Aufheben's Crowd Controlling Cop Consultant: The Strange Case Of Dr. Who? And Mr. Bowdler

92 posts / 0 new
Last post
jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Oct 31 2011 23:22
samatnof wrote:
t seems to me that libcom admin and their fellow travellers don't actually want to oppose this society - they just want to give the appearance of doing so. Anyway, this is is the only conclusion I can draw from all the trivialisation and/or ignoring of what is a serious issue by various people who only show their avoidance of any simple questioning.

I find this quote really interesting sam. I have had a very busy couple of weeks and have been very short on time as of late on top of being ill, and the very little time I DO have should be spent doing things with the growing social movement in my area, but I can't resist responding to this.

Since you're in to publishing PMs I'd like to add this exchange to the record, edited for relevance:

Samatnof wrote:
JD (edited out name. Why do you insist on using his real name?) is very clearly NOT on the side of the social movement against capital despite his pretensions to the contrary and that his collaboration well deserves publicity (would you like to find yourself next to him on a demo, being treated as some guinea pig in his lab?); if you are capable of a modicum of clarity, you would see this is true.

And my response:

I wrote:
One quick point about your message, you asked if I would feel comfortable standing next to JD on a demo, and I will be completely honest and say I am uncertain. I will reflect on the question because I do think it does break down the matter to a very basic point.

That said, and I do say this with all sincerity and respect, if the same question were put to me in regards to you following this episode, I think I would have to say the same thing. I'm not sure I would feel comfortable with you having any of my personal details or knowledge of my activity because while I sincerely believe you to be committed to the class struggle, I feel you handled JD's information in an uncomradely and dangerous manner. Heaven forbid you ever find out something about me you find objectionable and google becomes awash with my name and other identifying information. All point scoring aside, this is my honest and sincere point of view at the moment, presented with all due respect.

As I said, I will reflect further on your question about JD. Will you commit to doing the same regarding my reservations about you?

And you never responded. Would it be fair of me to conclude from your lack of response that you're not really opposed to this society? I mean after all, you've 'ignored this very serious issue' and have shown an 'avoidance to answering a simple question.'

Or, is it more likely that you're busy and have forgotten to respond? Or maybe there are more important uses of your time? Do you see the point? It might be worthwhile to lay off the bombast just a bit because none of us are perfect, and anyone can draw a straight line between any two points, even if it doesn't make sense to do so.

Back to your initial question from the PMs, yes upon further reflection I think I would feel comfortable standing next to JD in a demo because nothing he's done, from what I've seen, has compromised individual security, and I really don't think his mass emergency work has compromised collective security. (Though I still believe your question is an important one to ask.) Conversely, I'm more certain than before that I would NOT want to stand next to you in a demo because you have shown a continual propensity for both handling personal details in haphazard (at best) manner and for drawing extreme conclusions from minimal or distorted information.

I still would be interested in finding out if my reservations give you second thoughts about how you've comported yourself in this debacle.

Now hopefully, I'll move on to doing something worthwhile with my very minimal time...

Blasto
Offline
Joined: 17-11-10
Nov 1 2011 14:04

Just to correct some of the points made earlier about J publishing various articles on public order policing, he HAS infact published articles on policing public order, such as here, here and here.

They are there in back and white, in print and online. The links to further examples are given in a previous post. J agreed to be listed as an author, which makes him an author. His involvement in this work is indisputable.

Likewise, J has trained the police. This is also indisputable - here is an example

J has also participated in policy development on public order policing, for example in Manchester.

As the Chaos Theory article in particular also makes clear, there is a joint development of a crowd psychology model that has involved a number of UK psychologists and which J has made significant contributions to. Js contributions have included field research in highly politicised public order situations, including the Poll Tax riot and road protests

This is a big problem. Arguably bigger still is the subsequent complicity of Aufheben and Libcom.

Wellclose Square
Offline
Joined: 9-05-08
Nov 1 2011 18:03
Blasto wrote:
Just to correct some of the points made earlier about J publishing various articles on public order policing, he HAS infact published articles on policing public order, such as here, here and here.

They are there in back and white, in print and online. The links to further examples are given in a previous post. J agreed to be listed as an author, which makes him an author. His involvement in this work is indisputable.

Likewise, J has trained the police. This is also indisputable - here is an example

J has also participated in policy development on public order policing, for example in Manchester.

As the Chaos Theory article in particular also makes clear, there is a joint development of a crowd psychology model that has involved a number of UK psychologists and which J has made significant contributions to. Js contributions have included field research in highly politicised public order situations, including the Poll Tax riot and road protests

This is a big problem. Arguably bigger still is the subsequent complicity of Aufheben and Libcom.

Thanks for refocusing on the issue in hand. It is a big problem, as well as the subsequent complicity.

Blasto
Offline
Joined: 17-11-10
Nov 1 2011 19:10

Further to J's contributions to policing policy (and for those who claim his research is innocuous), does this sound familiar?

Quote:
The evidence we gathered showed that, in some situations, the police can act from the standpoint that conflict will occur (i.e. the worst case scenario) when this is not necessarily true. Any use of force against individuals should be a last resort as, on occasions, this may do more harm than good.
“With the poll tax riots in the 1990’s, police intervention in the crowd changed the crowd dynamic. Their intervention was seen as illegitimate and indiscriminate and an attack on the crowd as a whole. This created a unity that hadn’t existed before and changed the view of the crowd towards the police. Violence on the part of the protesters became ‘self defence’ and thus seen by them as legitimate”. (Academic source)

This is from the Greater Manchester Police Authority review "Policing of Major Events in Greater Manchester" (and no, there are no references at all to emergencies or disasters - it's strictly public order policing).

Here is their subsequent recommendation regarding police tactics:

Quote:
Policing Crowds:
Recommendation
The police should avoid making assumptions about how crowds will behave and not treat large groups of people attending events as homogeneous, recognising that people attend events for different reasons and with different motivations. Any tactics used to police crowds must be legitimate, proportionate and risk assessed to ensure that their use will not have an adverse effect on the wider group.

And who where these academic sources, these crowd specialists? I can't print names here, so have a look at Appendix A of the report.

Wellclose Square
Offline
Joined: 9-05-08
Nov 1 2011 19:15

Blasto wrote

Quote:
"This is from the Greater Manchester Police Authority review "Policing of Major Events in Greater Manchester" (and no, there are no references at all to emergencies or disasters - it's strictly public order policing).

Here is their subsequent recommendation regarding police tactics:
Quote:

Policing Crowds:
Recommendation
The police should avoid making assumptions about how crowds will behave and not treat large groups of people attending events as homogeneous, recognising that people attend events for different reasons and with different motivations. Any tactics used to police crowds must be legitimate, proportionate and risk assessed to ensure that their use will not have an adverse effect on the wider group.

And who were these academic sources, these crowd specialists? I can't print names here, so have a look at Appendix A of the report."

This on its own ought to nail the argument once and for all. Time for serious soul-searching...

Blasto
Offline
Joined: 17-11-10
Nov 1 2011 19:20

And this from Dr J himself, on his excitement at being funded to apply his crowd control research to emergencies.

Quote:
Our research in the related field of crowd protest has demonstrated a pattern whereby certain forms of police intervention can inadvertently create and escalate the mass conflict that senior police seek to prevent. One factor in this recurring pattern is the adoption by senior police officers of pathologizing representations of the crowd (e.g. inherent crowd irrationality and tendencies to violence). These representations parallel the “disaster myths” surrounding mass emergencies.

The research on police-crowd conflict shows how particular representations of crowd psychology inform crowd management practices, often with negative and unforeseen consequences.

Blasto
Offline
Joined: 17-11-10
Nov 1 2011 20:07
Wellclose Square wrote:
This on its own ought to nail the argument once and for all. Time for serious soul-searching...

My point here being threefold:

- J is a cop consultant. Fact.
- J actively and openly uses his experiences as a participant on demonstrations to inform police policy. Fact.
- These attempts to influence police tactics are effective. Fact.

It's possible to see these tactics in action on demonstrations if you go on them (J certainly does). It's hard to show that here, but have a watch and listen to his research and publishing chum Clifford Stott (in this case looking at policing football) and see if this birds-eye view of crowd manipulation rings true with any demos anyone has been on in 2011...

Blasto
Offline
Joined: 17-11-10
Nov 5 2011 12:54

Further to my last post, someone has sent me this info,which if nothing else shows that J has been training police for at least ten years. Here with his usual chums, he's teaching cops about the Psychology of Public Disorder at the Centre for Investigative Psychology's Sixth Conference in 2001:

Quote:
SYMPOSIUM D: THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF 'PUBLIC DISORDER'

Chair: Dr Clifford Stott, University of Liverpool

S Reicher, University of St Andrews;
Crowd Behaviour: An Elaborated Social Identity Model
abstract & author

C Stott, University of Liverpool;
The Dynamics of Change:
The Development of Public 'Disorder' During the
1990 Anti Poll Tax Demonstration
abstract & author

P Cronin, University of St Andrews;
Policing Public 'Disorder':
An Analysis of Police Decision Making During the
'J18' Anti Capitalist Riots
abstract & author

J REDACTED, University of Sussex;
Collective Action and Psychological Change:
Intergroup Dynamics at an Anti-Road Protest

waslax's picture
waslax
Offline
Joined: 6-12-07
Nov 3 2011 09:12

Let's see how the JD protection racket tries to weasel out of that!

posi
Offline
Joined: 24-09-05
Nov 3 2011 09:39

Erm, I anticipate they will ask whether there is any evidence that there were any cops at the 2001 conference of the Centre for Investigative Psychology, and how even if there were, how far the symposium in question could be shown to be directed at cops. And how far what was said in the presentation differs from what is publicly available in movement publications.

I mean, a text like Piven and Cloward's Poor People's Movements could be very useful to the state, if they read it the right way. In fact, I'm sure people from a capitalist point of view have found it useful. Yet prole.info and libcom host chapters from that book. But if I saw Frances Fox Piven speaking on a panel entitled Mobilisation and Co-option at a sociological conference, I wouldn't think that was evidence that she was supporting the co-option of social movements.

Blasto
Offline
Joined: 17-11-10
Nov 3 2011 10:37
posi wrote:
Erm, I anticipate they will ask whether there is any evidence that there were any cops at the 2001 conference of the Centre for Investigative Psychology, and how even if there were, how far the symposium in question could be shown to be directed at cops. And how far what was said in the presentation differs from what is publicly available in movement publications.

Of course they will. And if people cannot see the difference between writing a book aimed at lefties and delivering at a conference or writing an article specifically aimed at improving police practice, then perhaps we have to ask if there is any role that beyond the pale for communists?

Re the attendance of cops at the conference, it was opened by one. The "symposiums" were titled:

SYMPOSIUM A: THE CLASSIFICATION OF VIOLENT CRIME
Symposium B: INTERNATIONAL CASE STUDIES IN PROFILING
SYMPOSIUM C: EVALUATING INVESTIGATIVE INFORMATION
SYMPOSIUM D: THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF 'PUBLIC DISORDER'
SYMPOSIUM E: INVESTIGATIVE DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS
SYMPOSIUM F: THE MYTHOLOGY OF OFFENDER PROFILING
SYMPOSIUM G: WORK AT THE NATIONAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF POLICE SCIENCE, JAPAN
SYMPOSIUM H: SOCIAL PROCESSES IN CRIME
SYMPOSIUM I: ACTION SYSTEMS RESEARCH IN INVESTIGATIVE PSYCHOLOGY
SYMPOSIUM J: THE CRIMINAL ACT

Aside from academics, contributors included:
Merseyside Police
Kumamoto Prefecture Police Tokyo
Institute of Forensic Research
National Police, Italy
Institute of Criminal Profiling and Analysis, Paris
National Crime Faculty, UK
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Forensic Sciences International, USA
Hokkaido Prefecture Police, Japan
NATIONAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF POLICE SCIENCE, JAPAN
HMP Holme House, Cleveland

Make what you want of that, but it seems to paint a pretty clear picture of the nature of the event.

vanilla.ice.baby
Offline
Joined: 9-08-07
Nov 3 2011 10:39

Holme House? lol I probably know their contributor then grin

posi
Offline
Joined: 24-09-05
Nov 3 2011 11:05

Well - in that case I guess the audience was more or less police, fair enough. I suppose the question is then the content of the paper...

http://www.sussex.ac.uk/affiliates/panic/DruryReicher2000.pdf

I've just skimmed it, and I've gotta say, I don't think it is aimed an improving police practice, and doesn't make any suggestions for police to do anything different. It just makes the point that police violence causes radicalisation amongst protestors. It doesn't say that the police ought to have been less violent, or make any suggestions to them. I guess giving the paper in front of an audience of police is probably not the author's ideal scenario, but I don't think - given that it makes no proposals or suggestions, and I can't imagine what any suggestions based on it would look like - it amounts to giving advice to the police.

Blasto
Offline
Joined: 17-11-10
Nov 3 2011 11:39

Yes keep going... so training cops is ok? Training them on "The Psychology of Public Disorder" is ok? So long as there is a paper on his bio page with a completely different title?

In the world of J, nothing is as it seems. Someone else writes under his name. He trains cops without training them. And when he does train them, he is telling them nothing. The research he is contributing to is non-influential, but appears as recommendations in policing policy. A strange case indeed!

Why defend this?

vanilla.ice.baby
Offline
Joined: 9-08-07
Nov 3 2011 11:51

The man is an enigma wrapped in a puzzle all bound up in guessing game

Blasto
Offline
Joined: 17-11-10
Nov 3 2011 12:02

The man is a two-faced cop consultant wrapped up in his own self-delusion and bound up in his own tangled web.

He also has some very loyal mates who would rather argue black is white than have the honesty to accept that something has gone badly wrong in the little world of Aufheben.

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Nov 3 2011 12:10
Blasto wrote:
He also has some very loyal mates who would rather argue black is white than have the honesty to accept that something has gone badly wrong in the little world of Aufheben.

Apart from tarnishing the reputation of one individual involved in the journal, what implications does this actually have for Aufheben. Call me a cop consultant collaborator if you want, but I am going to still read the stuff they produce roll eyes

tastybrain
Offline
Joined: 11-11-07
Nov 3 2011 15:48
Blasto wrote:
posi wrote:
Erm, I anticipate they will ask whether there is any evidence that there were any cops at the 2001 conference of the Centre for Investigative Psychology, and how even if there were, how far the symposium in question could be shown to be directed at cops. And how far what was said in the presentation differs from what is publicly available in movement publications.

Of course they will. And if people cannot see the difference between writing a book aimed at lefties and delivering at a conference or writing an article specifically aimed at improving police practice, then perhaps we have to ask if there is any role that beyond the pale for communists?

Yeah for real. Are you serious, posi? This guy is actually trying to improve policing. Whether he has succeeded or not and whether or not the same insights could be gleaned from cops reading radical literature (something I doubt they have much time for unless they can realize immediate gains from it), the intention is still reprehensible.

Arbeiten wrote:
Blasto wrote:
He also has some very loyal mates who would rather argue black is white than have the honesty to accept that something has gone badly wrong in the little world of Aufheben.

Apart from tarnishing the reputation of one individual involved in the journal, what implications does this actually have for Aufheben. Call me a cop consultant collaborator if you want, but I am going to still read the stuff they produce roll eyes

I don't think anyone has any problem with people continuing to read Aufheben. They have a problem with the ridiculously tortured defense of someone who seems to be, literally, a cop consultant.

Blasto
Offline
Joined: 17-11-10
Nov 3 2011 16:52


Arbeiten wrote:
Apart from tarnishing the reputation of one individual involved in the journal, what implications does this actually have for Aufheben. Call me a cop consultant collaborator if you want, but I am going to still read the stuff they produce roll eyes

Reading or not reading Aufheben is hardly the point, unless you are into book burning?

So what are the consequences? There appear to be none from your perspective, so you have answered your own question.

From where I'm standing, Aufheben have already trashed their own project.

*****
EDIT: Just to note that I hadn't seen tastybrain's post - but I think we make a similar point.

posi
Offline
Joined: 24-09-05
Nov 3 2011 20:18
Quote:
This guy is actually trying to improve policing.

I really doubt that that is his intention. I imagine his aim is to spend his time reading, thinking and writing about the micro-sociology of identity formation in protest movements, and get paid for it. Why on earth would he actually want to help the police, even if that was an outcome of what he does?

Mr. Jolly's picture
Mr. Jolly
Offline
Joined: 28-04-11
Nov 3 2011 20:56

Can a person not have a hobby as well as a day job that are quite contradictory? I mean Britain's strongest man Geoff Capes used to breed budgies.

waslax's picture
waslax
Offline
Joined: 6-12-07
Nov 3 2011 23:00
posi wrote:
Quote:
This guy is actually trying to improve policing.

I really doubt that that is his intention. I imagine his aim is to spend his time reading, thinking and writing about the micro-sociology of identity formation in protest movements, and get paid for it. Why on earth would he actually want to help the police, even if that was an outcome of what he does?

Surely this can also be turned around to ask:

Why on earth would he actually NOT want to help the police? How are we supposed to know what the hell goes on inside his head? None of us knows, really, though some here have tried very hard to convince the rest of us that they do know. He voluntarily chose his profession and position, and it simply isn't credible that he didn't know that the results of his work would be fodder for the forces of increasing domination over the population by capital and the state. Hell, that was obvious to me as an undergrad when I took a course in Social Psychology, years before adopting a pro-revolutionary perspective.

RedEd's picture
RedEd
Offline
Joined: 27-11-10
Nov 4 2011 02:48

I actually massively don't care if some guy who has written stuff for Aufheben has also written stuff for the use of cops. I mean, how does this really matter? And people have shown loyalty according to whether they have been assosiated with him or his friends? Well, no surprises there, that just means they are human. What surprises me is that so much effort and emotional investment has gone into condemning this guy. Like, seriously, he writes for an incredibly theoretical journal. What's the actual conflict of interest? Are we unable to understand and react to ideas independently of who wrote them? I hope not. Or is 'our movement' a social club for those of upright moral stature (as endlessly defined and redefined by the intellectuals amongst us).

There's a huge deficit of information about the political events in Greece from a libertarian communist perspective. Maybe TPTG could have benefitted their UK based comrades more (if that's their aim, no reason it should be) by helping us learn the lessons from the inspiring Greek class struggle rather than warning us of the dodgy doings of one of ours. And for UK based posters, is this really worth your trouble? Will 'winning the argument' here really help class struggle at all, or are you just thrashing around in the 'scene'? And that goes for both sides of the debate. Given the amount of detailed niggling over which 'side' is right or wrong with no obvious resolution, I'm inclined to thing neither side is worth being on.

And if this 'objectively' gives cover to a cop colaberator, then fine. Jesus doesn't everything 'objectively' help with some dynamic of capitalism. Let's get our priorities straight, and the purity of 'the movment' needs to be bumped down a few notches.

Edit: Jeus fuck. I just realised I told people on libcom to stop arguing about pointless shit. I hereby retract this post (not least on grounds of hypocracy!) smile

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Nov 4 2011 03:34

Hear, hear.

vanilla.ice.baby
Offline
Joined: 9-08-07
Nov 4 2011 05:53
Mr. Jolly wrote:
Can a person not have a hobby as well as a day job that are quite contradictory? I mean Britain's strongest man Geoff Capes used to breed budgies.

He was a copper as well.

Blasto
Offline
Joined: 17-11-10
Nov 4 2011 11:28
RedEd wrote:
I actually massively don't care if some guy who has written stuff for Aufheben has also written stuff for the use of cops. I mean, how does this really matter? And people have shown loyalty according to whether they have been assosiated with him or his friends? Well, no surprises there, that just means they are human. What surprises me is that so much effort and emotional investment has gone into condemning this guy. Like, seriously, he writes for an incredibly theoretical journal. What's the actual conflict of interest? Are we unable to understand and react to ideas independently of who wrote them? I hope not. Or is 'our movement' a social club for those of upright moral stature (as endlessly defined and redefined by the intellectuals amongst us).

There's a huge deficit of information about the political events in Greece from a libertarian communist perspective. Maybe TPTG could have benefitted their UK based comrades more (if that's their aim, no reason it should be) by helping us learn the lessons from the inspiring Greek class struggle rather than warning us of the dodgy doings of one of ours. And for UK based posters, is this really worth your trouble? Will 'winning the argument' here really help class struggle at all, or are you just thrashing around in the 'scene'? And that goes for both sides of the debate. Given the amount of detailed niggling over which 'side' is right or wrong with no obvious resolution, I'm inclined to thing neither side is worth being on.

And if this 'objectively' gives cover to a cop colaberator, then fine. Jesus doesn't everything 'objectively' help with some dynamic of capitalism. Let's get our priorities straight, and the purity of 'the movment' needs to be bumped down a few notches.

Edit: Jeus fuck. I just realised I told people on libcom to stop arguing about pointless shit. I hereby retract this post (not least on grounds of hypocracy!) :)

Wow. That's staggering.The irony of the bookfair was of all the stalls selling anarchist badges, tee shirts, coasters, posters and all the other consumer bric-a-brac, Aufheben had the one item of practical consequence - a luddite's hammer. I was sorely tempted to use it, but thought better of it. Instead I decided to come back to try and explain why there is a problem. It seemed more constructive. From your comments, there is a long, long way to go....

There are cops who go and control and limit the potential of movements on an immediate and practical level, and then there are 'experts' who study how well that worked and develop ways of doing it better next time. And then there are those who go a step further. They move within the struggle, within movements, and participate, study at close quarters and discuss tactics, feelings, perceptions and then develop ways to police it better the next time. I am at a loss at how people are finding it so very easy and convenient say this isn't of any consequence.

Isn't this a problem for you. Don't you do anything? Why ask for information about Greece? Is it entertainment for you?

On any kind of meaningful level, the revolution doesn't start in Greece or in Spain '36. It starts with you, with a shift in perspective. But that only has any consequence when it realises itself in a practical way. That is the class struggle.

So in terms of Greece, solidarity isn't words, its action. It's how we respond to the world as we find it. Yes, we all get on with surviving in it. And when and where we can we find ways and moments to attack it. Our experience informs our theory and our theory helps to make sense of our experiences. And of course, we are not alone. We exist within a capitalist society and therefore we exist within a situation of class struggle. That is something real that exists all around us and we either help or hinder it. It is not some Saturday afternoon activity. So regardless of whether we are directly participating in a practical realisation of it or just getting on with surviving, we DO NOT undermine the efforts, the struggles, the survival of others. This is absolutely fucking basic.

But this is exactly what is going on. And Aufheben, as we now know, were made aware of this at least ten years ago. So they have made themselves part of the problem. And now we have libcom admin throwing their hat into the ring. I had honestly thought that the worst consequence of the long lull in class conflict was the epidemic of depression that affected so many of us. It seems that a lot of other things have gone wrong in that time too, not least a breakdown in critical faculties, but creeping arrogance within the milieu, an arrogance that because we know the score, we can do what the fuck we like, regardless of its consequences to others.

What really astounds me, angers me, is the arrogance of "revolutionaries" who, for the sake of some twat friend, want to justify the utter betrayal of what he has done. As if they are the centre of the world and its only them, or "the milieu", that matters. Go ask the thousands in jail, those kettled, batoned or singled out at demos, or even those he interviewed at the M11 protest, Show them the catalogue of collaboration - the conferences, interviews, committees, the articles, the cop classes, and see if they think this is niggling.

Regardless of how nice J is, how much he has sleepwalked into this (though there's been a clear relationship between him and the police since at least 2001), it doesn't alter what he is doing. Get out of your black and red ivory tower and face up to this utter shit. Read the TPTG letters again. You want perspective from Greece. They gave it to you. They are fighting tooth and nail. They have asked for some practical solidarity. Try showing some.

posi
Offline
Joined: 24-09-05
Nov 4 2011 10:41
Quote:
Why on earth would he actually NOT want to help the police? How are we supposed to know what the hell goes on inside his head?

The standard method is to ask the person concerned.

Blasto
Offline
Joined: 17-11-10
Nov 4 2011 10:56
posi wrote:
Quote:
Why on earth would he actually NOT want to help the police? How are we supposed to know what the hell goes on inside his head?

The standard method is to ask the person concerned.

Unless he has some kind of mental health problem, his actions and intentions somehow connect, surely? If he doesn't want to train police in crowd management, he refuses. There is no gun to his head, only, perhaps, his big salary.

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Nov 4 2011 12:51

This thread is getting pretty circular isn't it? It seems like the 'anti-J' section are now just getting frustrated that there is a difference in opinion. No 'pro-J' has posted on the two threads concerned in ages. For what ever reason. Now we have a certain number of posted resurrecting a thread every day basically saying AGREE WITH ME AGREE WITH ME! I notice it isn't really 'pro-J's' who are posting anymore, but people like me and Red. people who are probably pretty on the fence about it, but are wondering exactly what you people want?

As for 'showing some' (practical solidarity) SURELY those of us involved in day to day organizing the class struggle on the ground here in Britain is showing ten times more solidarity to Greece than writing long posts about some prof who wrote shite papers. Try get things in perspective huh?

Blasto
Offline
Joined: 17-11-10
Nov 4 2011 14:08

Perspective? Sorry, I forgot that its the libertarian communists who are organising the class struggle in the UK. How could I have not noticed? smile

But seriously, (and with genuine respect) that is why I am posting. Because here we have a situation of a complete loss of perspective. What is the class struggle? Does it revolve around a small bunch of anarchos? Its a huge number of people who are taking real chances, real risks. Don't they deserve a little more respect and consideration?

It is just arrogance and decadence for people to be so dismissive of what is being said, when in all likelihood its not them who are going to face the consequences. As I said before, I'm posting here as it seems a constructive way to address this.

As for the silence of the JD defenders (deliberate or otherwise), this is a public forum, not an audience with Joseph Kay. We speak to the readers of posts, not just those who respond, if you get my meaning.

Topic locked