Decent Jobs For All!? WTF!!! Catalyst #19

Without prejudice to you maybe having a point...

Are you running out of people to pick a fight with? I don't disagree with the sentiment (though admittedly I'd not really given it any thought until you mentioned it) but is it really as bad as you're making out? Seriously guy, you're gonna have a stroke..

I remember not liking the headline, more because it was a bit cringeworthy than anything else. It was a bit of a poor choice for an otherwise decent article, and if we'd really really felt the need to spoof BJFBW ''wildcats for all workers'' or ''rights fr all workers'' or whatever could have worked better. However, as with most things revol just makes me want to defend the choice of headline just because his arguements are always so hysterical and absurd these days.

The articles here
http://www.solfed.org.uk/docs/catalyst-19.txt.htm
Headline aside it was a decent and fairly standard short anarchist article on the LOR strike for a freesheet. Don;t see anything particularly contentious about it.

While I actuallyagree with him, it's embarrassing that he disappears from politics for so long, especially when there's lots of concrete local struggles he's completely avoided supporting, and choose to come online in the wee small hrs to pick a fight about an out of date issue of Catalyst.

He actually tried to argue this with me last night, even though I completely agree. Embarrassing.

edit - how many peopel from SF would actually defend the headline though? just curious

Fuck okay then, yes it is a shite headline. I agree.

This is even worse than the original one!! Although this goes into stupid battle who is the a bigger prick and one should take sides with revol or "the other side", I would be glad if people stick to the point. And I think revol made one.

I remember there was a similar debate about such approach in anarchist/communist publications when municipal workers were on strike on protest and their slogan was Decent jobs or something like that. And some people here said they have no problem using this themselves. As was said - there is nothing "decent" about jobs. I feel like this is being some kind of working class pride or something like that. Which is shit because it is not a pride based on your action but on your position in the capitalist system. Although I don't agree completely with revol that this leads to the idea that it "only serves to shore up the belief that capitalism can be made fair or work not alienated or exploitative", I think he is making a good point about culture it can help to perpetuate.

heh, ok. still, the original one is bad as well.

Sorry

I wasn't trying to be sarcy I simply felt compelled by your force of argument to come out and publically agree with your position.

And thats despite the fact that I have friends in SolFed and generally have a lot of time for that organisation. Then again the shitness of the headline should be pointed out for exactly those reasons.

ps its fuckin sunny out - come down to the pub

Lol, sounds like someone missed this thread.

pff way to fucking completely miss the point ballroot

The criticism for activisty shite were generally over people doing pretty useless stuff just for the sake of 'doing something' - to the extent where people invented shit to be doing, even when there were no real ongoing struggles with which to engage

The issue of Catalyst you're talking about came out, what 3mths ago, and sat on our kitchen table since early march for about a month, and we even sat discussing how shit it was then, but you didn't bother coming on to post shit then. I mean, if that's what's really bothering you why not do it then, when it was a current issue, and you seen it every single day?

As it is there does come a point where no one will listen to you sounding like a whinging little bitch. I actually agree with you, but to be honest, rather than take issue with it when it was current (and you knew very well about it 3 mths ago) you'd be better placed showing up for half an hr at many of the tickets 15 min walk from your own house for sacked wildcat strike workers

And I don't even know what this boycotting Lucozade shite is, seriously mate, is that your argument? And bringing up shit you did 8yrs ago? Now that is grasping. 'eh eh i did stuff in 2001', come on you can do much better than that

It is of course perfectly valid to criticise shit like this headline but to be honest, you are doing your usual boring spoiling for a fight and christ, it doesn't half wear people down to the point they ignore you as a complete irrelevance. Also given that you literally have fuck all to do these days, I'm sure you could actually do something productive.

Seriously there really is a point where you can't simply brush off inactivity through a critique of 'activisty shite', which most of us share but when struggles do arise, retreating to the 'eh eh activist shite' each and every time someone says 'maybe you could actually be supporting this no?'
If you're saying that Subway, Visteon, or the current traffic warden protest are in any way comparable to activist shite then fuck me that's daft.
I know you're not saying it, but comparing anyone who says 'here fuck sake could you not come down to these pickets once in a blue moon?' to activist twats smacks of lazy shit.

That one was a joke though, a play on 'british jobs for british workers'

Agreed.

was it?
surely you would have commented on it then no? Or do you mean the general Lindsey strike thread?
I'm confused - it it WAS discussed on here then you can't complain no one said anything about it. Serious though, if it was discussed on here and you remember it being discussed on here, you surely would have went mental about the headline then?

If it wasn't discussed on here, it's because that issue of Catalyst wasn't posted on here, i can't remember either way.

No idea, like i said its a bit cringeworthy in terms of the wording and its a naff headline but I can't say it bothers me that much.

Yes, we should have thought of a better headline. We didn't. I don't think anyone involved in Catalyst (or indeed SF) thinks anything other than that work is crap by its nature. I can't remember how we even came up with it but we wnated to make a statement against the nationalism inherent in some of the demands the Lindsey workers were making, while still supporting their overall fight. Can anyone think of a better headline?

Still, if that's the only criticism you have....

Regards,

Martin

And while it's true that all jobs under capitalism are alienated and exploitative, the whole point of fighting is to make them better and through that struggle to see the possibilities of revolution. Because that has gone on in the past, some jobs are better than others. The reason that the Lindsey workers were fighting to defend their set up was because they were organised. It's the same reason the bosses were seeking to undermine it.Most of them are better paid for doing manual jobs than most of the graduates on here are. It's not because of their skillls, but because of their organisation, and their willingness to defend it.

Or do you see no difference between jobs?

Regards,

Martin

Very noble Jack. I think perhaps we need to co-opt someone onto the collective who's good at headlines, because I'm not and neither is N.

Regards,

martin

well i think you can either have 'normal headlines'
or headlines with politics you'll bother to defend

While the explanation about how the headline came to exist may mean that those who put out the publication actually have some critique of the kind of politics it represents, the fact that people are on here saying it doesn't bother them makes me feel like a critique might be of some importance, regardless of whether the person making it is portrayed as having credibility in some prolier-than-thou identity politics or is putting sufficient hours into particular struggles, and even if the headline was from some time ago. After all, some people are not bothered by the slogan, and presumably that is an ongoing matter.

I remember, many years ago, Militant headlined their paper "Jobs not dole!", and I think there are similar assumptions underlying the view that this is a fine way to 'relate' to people. Maybe as part of the struggle to universalize the proletarian condition - everyone must work! those who do not work should not eat! - and get rid of those parasitic layers, or maybe just to efface any distinction from social democratic goals about managing existing relations of production - a fair day's work for a fair day's pay.

There are ways to avoid reproducing those kind of assumptions even if people don't want to be inscribing on one's banner the goal of abolishing the wages system, I would have thought.

Wow, how trivial.