-civs" take it for, but neither is it the universal good that leninists assume it to be - its impact needs to be assessed within the framework of the totality of class relations and struggles.

For example, I'm a technical worker in the field of IT, currently I work doing sysadmin and some development for a private company in the leisure services field. Its a company that, like every other in the leisure sector, exists to instrumentalise people's desires to divert themselves from the crapness of life and work in this society, into yet another channel for their (and our) exploitation and the valorisation of capital. So its more of the same shite, but regardless of technical processes, not materially different in content from pulling pints behind a bar, being a tour guide, entertainer, DJ, whatever.

But if I were to use the same technical skills to work on face recognition software for indentifying faces in the crowd for the Police National Computer, or using data mining techniques to identify potential dole "frauds", that would not be the same content at all. The same technological skills are applied in all cases, but the social content of the use of the technology is very different.

Similarly, crowd psychology applied to public order situations, is not social science so much as social technology. It matters less whether the technical workers involved in creating such a technology are academics at a university or employed by some public or private sector research body. What matters is who the end user of the technology is going to be, and what they are going to use it for. This is operaismo 101.

I could belabour the conricerca point as well, but I really think its relevance should be pretty obvious.

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
Jan 17 2013 11:39

That a kind of weird post Chilli.

The difference you pose between (a) and (b) is

(a) went to university where they "had the time to read the ... Marx and ... Aufheben".
(b) didn't go to university, but had a job and therefore [sarcastically stated] didn't "have the time to read ... Marx and ... Aufheben".

I think it a pretty weird distinction because I know pretty much nobody who studied Marx, much less Aufheben, at university. Everyone I know who reads Marx, has done so in their own time on their own initiative. Although granted people tend to do that when they have more free time. Although that can be at uni, when unemployed or working part time.

My experience of most of the "left communist [sic] anti-academia camp" is as many of them went to uni as didn't. The more common experience is that they are people who used to squat, do part time work etc., what in Germany is called 'jobbing' and learnt their politics much like the rest of us: talking online, in the pub and too friends, going to demos, going to political meetings, being in discussions, reading books, magazine, pamphlets, leaflets, zines etc.

vanilla.ice.baby
Offline
Joined: 9-08-07
Jan 17 2013 12:25

The main things to remember are that:

JD has clearly done some work for the police while associating himself with a tiny and irrelevant revolutionary scene.

That revolutionary scene does not really have any weight or impact in wider society as a revolutionary force.

ergo the first thing doesn't really matter.

bastarx
Offline
Joined: 9-03-06
Jan 17 2013 12:30
vanilla.ice.baby wrote:
The main things to remember are that:

JD has clearly done some work for the police while associating himself with a tiny and irrelevant revolutionary scene.

That revolutionary scene does not really have any weight or impact in wider society as a revolutionary force.

ergo the first thing doesn't really matter.

Platformist in opportunism shocker.

Despite the very stiff competition this would have to be the most pathetic thing on this thread.

vanilla.ice.baby
Offline
Joined: 9-08-07
Jan 17 2013 14:09

How is it opportunist?

Admin edit: no flaming.

flaneur's picture
flaneur
Offline
Joined: 25-02-09
Jan 17 2013 14:16
vanilla.ice.baby wrote:
How is it opportunist?

Oh, the glorious revolution isn't around the corner, I might as well scab and do xyz job now.

vanilla.ice.baby
Offline
Joined: 9-08-07
Jan 17 2013 14:18
flaneur wrote:
vanilla.ice.baby wrote:
How is it opportunist?

Oh, the glorious revolution isn't around the corner, I might as well scab and do xyz job now.

Admin edit: no insults please. Consider this a warning.

I'm not making a value judgement on JD or his supporters I'm simply explaining why this is a meaningless storm in a teacup.

It doesn't matter what, you, I, or JD think.

slothjabber
Offline
Joined: 1-08-06
Jan 17 2013 15:51

Surely it matters what we do? Can a cop be an anarchist? Can someone who works for the cops be an anarchist?

Tim Finnegan's picture
Tim Finnegan
Offline
Joined: 16-05-12
Jan 17 2013 16:33
flaneur wrote:
vanilla.ice.baby wrote:
How is it opportunist?

Oh, the glorious revolution isn't around the corner, I might as well scab and do xyz job now.

Is there not something a bit wonky about posing essentially moral criticism in political terms, though? Political theory is concerned with why people scab and how we respond to it, not with what bastards they are for scabbing, so using political terminology to say "you're a bastard" just comes across as a disingenuous attempt claim some sort of pseudo-theoretical gravity. Which, ironically, is exactly the sort of thing academics get a bad rep for doing.

And that's really the problem with this entire discussion, this inability to parse levels of discourse. It's like Chili Sauce said, if we want to talk about the ambiguities of "radical academia", let's talk about that. If we want to talk about how JD is a right wanker, no he's not, yes he is time a million, no he's not times a million plus one, let's talk about that. Just don't pretend that the one is the other, and that- and I think this is what VIB was getting at- that it deserves to be treated with the same weight of the other.

vanilla.ice.baby
Offline
Joined: 9-08-07
Jan 17 2013 17:53

Well that's part of it Tim certainly - there is a problem with "extremist" politics that people tend to personalise issues when really as our overall analysis should tell us they're systemic.

However the other issue is it's all basically 'academic' if people will pardon the pun given that the revolutionary left has absolutely no impact in a systemic way either - at best small groups and individuals who identify with revolutionary politics do manage to show a bit of practical solidarity or help some people win a simple and basic demand in some way.

But so do some faith groups, so do some rightwing residents associations or Tory or Libdem councillors... It's not because of their revolutionary politics or organisations it tends to be despite them.

Spikymike
Offline
Joined: 6-01-07
Jan 17 2013 19:32

OK - heres what I'm thinking:

Even if we were to accept Chilli's post no 98 definition of class as a starting point it is essentially a static definition and as ocelot says far too simplistic. It fails to help in terms of our understanding of the potential for class struggle to extend and generalise from one sector to another. It does not reflect most peoples practical understanding of how and why some sectors engage in struggle in advance of others, in which political ideology is less significant than other material factors such as: unemployed, self-employed or waged, financial reserves or none, order-giver or order-taker, level of necessary identitification with job function, home 'owner' or renter etc - and some favourable combination of these factors might reasonably classify both individuals and whole sectors as 'middle-class' on more than a simple 'cultural' basis.

ocelot's point (if I've got that right?) about the job function being more significant than the technology used seems valid but doesn't address the specific function of reproducing capitalist ideology associated with academia and the media, distinct from that which we all contribute to in some way, and which links back to my reference to 'identification with the job function'.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jan 17 2013 21:46
georgestapleton wrote:
That a kind of weird post Chilli.

The difference you pose between (a) and (b) is

(a) went to university where they "had the time to read the ... Marx and ... Aufheben".
(b) didn't go to university, but had a job and therefore [sarcastically stated] didn't "have the time to read ... Marx and ... Aufheben".

I think it a pretty weird distinction because I know pretty much nobody who studied Marx, much less Aufheben, at university. Everyone I know who reads Marx, has done so in their own time on their own initiative. Although granted people tend to do that when they have more free time. Although that can be at uni, when unemployed or working part time.

I think you missed my point, comrade. One, I'm just being a slight wanker because that's basically what I think is deserved on this thread. Two, the point is that the folks making the criticism of academia are academic as fuck.

I mean, sure, I have criticisms of the role of academia within capitalism, who doesn't? But it's no more personalised than the criticism I have of teachers or munitians workers.

It just seems odd to me that folks are making these prolier-than-thou arguments towards academic workers when they themselves engage in the same level of intellectual masturbation, philosophising, and theorizing as anyone in academia.

Also, yeah, I know Spikymike, it was a bit simplistic. It was a generalised starting point. I don't have the time, effort, or inclination to draw out the contradictions and gradations which exist within the class structure of capitalist society in every post that I make on libcom. I mean, ffs, we've both been posting on libcom long enough to know that each other has a more nuanced understanding of class than can be conveyed in a dozen words.

I'm sorry, but I think this is part of the problem of left-communist critique being unneccesarily pedantic and, yes, academic.

commieprincess's picture
commieprincess
Offline
Joined: 26-08-07
Jan 17 2013 22:09
Quote:
you end up with this kind of stupid game playing which is actually a barrier to the development of any productive dialogue

You end up with a cluster fuck of a thread when the op is trying to cause a cluster fuck.

Buridan
Offline
Joined: 16-01-13
Jan 17 2013 23:58

To Ocelot: I am upset that you think I am some kind of ‘sock puppet’ – especially when I agree so wholeheartedly with what you say in your post apart from this. Although I don’t agree with your evident distrust of JD, Aufheben and Libcom, and I find this attitude divisive and anti-revolutionary, as if you are not taking on fully the theory you actually work with.

To Vanilla Ice Baby: while I agree with your support for JD and his work, I do not think that we can call the influence of Aufheben irrelevant, or part of an irrelevant sect – this would mean that most of Libcom were irrelevant too.

Joseph Kay has been closely involved with Aufheben, for example, and this connection should not be minimised. Neither should the connections between these solid comrades through their physical universities be discounted either.

The university (like any workplace) has helped facilitate these connections (communism is not possible without capitalism as the precursor).

JD clearly maintains and encourages a network from his university base. This network has helped, in various subtle and concrete ways, to form SolFed and Libcom itself, so to discount it is madness (not implying you are mad of course!).

As I said before, the university is the focal point where proletarian concepts and strategies are formulated and refined (after their initial ‘primordial’ appearance in struggle) – so it is from here that anything substantial will evolve. This is not to say that the university does everything right, it is just to say that it is at the university, or through the university, that our ideology and tactics are generated. Those academics who fight the fiscal directions of the university are only trying to maintain the space the university provides for radical and revolutionary thought and action. At some point in the future people like JD will claim the universities for the revolution, just as workers in other sectors will claim their workplaces, just as teachers will claim education, just as the police will become protectors of people rather than property (a militia). From that moment the intellectuals and thinkers, who will mainly come from the university, will be able to direct the revolution so that capitalism is eradicated completely and we can move properly toward worker self-management of the production of goods and services.

I would also like to reiterate my support for JD and Aufheben, and Libcom and the good comrades who are defending his work (here here for Nate, commieprincess, VIB, Chilli Sauce, Ramona, the croydonian, Fall Back, the Button, GS, Rob Ray, Joseph Kay and the admin team, etc). I think that, in order to quieten down the detractors (who actually seem to have disappeared now, apart from spikeymike), who are confused by our failure to offer explicit support for the work of JD – we should do this now, and as I said before, situate his work in the proper context of the long and ongoing revolutionary work of Aufheben – which is central to the whole perspective of the UK anarchist and libertarian communist scene (the real movement and communisation, for example).

bastarx
Offline
Joined: 9-03-06
Jan 18 2013 02:01
vanilla.ice.baby wrote:
How is it opportunist?

Admin edit: no flaming.

What Flaneur said.

Also, while obviously there's no gain for you from JD's aid to the police the jettisoning of principles in return for personal advancement is pretty much the definition of opportunism.

You in particular and many of your platformist co-thinkers in general have a long history of supporting such opportunism.

yo sup
Offline
Joined: 12-08-12
Jan 18 2013 04:58
Buridan wrote:
To Ocelot: I am upset that you think I am some kind of ‘sock puppet’

It's pretty hard not to think this when you say things like "[Aufheben] is central to the whole perspective of the UK anarchist and libertarian communist scene", as well as your daily mail approach to posters opposed to your view.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jan 18 2013 08:25

Also, Buridan, besides not being able to form a coherent or logical argument, you're just not funny.

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
Jan 18 2013 10:25
bastarx wrote:
vanilla.ice.baby wrote:
How is it opportunist?

Admin edit: no flaming.

What Flaneur said.

Also, while obviously there's no gain for you from JD's aid to the police the jettisoning of principles in return for personal advancement is pretty much the definition of opportunism.

You in particular and many of your platformist co-thinkers in general have a long history of supporting such opportunism.

Only seeing as both ocelot and me call ourselves platformists, this does seem like complete bullshit.

Although, I suppose seeing as ocelot works in financial services and I work on in public policy research, we're both opportunists.

Quote:
I think you missed my point, comrade. One, I'm just being a slight wanker because that's basically what I think is deserved on this thread. Two, the point is that the folks making the criticism of academia are academic as fuck.

I mean, sure, I have criticisms of the role of academia within capitalism, who doesn't? But it's no more personalised than the criticism I have of teachers or munitians workers.

It just seems odd to me that folks are making these prolier-than-thou arguments towards academic workers when they themselves engage in the same level of intellectual masturbation, philosophising, and theorizing as anyone in academia.

Yeah fair enough. Well kind of fair enough. But, two things.

1. I don't have a problem with 'philosophising and theorizing'. I think its a pretty important aspect of any anti-capitalist movement.

2. The problem with academia is not simply their role in capitalist reproduction, but rather in their relation to anti-capitalist movement. (This is also pretty much true of why working with cops is worse than working with workers who manufacture police batons, the army worse than munitions workers and polticians worse than civil servants or even party employees.)

Actually both of those points are really two sides of the same point. Namely that the role that academics have in the movement is highly problematic because it turns 'philosophising and theorizing' into a specialist subject that isn't engaged in organically by the movement according to our needs but rather places it in a seperate sphere (the university) where it happens according to the needs of career advancement and capitalist governance.

I don't say this as someone who think academics should be treated as cops. (I would like to be an academic, and might someday go back and try to finish by abandoned PhD with that aim.) But I do think that we are insufficiently critical of the role of academics in the movement.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Jan 18 2013 14:29
petey wrote:
1: in my corner of the world, if you put your name on a paper it means you have contributed to the research and agree with the conclusions, if not all the details
2: this JD fellow is working for the cops
3: everyone should just admit this
4: it's not the biggest thing in the world
5: the OP is obsessional

Thread shoulda stopped after this post. Nothing else to be said.

vanilla.ice.baby
Offline
Joined: 9-08-07
Jan 19 2013 06:06
bastarx wrote:
vanilla.ice.baby wrote:
How is it opportunist?

Admin edit: no flaming.

What Flaneur said.

Also, while obviously there's no gain for you from JD's aid to the police the jettisoning of principles in return for personal advancement is pretty much the definition of opportunism.

You in particular and many of your platformist co-thinkers in general have a long history of supporting such opportunism.

Evidence for your weird assertions?

Curious Wednesday
Offline
Joined: 11-01-12
Jan 19 2013 10:57

The reception on this site differs significantl;y with the reception on Anarchist News - here:
http://anarchistnews.org/content/cop-out-%E2%80%93-significance-aufheben...
Though that might be because they reproduced the whole text. Here I have only reproduced the section on Anarcho-leftism and libcom.

Thanks to those who have made considered contributions. It seems worthwhile to point out Rob Rays post:

Rob Ray wrote:
Dude the above article (presumably you or a mate of yours given your commendably fast appearance as a backer of the OP) implicates the Bookfair (where the organising group contains zero Libcom members, and no SolFed members), Libcom (which has three Solfed members) and SolFed (membership of 120ish) in a giant conspiracy to ruin the anarkies11!1. It's completely bonkers and should be treated as such.

This reads like classic journalism. Not only is there a new arbitrary criteria to judge people (how soon after the OP a response is made – where exactly does that leave you Rob Ray?), but it is a completely manipulative distortion. It has so far been upped 23 times, presumably by people who have never read the article.
It indicates the complete blind faith and failure to make any independent reality check on the part of these people. There seems little point in arguing with those who lack a minimum of honesty or integrity. So this will definitely be my last post.

Tim Finnegan's picture
Tim Finnegan
Offline
Joined: 16-05-12
Jan 19 2013 11:08
Curious Wednesday wrote:
The reception on this site differs significantl;y with the reception on Anarchist News - here:
http://anarchistnews.org/content/cop-out-%E2%80%93-significance-aufheben...
Though that might be because they reproduced the whole text. Here I have only reproduced the section on Anarcho-leftism and libcom.

Don't those guys all hate libcom anyway? "As if", to quote one of the commenters, "we needed more reasons". So you may be looking at some degree of bias.

Topic locked