Arguing about a headline is pretty fucking trivial, yes.The best headlines have puns in anyway. Anarchists just need to step up their pun-game.
Why do I get the distinct impression you aren't really grasping the point?
The point that it's not possible for everyone to have a decent job?
GROUNDBREAKING, CHEERS.
The point that it's not possible for everyone to have a decent job?GROUNDBREAKING, CHEERS.
Right and so having a headline that suggests otherwise is not problematic because?
Because absolutely no one who reads it is gonna think 'YEAH! we could ALL get good jobs under capitalism'.
assuming they read on from the headline that is. the headline isn't the substance, it's the fucking title.
Because absolutely no one who reads it is gonna think 'YEAH! we could ALL get good jobs under capitalism'.assuming they read on from the headline that is. the headline isn't the substance, it's the fucking title.
So they could have put anything in the title, cos it's totally irrelevant.
Also the content is populist guff giving a rosey paint job on a rather murky issue, and the title sits with that populism.
Oh aye and whilst the headline can be perhaps be put down to sloppiness, the nonsense spin of the article itself can't.British Headlines for British Readers!
As was obvious from the start of the thread revol is just using the headline as an excuse to snipe at the article. Instead of attacking the article he's hoping someone will bite on his refernces to the article so he can attack them instead while using a fairly innocuous typo as a stick to beat people down with. The sad tinmg about it its just so banal, i mean getting completely hysterical about the words ''decent job'' is just ridiculous. .
Perhaps an admin can do everyone a favour and bin this thread, its obviously not going anywhere.
revol68 wrote:
Oh aye and whilst the headline can be perhaps be put down to sloppiness, the nonsense spin of the article itself can't.British Headlines for British Readers!
As was obvious from the start of the thread revol is just using the headline as an excuse to snipe at the article. Instead of attacking the article he's hoping someone will bite on his refernces to the article so he can attack them instead while using a fairly innocuous typo as a stick to beat people down with. The sad tinmg about it its just so banal, i mean getting completely hysterical about the words ''decent job'' is just ridiculous. .
Perhaps an admin can do everyone a favour and bin this thread, its obviously not going anywhere.
Firstly the issues (not the artcile itself obviously as I don't think it had been published then) in the content of the article were discussed on here already.
Secondly are you now claiming the headline was a typo? Like seriously, cos if that's the case it takes the intellectual dishonesty that you were so quick (and right I might add) to criticise the WSM, IWW and AF over and not so much runs as much as takes off into flight with it.
Trying to get the admins to bin it is particularly pathetic.
congratulations revol, you're managing to be more embarassing than the headline
Firstly the issues (not the artcile itself obviously as I don't think it had been published then) in the content of the article were discussed on here already.
Yes, and you made it clear what your views were then. Hence fairly obviously your trying to bait people into stating their views on it. Fortunately its all pretty see through though, so no-ones going to bite.
Secondly are you now claiming the headline was a typo?
Its a fairly inoccuous if somewhat naff headline but as it happens it is effectively a typo since Jacks already said that the headline was supposed to read ''decent jobs for decent workers''. Don;t take my word for it though, talk to jack and read his posts for the full fascinating story.
Anyways this is dull; bin please.
So they could have put anything in the title, cos it's totally irrelevant.
Yeah, sounds like you're finally getting it...
All propaganda-based organisations which purport to articulate the revolutionary potential of the working class get caught up in the same contradiction: they must adopt populist policies in order to ‘attract’ readers and recruits and yet they must also retain their revolutionary critique.
This contradiction has never been resolved by retaining both elements – and nor can the contradiction ever be resolved within any organisation that seeks to retain both a revolutionary critique and gain a mass membership. It is an issue that is settled outside the capacity of the organisation.
The contradiction can only be by-passed if one or other of its elements is deliberately excluded. The organisation is always forced to decide between preserving its critique (including the critique of organisation) or acceding to the pressure of the economies of scale via a diluted politics and an increased membership base .
This is not a ‘non-issue’ but is the major problematic of the worst form of (i.e. unpopular) left populism. As soon as any group attempts to undertake a ‘practical’ politics which will appeal to ‘ordinary workers’ it automatically loses its grasp on the critique of capital and becomes indistinguishable from any other left group, all of which are competitively promoting the same interpellated ideological product: decent jobs for decent workers. None of these groups want to take this line, but all of them at the same stage in their development (or decomposition) find that they have no choice.
Preserving the role of the worker is the only remotely feasible option open to those who wish to build a mass movement. It will never happen but I wonder at what point it would be appropriate for the organisation's leadership to break it to the masses that the critique of capitalism is essentially the critique of the role of waged labour.
Yes, and you made it clear what your views were then. Hence fairly obviously your trying to bait people into stating their views on it. Fortunately its all pretty see through though, so no-ones going to bite.
Sorry but it would be more acurate to say I'm trying to bait peole into stating their views on the headline and yet I'm still baffled as to what would be so terrible about 'baiting' people into giving their views on any matter? The notion that the criticism of the headline is some sort of Machiavellian plot to get at the content of the article itself is pretty bonkers, especially as I made clear months ago what I thought of that particular spin on the LOR strikes issue, and my OP makes metnion of that fact. Now since people have tried to dismiss criticism of the headline as trivial, and suggest it was simply an oversight etc I'm suggesting that that is bullshit and the illthought out populism and painfully desperate need to be seen as 'relevant' to the strikes lead to a dulling of critical faculties, obvious in the headline and the content.
Its a fairly inoccuous if somewhat naff headline but as it happens it is effectively a typo since Jacks already said that the headline was supposed to read ''decent jobs for decent workers''. Don;t take my word for it though, talk to jack and read his posts for the full fascinating story.
You do realise that Jack's "Decent jobs for decent workers" alternative headline was a joke? But hye don't take my word for it though, buy an ounce of wit and think about it.
Anyways this is dull; bin please.
So because you don't find a thread interesting it should be binned?
Revol - read the above post by fort-da-game to yourself. This is how you sound.
Yes and I could say the headline and article make Solfed sound like the Socialist Party, so what?
Oh and could you explain to Cantdo that your 'decent jobs for decent workers' headline was a joke?
I'd rather sound like the Socialist Party than fort-da-game!I don't see how it matters that it's a joke, decent jobs for decent workers is even more reactionary!
Well I'd rather sound like neither especially as accepting it has to be one or the other means agreeing with fort-da-game's argument.
I know it's even more reactionary, which is what makes Cantdo's suggestion that the original headline was a typo and it should have been 'decent jobs for decent workers' even more mental.
The difference is that the SP aren't the communist equivalent of that scouse dickhead who shouts about jesus on Oxford Circus.
Yep which is why accepting the "either or" premise of his argument probably isn't the smartest of ideas.
So because you don't find a thread interesting it should be binned?
No because you've just spent an entire thread on one of your spoiling-for-a-fight missions it should be binned. Seriously get a punch bag or something.
Quote:
So because you don't find a thread interesting it should be binned?No because you've just spent an entire thread on one of your spoiling-for-a-fight missions it should be binned. Seriously get a punch bag or something.
I wanted an argument yes, I also think I choose to have one on a fair enough issue. If spoiling for fight means wanting to have an argument online then yes you've got me there, though I always assumed that was kind of the point of political discussion forums.
I do find it odd that this thread is seen as me spoiling for a fight, yet numerous other threads where I have been also spoiling for a fight on issues like the IWW's MP membership, the WSM's nationalisation demands and so on were fair enough.
Seems that it's grand for me to rant against bullshit as long as it's someone elses bullshit and you're in agreement. Which of course is sectarian, self serving shite. If the WSM had used that headline and I'd posted this thread there would be none of this nonsense. It just smacks of intellectual cowardice.
The shocking true story behind this headline, revealed exclusively on libcom.orgI put headline "Decent jobs for decent workers" as a joke headline as a space filler while doing the draft, as I do with all the headlines, unless one immediately jumps out at me.
...I forget it needs changing and send it to the printers, then go to bed.
I find this explanation implausible. You should've just blamed it on the juice.
I'd rather sound like the Socialist Party than fort-da-game!
I do know one SPer who's incredibly nice and bakes really good cakes. Can fort-da-game bake really good cakes?
I would apologise for derailing this thread with a frivolous post if there was an actual worthwhile discussion going on here, but I'm not convinced there is.
In fairness I've been pretty consistent in noting it when I think you're more looking for a rumble than for a debate. The main point in this particular case I think is that while yes it was a bit of a crap headline it seems a bit of a non-issue given that jack's explained why it occurred and no-one from solfed has argued that it was a perfect, or even a very good, headline.
Personally, I've done some shockers in my time, but when you've got about three minutes to fill a very specific space, outlining a complex subject in exact political terms comes secondary to not missing deadline while you faff about with a dictionary, thesaurus and measuring stick.
In fairness I've been pretty consistent in noting it when I think you're more looking for a rumble than for a debate. The main point in this particular case I think is that while yes it was a bit of a crap headline it seems a bit of a non-issue given that jack's explained why it occurred and no-one from solfed has argued that it was a perfect headline.Personally, I've done some shockers in my time, but when you've got about three minutes to fill a very specific space, outlining a complex subject in perfect political terms comes secondary to not missing deadline while you faff about with a dictionary, thesaurus and measuring stick.
yes and di i say anything more to Jack about it when he explained what happened? Or did the thread turn into me having to defend myself for criticising it?
Saying that the fact can'tdo thinks 'decent jobs for decent workers' would have been more acceptable makes me laugh, well that and the double standard in the rest of them whinging about me spoiling for a fight over something when they had no problem and indeed joined in on it when it was the WSM, AF and IWW.
Oh and I'm still shcoked that even the idea of Decent Jobs for All, could be ever put in the headline, rather the impossibility of it being at the forefront in any analysis of struggles between sections of the proletariat for work.
Seems that it's grand for me to rant against bullshit as long as it's someone elses bullshit and you're in agreement. Which of course is sectarian, self serving shite. If the WSM had used that headline and I'd posted this thread there would be none of this nonsense. It just smacks of intellectual cowardice.
Listen shortarse, stop whinging. It's not intellectual cowardice to admit that the person you're debating with has a point. We heard your criticism and it seems like most of us thought it was fair enough (even if there are varying degrees of importance attached to it), why are you still throwing a shitty?
It seems like you're making a further point as well regarding the content of the article: you think that the Solfed article is trying to latch onto the populist sentiments of the strikes by attaching a reactionary title to a reactionary story supporting a reactionary strike. This is bollocks in my opinion; firstly because we take on board the problem with the title so it's not part of some grand scheme to court reactionary elements within the workers' movement. And secondly, because the strike itself wasn't the 'We support Enoch Powell'-esque strike you're making out.
Be honest, you're just being a ballsack because you've got fuck all else to do. Seriously brah, get a job or someshit..
revol68 wrote:
Seems that it's grand for me to rant against bullshit as long as it's someone elses bullshit and you're in agreement. Which of course is sectarian, self serving shite. If the WSM had used that headline and I'd posted this thread there would be none of this nonsense. It just smacks of intellectual cowardice.Listen shortarse, stop whinging. It's not intellectual cowardice to admit that the person you're debating with has a point. We heard your criticism and it seems like most of us thought it was fair enough (even if there are varying degrees of importance attached to it), why are you still throwing a shitty?
It seems like you're making a further point as well regarding the content of the article: you think that the Solfed article is trying to latch onto the populist sentiments of the strikes by attaching a reactionary title to a reactionary story supporting a reactionary strike. This is bollocks in my opinion; firstly because we take on board the problem with the title so it's not part of some grand scheme to court reactionary elements within the workers' movement. And secondly, because the strike itself wasn't the 'We support Enoch Powell'-esque strike you're making out.
Be honest, you're just being a ballsack because you've got fuck all else to do. Seriously brah, get a job or someshit..
How am I still throwing a shitty, I'm simply pointing out that this whinging never happened when the WSM and IWW were getting in the neck and that the fact Cantdo thinks 'Decent jobs for decent workers' is more acceptable is hilarious.
Yes I do think the content is something of a spin job, thought he wider issues of the LOR strike were discussed on a thread when they were happening. My views on that haven't changed and i'll be more than willing to debate that issue. Now knowing my views on the strikes do you really think it is unreasonable for me to connect the dots between them? It's not like i'm the only one who thinks the article is trying to put a more positive spin on the strikes.
I'm posting on libcom cos i've fuck all else to do, whether i'm a ballsack depends on what i'm discussing.
p.s. making out that me or the others that shared reservations about the nature of the strikes presented them as the equivalent to 'We support Enoch Powell' strikes of the 70's is just bollocks.
Mate, you're the only one whinging here.. "eh eh, look here, it's intellectual cowardice..". Seriously, you're just being a little bitch coz you didn't get the argument you were looking for (coz people thought you had a point about the headline, even if we disagree on the content of the article..). Comparing it to the WSM and the IWW setting up their own forums to talk about nationalising Ireland's oil and setting up an industrial union for MPs is just ridiculous and reflects more your own frustration with not being able to get the row here that you were looking for...
As for what your views on the strike are, I don't actually know, I didn't follow the last thread so closely but skimming over it, the impression I got was that you thought it was a racist strike which anarchists have no reason to support. Is this wrong?
And you are a ballsack, regardless of what you're discussing.. 
No I was happy to leave it with Jack's explanation, but it ended up being turned into a 'you're only lookig to pick a fight' shite by others before Jack had even responded, so infact I did get a rwo it just wasn't on the actual issue that grated with me.
Also I'm not comparing the reactions the WSM running off to set up their Maoist re-education forums, I was comparng the reaction to my OP to the reaction I got when I was far more obviously looking for a reason to have a go at the WSM.
As for my views on the strike well they are quite a bit more complicated than it simply being a 'racist' strike, if you want to get into the issue deeper then fair enough, resurrect the old thread, you might also see that my concerns are shared by most of Organise too, and it certainly wasn't out of some spoiling for a fight shite.
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
Actually I think I'm not too bad at punning headlines as it goes, but if I remember rightly I had backed off of the Lindsey article due to an essay bottleneck and a feeling that I probably wasn't the best person to get to grips with it.
Suggestions for future Catalyst headlines:
"No2EU"
"Fuck shit up"
"Revol68"
etc
Can I suggest that everyone else just stop posting here, on the basis that if we ignore it it might go away?
~J.
revol, I thought you had a girlfriend, and so didn't need to indulge in this sort of shit anymore. Has she dumped you or something?
revol, I thought you had a girlfriend, and so didn't need to indulge in this sort of shit anymore. Has she dumped you or something?
Yes, no and snce when was a thread ranting about some reactionary shite not form for libcom as a whole?
I'm assuming you don't think I have a point about the headline then? Or have you just jumped into make a point of no political relevance outside of libcommunity.
Trolling your own forums, ooops.
Really this thread better go somewhere or it's getting binned..
In less than two weeks time hundreds of neo-Nazis and racists will descend on the coastal town of Dover calling for Britain to “close the border”. It is vital that anti-fascists and anti-racists...
A short biography of Séraphine Pajaud, French anarchist and champion of atheism, anti-militarism and women's liberation
An article by Staughton Lynd reinterprets the concept of union democracy to include workers of all kinds (unionized workers, nonunion workers, and farmers); protection of the rights to strike,...
Please read the posting guidelines before posting. If you see anything which falls outside them please use the down' button on the offending post to flag it for the moderators' attention, or in the case of spam, click the 'spam' button. Site admins are listed here, and feedback can be posted in the feedback forum.
Click here to register now. Logged in users:
Can comment on articles and discussions
Get 'recent posts' refreshed more regularly
Bookmark articles to your own reading list
Use the site private messaging system
Start forum discussions, submit articles, and more...
Arguing about a headline is pretty fucking trivial, yes.
The best headlines have puns in anyway. Anarchists just need to step up their pun-game.