DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Anarcho-leftism & the politics of libcom

178 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tian's picture
Tian
Offline
Joined: 3-08-12
Jan 19 2013 11:16

Ohh, thanks for the new reading material. Was getting a bit boring in here.

My favourites after a quick browse:

Quote:
This might be the most awe-inspiring intellectual beat-down of a denunciation I've ever read. Nice work.

http://anarchistnews.org/comment/4574#comment-4574

Quote:
Thanks to the brave pioneers that read this lengthy article first and recommended. It's an awesome read that should be made into a zine.

http://anarchistnews.org/comment/4466#comment-4466

Ha!

Now back to how libcom looks like the BBC conspira-nuts

bastarx
Offline
Joined: 9-03-06
Jan 19 2013 11:41

Perhaps I confused you with "such opportunism". I don't know of any other cases where platformists have said cop-consulting communists are no problem which is way worse than saying JD is not really a cop consultant as his other defenders are doing.

However there are plenty of examples of platformist opportunism usually involving fruitless sucking up to unions and nationalists. You yourself are/were a union bureacrat IIRC.

Shorty's picture
Shorty
Offline
Joined: 13-06-05
Jan 19 2013 12:01
bastarx wrote:
Perhaps I confused you with "such opportunism". I don't know of any other cases where platformists have said cop-consulting communists are no problem which is way worse than saying JD is not really a cop consultant as his other defenders are doing.

However there are plenty of examples of platformist opportunism usually involving fruitless sucking up to unions and nationalists. You yourself are/were a union bureacrat IIRC.

Eh? confused
See post #117

Also, ocelot was one of the people who consistently challenged the kettle logic of the response in the original thread.

vanilla.ice.baby
Offline
Joined: 9-08-07
Jan 19 2013 18:42

Just a howling gale of empty ranting then?

Hey I work with a local vicar and a councillor who is a member of the local 'Safer Neighbourhood Forum' with the local police; in a local migrant support group - It's all because I'm an opportunist cop collaborator not because they are doing good solid practical work to help migrants get organised.

Just another platformist cunt eh?

ETA: @bastearx

vanilla.ice.baby
Offline
Joined: 9-08-07
Jan 19 2013 18:45
bastarx wrote:
Perhaps I confused you with "such opportunism". I don't know of any other cases where platformists have said cop-consulting communists are no problem which is way worse than saying JD is not really a cop consultant as his other defenders are doing.

However there are plenty of examples of platformist opportunism usually involving fruitless sucking up to unions and nationalists. You yourself are/were a union bureacrat IIRC.

Clearly what really annoys you is the total spittle flecked rage of your impotent closely typed and badly photocopied political interventions that leave normal people shivering with confusion and pity.

Keep up the good work "comrade"

Note to the admins: I think this is an acceptable reply to the nonsense above.

Tian's picture
Tian
Offline
Joined: 3-08-12
Jan 19 2013 19:50

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2013/01/505687.html

The more I see things like this, the more I think it's someone having just one long, boring tantrum in as many different public fora as possible, with JD and Paul fucking Mason (I mean, really?) just an excuse to have a rant about libcom's admin team.

Feel free to break the link, as it uses RL names.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Jan 19 2013 20:23
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

But if 2. is true and many here were unable to do 3. but devoted much energy to lame convoluted defences of JD in the face of abundant evidence of his contributions to policing development, it surely must be quite 'a big thing' for them.

Nor is it all without practical consequences, as some assume; the most obvious being the events shown in the Guardian vid, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/sep/04/sussex-police-criticised-harass... where Protest Liaison Officers - the proud brainchild of Dr Stott, JD's longterm co-researcher - are now operational in Brighton and elsewhere and are harassing activists.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Jan 19 2013 20:57
Red Marriott wrote:
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

But if 2. is true and many here were unable to do 3. but devoted much energy to lame convoluted defences of JD in the face of abundant evidence of his contributions to policing development, it surely must be quite 'a big thing' for them.

i agree, and i don't understand why. i have speculations about why but they're ungenerous. if his defenders put their energy into reasoning with him instead of exculpating him maybe he'd stop (because i can't really imagine that his defenders here wittingly support what he's doing). i was also hoping that i'd distract everyone from pursuing an OP that was a racetrack rabbit (as commieprincess pointed out), not that i was going to succeed.

ps, i think "with the cops" might be more accurate than "for the cops" in my point 2.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jan 19 2013 21:36
CW wrote:
It has so far been upped 23 times, presumably by people who have never read the article.

So, in other words, people disagreed with you?

Also, what does it say about your faith in your own post if you don't believe 23 bothered to read the article you posted?

Baderneiro Miseravel
Offline
Joined: 11-12-09
Jan 19 2013 22:12
Tian wrote:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2013/01/505687.html

The more I see things like this, the more I think it's someone having just one long, boring tantrum in as many different public fora as possible, with JD and Paul fucking Mason (I mean, really?) just an excuse to have a rant about libcom's admin team.

Feel free to break the link, as it uses RL names.

Nihilist Communist is not Samotnaf!

Clifford Stott
Offline
Joined: 19-01-13
Jan 19 2013 23:02

I think I might use this episode as a case study in 'movement self-policing' in a forthcoming article. It's a very informative example of how members of a movement take it upon themselves to police and punish those they deem outside group norms. While I'm sure I have some differences with Samotnaf, I have to thank him for this, as it is a very public example of the power of self-policing.

Tim Finnegan's picture
Tim Finnegan
Offline
Joined: 16-05-12
Jan 19 2013 23:26

Can someone explain to me what all the Paul Mason references are about? (I mean, I didn't even know being "pro-Paul Mason" was a thing, but apparently...)

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jan 20 2013 08:34
Clifford Stott wrote:
I think I might use this episode as a case study in 'movement self-policing' in a forthcoming article. It's a very informative example of how members of a movement take it upon themselves to police and punish those they deem outside group norms. While I'm sure I have some differences with Samotnaf, I have to thank him for this, as it is a very public example of the power of self-policing.

"group think"

Do let us know how that turns out, your big revolutionary exposé.roll eyes

vanilla.ice.baby
Offline
Joined: 9-08-07
Jan 20 2013 16:50
Tim Finnegan wrote:
Can someone explain to me what all the Paul Mason references are about? (I mean, I didn't even know being "pro-Paul Mason" was a thing, but apparently...)

I can only imagine it is because there are those on the revolutionary left who like Paul Mason's writing, journalism and analysis and invite him to speak at things now and again despite him working for teh evol BBC.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Jan 20 2013 20:32
Clifford Stott wrote:
I think I might use this episode as a case study in 'movement self-policing' in a forthcoming article. It's a very informative example of how members of a movement take it upon themselves to police and punish those they deem outside group norms. While I'm sure I have some differences with Samotnaf, I have to thank him for this, as it is a very public example of the power of self-policing.

LOL.

Have Samontaf et al ever consulted the definition of 'strategy' in a dictionary? Y'know, creating a link between your actions and your desired consequence?

RedEd's picture
RedEd
Offline
Joined: 27-11-10
Jan 21 2013 10:02
Clifford Stott wrote:
I think I might use this episode as a case study in 'movement self-policing' in a forthcoming article. It's a very informative example of how members of a movement take it upon themselves to police and punish those they deem outside group norms. While I'm sure I have some differences with Samotnaf, I have to thank him for this, as it is a very public example of the power of self-policing.

[Addressing the person who almost certainly wrote this] C'mon, have the decency not to set up joke accounts to derail the discussion. It's bad enough as it is with all the sidelines and conspiracy theories. Sock puppet accounts just piss people off, regardless of the fun you have with them.

[In the incredibly surprising circumstance that Stott actually wrote this] Come on, you know that using any acceptable social science methodology that's an unwritable paper. If you were making a joke then better luck next time.

madlib's picture
madlib
Offline
Joined: 31-08-08
Jan 21 2013 21:36

In the scheme of things, this is completely trivial but I would like the sockpuppets on indymedia.uk. to stop attributing comments to the name "madlib". It's completely foolish. I've since stopped registering it as a handle but it was a common name for me to register on the anarchist websites I do frequent; Indymedia.uk. is not among them. I don't know who it is that is doing this but it's goddamned annoying and if this were the real world I'd be sick with anger at the people who were attributing my name to words I've never stated. I'm powerless to stop this in the end so it's good that this doesn't have real world consequences.

I'm sorry, I don't know where else to put this. The genesis of all this seems to be here.

Good day.

vanilla.ice.baby
Offline
Joined: 9-08-07
Jan 21 2013 21:37

Such is the futility of contributing to "anarchist" websites.

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Jan 21 2013 21:54

Ok so this has been a long time coming but we've all been really busy. We said everything we had to say on the subject back in 2011, and we decided that we weren't gonna delete Aufheben articles from libcom, as we think that would be daft. However on this thread there have been a bunch of other allegations which are probably best we clear up.

Мѣньскъ posted a real name, of someone who does appear to belong to a real person working at a university, though not Joseph Kay or anyone else we know. If you're going to out someone, it at least makes sense to make sure you're outing the right person.

Not to mention that JK was also never in the SWP (though at least one other admin was) and one of the libcom group was actually one of the wombles who was arrested. The feud with the wombles was between former members of the wombles in the libcom group, mainly Steven, and preceded JK's joining of the libcom group by several years.

As for the stuff about JD, we've said our piece before and nothing new has been added here. At the end of the day, we went and checked it out (the importance of name order on academic articles, presentation slides, emails etc), others wrote anonymous polemics from across the globe. If you think we're lying, fine. But then let's organise some mutually agreeable third-party to actually go and check it. Otherwise, creating (again, anonymous) internet shitstorms every few months isn't gonna get us anywhere except spreading rumours and distrust in the movement, baffling noobs and wasting lots of people's time. Not to mention that this 'trial-by-internet-shitstorm' is a bad precedent to start. If you're really interested in a solution, let's actually sort one out.

There was some other stuff in there like links to MI5, which even TPTG didn't accuse us of, but always good to see the accusations getting raised along the way. Some other bits and bobs though:

Quote:
In 2011, when… a libcom poster revealed 'Kay' was really an academic working in JD's department, perhaps even on his payroll, libcom admins deleted the posts and banned the poster. But what is seen cannot be unseen. What is known cannot be forgotten.

Joseph isn't an academic and has never worked in JD's Department, nor was this revealed, nor did we delete such posts or ban the poster.

Cooked wrote:
*I'm very critical of libcoms logging

cooked, anonymising our IP logs is on our to-do list, but at the moment our priority is sorting out our server and keeping the site up.

Todestrieb2 wrote:
Why is my account blocked? Fucking censorship bullshit!

we didn't ban this person, it is not our fault if people cannot remember their own passwords.

Finally, our site guidelines do not permit trolling so we will issue final warnings on trolling to the following posters on both sides of the debate, who are just making silly posts: Comrades Beware, Buridan, Clifford Stott, and a final warning to Мѣньскъ for the false allegations/smears.

Buridan
Offline
Joined: 16-01-13
Jan 22 2013 00:40

I expect I will get banned for this. My posts aren't silly. I am not only supporting the work of Libcom and Aufheben - I am trying to clarify our ideological positions through a look at our predecessors - yes, these predecessors were not all anarchists, but their theories and practice suffuse our own, and we need to be able to recognise this.

This is continued in the 'why I should be banned' post by the Samotnaf person which has been put into Libcommunity::

http://libcom.org/forums/general/why-i-should-be-banned-16012013

There is also an interesting perspective there from The Croydonian.

Can we perhaps keep the debate going in Libcommunity?

GerryK's picture
GerryK
Offline
Joined: 14-04-10
Jan 23 2013 15:18

Rob Ray wrote:

Quote:
Dude the above article ...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 has nothing to do with the original post which states :

Quote:
On 27th October 2012 the UK anarchist scene had its annual gathering of those who claim to oppose the state. The cop collaborator, JD (who, as we’ve seen, has provided the state with innovative ideas for reforming its practice and its image), and his Aufheben gang, was provided with a stand and no-one confronted him

There is then a link to footnote 27, which states

Quote:
This may have partly been due to the fact that Aufheben weren't expected: they hadn't booked a table – someone sneakily booked one for them

The main article continues :

Quote:
But then, the UK anarchist scene as a whole (individuals are another matter) has long made its peace with the ruling show.

Where is the implication of a ''conspiracy'' here?
Many anarchists and ultra-leftists are ridiculously tolerant towards their enemies. Criticising that fact does not amount to saying that there has been a conspiracy between them or a conspiracy between Libcom, Aufheben, Solfed and the anarchist bookfair organisers. It implies a critique of a lack of the most basic vigilance. Rob Ray has completely caricatured the original article.

Greek friends have assured me that in Greece such a scab as JD would not only never be allowed at an anarchist bookfair but would also have problems remaining in the country assuming he wanted to walk again. I have heard that this would also be the case in other countries.

It should be added that the original article does not attack all anarchists ; it attacks anarcho-leftists.

Even though I think the original article overstates and exaggerates its case such a manipulation in the above post by Rob Ray has shown the validity of the original articles connection between current anarcho-leftism and Leninism. That many people followed the lies of Lenin, just as many people swallow the lies of other politicians, and many people here swallow the lies of Rob Ray indicates an absence of any autonomous critique on the part of these followers. The rank and file of the Bolshevik party wanted to believe Lenin and the central committee. They felt a need to believe them in a similar way to the way religious people put their hopes in a priest or the church or God. They trusted him without question. This kind of blind trust indicates a hierarchical mentality on the part of journalists like Rob Ray and on the part of those who accept his lies without question. If you have to distort the content of the critiques of those who oppose you in order to ''contest'' them you are no better than a mini-Lenin.

I wonder if the fact that the article seems to support the comments of a communique in Greece which

Quote:
criticised the “North London Solidarity Federation” for collaborating with the police/media language of repression.

is one of the reasons for Rob Rays defensively manipulative tactics. I heard that he might (and only might) be the author of this article. Maybe RR could clarify this.

NOTE : I have not read all the posts in this thread. So if these points have already been covered, I must apologise.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jan 23 2013 16:02

Nice, pick a thread I've bowed out of to throw in a bunch of random quotes and "prove me wrong" why don't you* roll eyes. I'm flattered though, I never considered myself nearly important enough to have a horde of slavish acolytes.

Minions, bring me a ham sandwich! Wait, make that TWO ham sandwiches!

Quote:
I wonder if the fact that the article seems to support the comments of a communique in Greece which [criticised an NLSF communique]

What you mean the one where North London SF said it wasn't going to judge people who looted but was against people who burned down workers' houses? The one which crashed the SF server twice because it was so popular and got me more plaudits from working class people I met afterwards than anything else I've ever written? Co-author.

--------
* I mean seriously. There's no way I can caricature this, it's already a caricature:

Quote:
The UK anarchist scene as a whole (individuals are another matter) has long made its peace with the ruling show ...

J.D. and Aufheben (or, indeed, Lefty cadres whose celebrity careers help develop the BBC’s image of “free speech”) aren’t the only form of complicity with the enemy, though ...

Libcom wanted the appearance of open access (a bit like the BBC) whilst maintaining a hidden agenda close to Solfed and to the ideological middle class that form the majority of admin and their fellow travellers ...

If the Libconmen/women have anything to do with this possible society, it will mean an extension of their “libertarian” methods of dealing with ideas they find uncomfortable (i.e. the fog of censorship that pervades their site) to more consequential means of punishment – “self-managed” cops and screws ...

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jan 23 2013 20:27
Quote:
Quote:
Dude the above article ...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.

Where is the implication of a ''conspiracy'' here?

Gerry, it's called "sarcasm"

I know, it's a bad idea to drag that up again, but if the cap fits...

And, anyway, I know Greek anarchists who say that left-communists are all perverted shoe-sniffers. So there.

wrote:
Co-author.

Damn straight. wink

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Jan 23 2013 21:05
Buridan wrote:
I expect I will get banned for this.

why do you expect that?

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jan 23 2013 21:08

Still no sandwich sad. Worst. Minions. Ever.

Spassmaschine
Offline
Joined: 29-01-07
Jan 24 2013 05:00
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Dude the above article ...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.

Where is the implication of a ''conspiracy'' here?

Gerry, it's called "sarcasm"

In what sense is it sarcasm? Do you mean that RR is not serious when he accuses Samotnaf of concocting conspiracies? That would suggest that either: 1) RR actually agrees more or less agrees with the content of Samotnaf's article linked in the OP, or 2) RR's posts are nothing but contentless wind-up attempts, and should be interpreted only as trolling...

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jan 24 2013 09:27

Admin edit: no flaming please.

Spassmaschine
Offline
Joined: 29-01-07
Jan 24 2013 09:56

Admin edit: no flaming please.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jan 24 2013 10:09

Admin edit: no flaming please.

commieprincess's picture
commieprincess
Offline
Joined: 26-08-07
Jan 24 2013 10:33

Admin edit: no flaming please.

Topic locked