the worst product of crap headlines is anti-crap headlines
Jun 4 2009 09:17
Jun 4 2009 11:18
Quote:
but the reaction to Revols criticism has been more of an attack than admitting of a mistake.
...
jack wrote:
I'm not going to defend the headline. Because it's crap, and was never intended to be used. If I'd written it thinking "Fuck, this is ace, it really subverts the nationalist tone, it's a work of genius and fully represents my opinion" then I might feel obliged to defend it - but since I didn't then I'm not really
sure why anyone would expect me to?
Jun 4 2009 11:22
Devrim wrote:
He is also right about how it would have been different if it had been a WSM headline.
You're right, the WSM would have defended it..
Jun 4 2009 11:24
Well done Rob, you found the exception that proves the rule.
Devrim
Jun 4 2009 11:56
Devrim wrote:
Well done Rob, you found the exception that proves the rule.
The exception that proves the rule? Can you find me one post which defends the headline?
Jun 4 2009 12:21
Ed wrote:
Devrim wrote:
Well done Rob, you found the exception that proves the rule.The exception that proves the rule? Can you find me one post which defends the headline?
of course this 'exception' also happens to be the author of the headline in question. you used to be a talented shit-stirrer dev, the ICC seems to have reduced you to forming a popular front with revol 
Jun 4 2009 12:46
It is not that people are defending the headline. It is the level of assault that is being thrown at Revol for bringing it up. Do you think that he was wrong to comment upon it at all? It is the whole thing about how to conduct a discussion that I am trying to bring up. Every criticism of what people do seems to be met with a storm of abuse, much of of personal. The attacks on the commune for making comments on a public meeting or on myself for daring to criticize union motions can be looked on in a similar light.
Of course we can be sometimes guilty of being over defensive also but we do recognize that there is a problem with the way discussions are conducted and are trying to address it.
Devrim
Jun 4 2009 14:03
You're surprised a thread that began with 'WTF!!!' may not have had a high level of discussion? Its hardly been venom flying in revols direction. nice goalpost-shifting though.
Jun 4 2009 16:00
Devrim wrote:
It is not that people are defending the headline. It is the level of assault that is being thrown at Revol for bringing it up. Do you think that he was wrong to comment upon it at all?
No, that's why we agreed with his criticisms. But we also pointed out that he needn't get so hysterical about it. His response is the same here as it was when the IWW no-strike deals thing came about. It's like he's only got one setting, he's the Ben Stiller of the workers' movement..
Joseph Kay wrote:
nice goalpost-shifting though.
Wasn't it just. I almost missed it..
Jun 4 2009 20:42
Devrim wrote:
I agree with what Revol has to say. It was an awful headline, which is against the politics that we put forward in so many ways.Yes, mistakes can happen, but the reaction to Revols criticism has been more of an attack than admitting of a mistake.
He is also right about how it would have been different if it had been a WSM headline.
People naturally react over-defensively when their group is criticised, which is why you have to be excessively tactful if you want to convince them, rather than just denounce them. But that wouldn't be the libcom/internet-in-general style...
Jun 4 2009 21:11
Devrim wrote:
The attacks ... on myself for daring to criticize union motions can be looked on in a similar light.
I don't think that's accurate - people gave reasoned arguments as to why your criticisms on the union motion thread were inappropriate, patronising, uninformed and inaccurate. After a while people did get exasperated with your continued unfair, uninformed criticism of their active support for the Visteon dispute. If anything, I'd see your uninformed criticisms as a poor model of argument more than the, for the most part, tolerant and reasoned replies given.
Jun 4 2009 21:41
Joseph Kay wrote:
You're surprised a thread that began with 'WTF!!!' may not have had a high level of discussion? Its hardly been venom flying in revols direction. nice goalpost-shifting though.
oh wise up wtf, especially in the interweb speak form is hardly fuck all.
I think Ed might have had a point when he said I only have one mode, I'd accept that (except for the Stiller analogy I hate that Jew bastard, oh and Stiller for that matter 
) my one mode is to call bollox when I see it and not care too much about how politely I word it. The issue is that when I've called bollox on the WSM, IWW, Class War, and even the AF in equally impolite terms it's never raised this shit from the same posters, infact they usually join in and indeed have attacked other posters who have sought to divert the issue into "what've you done lately" or "revol is a rude swearing shit stirrer".
Even though me and Devrim have had fallings out in the past over both politics and my mode of expression, he is at least consistent in his positions unlike half the hypocritical pricks getting all whingey at me in this thread.
The obvious issue with this thread was that I daft enough to aim it at a group that a significant amount of posters are members of or heavily sympathetic to (and I'd include myself in that tbh). As for Ray pointing out that Jack admitted his mistake, well that might be relevant if the abuse aimed at me hadn't happened before Jack's admission and continued well after.
Seems I was given pretty much carte blanche to attack the lifestylists and platformists but I've crossed a line when I attack the most pathetic populism/ pesudo workerism. The fact most of the people on this thread also swallow the Socialist Parties line on the LOR strikes suggests to me that the reaction against activism and being irrelevant to the working class has swung too far towards a crude workerism that would eat shit and like it if told it was chocolate by 'the working class'.
Jun 4 2009 21:45
Also looking at the Union Motion thread I think Devrim's point was bang on. Infact if losing sight of your actual politics is the price to be paid for 'getting involved' and 'supporting the strike' I'm kind of glad I sat at home playing my xbox.
Jun 4 2009 22:05
revol68 wrote:
oh wise up wtf, especially in the interweb speak form is hardly fuck all.
agreed, just calling Dev on his faux outrage over the rather non-event that is this thread, especially since...
revol68 wrote:
my one mode is to call bollox when I see it and not care too much about how politely I word it.
...
revol68 wrote:
The fact most of the people on this thread also swallow the Socialist Parties line on the LOR strikes
i wish i could think for myself, like that revol68 off the internet 
revol68 wrote:
if losing sight of your actual politics is the price to be paid for 'getting involved' and 'supporting the strike' I'm kind of glad I sat at home playing my xbox.
are you really saying Organise! abandoned anarchism by supporting the Visteon strikers, or is it just Jack getting a few quid out of Unison's pocket and into the strikers' for basically zero effort that pales in comparison to your unimpeachable communist praxis? or, are you just desparately trying to create a row after people pretty much unanimously accepted your point?
Jun 4 2009 22:20
ignoring your contentless trolling, I'll focus on the one point as it approaches having one.
Quote:
are you really saying Organise! abandoned anarchism by supporting the Visteon strikers, or is it just Jack getting a few quid out of Unison's pocket and into the strikers' for basically zero effort that pales in comparison to your unimpeachable communist praxis? or, are you just desparately trying to create a row after people pretty much unanimously accepted your point?
When you've criticised bourgeois sexual morality were you really criticising it for locking up the sexual revolutionaries known as paedophiles?
No of course you weren't so don't insult everyones intelligence by insinuating I was saying Organise! had sold out their anarchist principles. As for Jack's union branch motion, yes I think anarchists shouldn't be at that and I think principles are there for bigger reasons than immediate pragmatism, but hey I guess that's me just being a contrarian shit stirrer spoiling for a fight.
Moving on from that to the actual thread and Dev's criticism of passing union motions, well I think the response to Dev's post was overly defensive and reeked of the pathetic 'well are you going to take the 200 pounds back out of the hand of these workers' moralising that I'd expect to get thrown up by some wanker charity mugger not communists.
The thrust of Devrim's comment was that whilst it might be easy to get moeny from union branches, the fact it is so easy should give us some pause for thought, that real solidarity comes from direct appeals to workers outside and independent of the union structures (kind of a central facet of anarchism) and that a reaosn why motions are so easily passed and money so easily given is because it allows the unions to present themselves as backing struggles, when in truth it's at best windwo dressing to maks their real role or at worst to gain leverage over a struggle.
The fact that one or two anarchists got such a motion passed is perhaps cause enough to say 'wtf, what about principles et shit', the fact that a 'Model Motion' to be passed at Union Braches was put up on a libertarian communist site is more problematic.
Jun 4 2009 22:32
Also whilst I imagine it's easier to play the amateur psychologist than address my points I'd suggest that 'pathologising' political arguments is the reserve of contemptible bourgeois apologists. Steven's attempts in particular to paint my contempt for the headline, and desire to have it out about it, as a symptom of a broken heart certainly won the award for the most creative but the other claims that I was looking to have a row for the sake of one overlooks the fact that the row kicked off before Jack had made his admission (like the good 1930's Russian Communist Servant he always fantasised about being ) and of course the fact this thread is entirely in keeping with my long and not so glorious libcom posting career.
Jun 4 2009 22:39
revol68 wrote:
The thrust of Devrim's comment was that whilst it might be easy to get moeny from union branches, the fact it is so easy should give us some pause for thought, that real solidarity comes from direct appeals to workers outside and independent of the union structures (kind of a central facet of anarchism) and that a reaosn why motions are so easily passed and money so easily given is because it allows the unions to present themselves as backing struggles.
see this would be a great point if anyone was presenting it as the be-all-and-end-all of solidarity work. but they're not, at all. jack said it took "10 minutes." and you know perfectly well that Organise! comrades spent massively more time on the picket lines etc than blagging cash of unions, so there really doesn't seem to be much point at all. Dev's point was "I think that there is more than that. I think that people can get pulled into activity like this because they feel a need to support a strike. Even though it goes against most of the things they believe in." - Nobody "got pulled in to activity like this", and nobody was in danger of it - so the objection comes off as needless purism. especially when playing xbox is presented as superior communist praxis
Jun 4 2009 22:47
Joseph Kay wrote:
revol68 wrote:
The thrust of Devrim's comment was that whilst it might be easy to get moeny from union branches, the fact it is so easy should give us some pause for thought, that real solidarity comes from direct appeals to workers outside and independent of the union structures (kind of a central facet of anarchism) and that a reaosn why motions are so easily passed and money so easily given is because it allows the unions to present themselves as backing struggles.see this would be a great point if anyone was presenting it as the be-all-and-end-all of solidarity work. but they're not, at all. jack said it took "10 minutes." and you know perfectly well that Organise! comrades spent massively more time on the picket lines etc than blagging cash of unions, so there really doesn't seem to be much point at all. Dev's point was "I think that there is more than that. I think that people can get pulled into activity like this because they feel a need to support a strike. Even though it goes against most of the things they believe in." - Nobody "got pulled in to activity like this", and nobody was in danger of it - so the objection comes off as needless purism. especially when playing xbox is presented as superior communist praxis ;)
Again this isn't an argument over either or, it's an argument about basic political principles not being shat on for percieved immediate pragmatism. To try and twist it to a 'either or argument' is to do what the WSM and others did when presented with criticisms of protest spectacles and activistoid activities.
Dev's point was directly in relation to a 'Model Motion' being posted up on libcom, presumbly with the aim of other people using to pass similar motions in their own union branchs.
You can call it pursim if you wish, I prefer to see it as being political consistent and not shtting yourself and dropping your principles to your ankles at the first fart of struggle. Then again maybe I;m just daft like that, afterall I turnt down a donation from the FBU for Organise!'s solidarity work during the firefighters strike.
Jun 4 2009 23:16
revol68 wrote:
real solidarity comes from direct appeals to workers outside and independent of the union structures (kind of a central facet of anarchism)
Maybe there should have been some sort of attempt made to build for a day where there would have been loads of protests and solidarity actions on the same day, internationally, co-ordinated by various anarchist groups...
Jun 4 2009 23:21
notch8 wrote:
revol68 wrote:
real solidarity comes from direct appeals to workers outside and independent of the union structures (kind of a central facet of anarchism)Maybe there should have been some sort of attempt made to build for a day where there would have been loads of protests and solidarity actions on the same day, internationally, co-ordinated by various anarchist groups...
Again with the strawmen, are you some sort of dried grass equivalent of the Honry Bakers from Viz?
Did I say there was no attempt at this? No I didn't, what i did say was that passing motions through Union branchs is antithesis to this.
Seriously it's embarrasing how you are attempting to paint Devrim's criticisms of the 'Model Union Motion' printout as being simply an attack on all solidarity work. It's really more becoming of the WSM than an Organise! member.
Jun 4 2009 23:26
revol68 wrote:
my one mode is to call bollox when I see it and not care too much about how politely I word it.
THAT REVOL EH, HE DOESN'T DO IT BY THE BOOK BUT DAMMIT HE GETS THE RESULTS.
What a maverick, so glad you got dumped and decided to come back here to "fuck shit up".
Jun 4 2009 23:26
revol68 wrote:
Did I say there was no attempt at this? No I didn't, what i did say was that passing motions through Union branchs is antithesis to this.
The implications in both your and Devrims posts is that anarchists are at worst substituting one for the other, or at best equating the two.
Jun 4 2009 23:29
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
revol68 wrote:
my one mode is to call bollox when I see it and not care too much about how politely I word it.THAT REVOL EH, HE DOESN'T DO IT BY THE BOOK BUT DAMMIT HE GETS THE RESULTS.
What a maverick, so glad you got dumped and decided to come back here to "fuck shit up".
If that's an attempted meme it will never take off like Mexico.
Anyway I dind't get dumped, because a) I don't do getting dumped and b) well I'm still very happily with my girlfriend, though maybe I should take a leaf out of your book and shoehorn her into every other post.
Also it wasn't meant as a 'oh i'm Beverly Hills Cop' it was meant as 'I've always posted like this, why the sudden whinge fest now?'.
Jun 4 2009 23:32
notch8 wrote:
revol68 wrote:
Did I say there was no attempt at this? No I didn't, what i did say was that passing motions through Union branchs is antithesis to this.The implications in both your and Devrims posts is that anarchists are at worst substituting one for the other, or at best equating the two.
Eh no, what was explicit was Devrim criticising anarchists and communists pursuing and suggesting others pursue passing Union Branch motions. It wasn't exactly Umberto Eco's "In the Name of the Rose".
I would also explicitly suggest that anarchists and communists who do seek to pass these motions or encourage others to pass such motions are politically confused.
Jun 5 2009 07:25
revol68 wrote:
Also it wasn't meant as a 'oh i'm Beverly Hills Cop' it was meant as 'I've always posted like this, why the sudden whinge fest now?'.
Because there are different degrees to things. Defending the signing of a no strike deal is different to a shit headline which people admit was a mistake. Your response should reflect that.. otherwise you look like a hysterical twat.
Jun 5 2009 10:07
Ed wrote:
revol68 wrote:
Also it wasn't meant as a 'oh i'm Beverly Hills Cop' it was meant as 'I've always posted like this, why the sudden whinge fest now?'.Because there are different degrees to things. Defending the signing of a no strike deal is different to a shit headline which people admit was a mistake. Your response should reflect that.. otherwise you look like a hysterical twat.
except the whinging started before jack's explanation and despite the fact I accepted Jack's word without any hysterics I was faced met with quite a few after this.
we both know that if it was the WSM, IWW or even the AF the response wouldn't have been the same before the an explanation was offered nor after it for that that matter.
Jun 5 2009 11:50
Quote:
real solidarity comes from direct appeals to workers outside and independent of the union structures
This sounds like more purist ultra-leftism. The dispute - ie, class struggle/mutual class solidarity in practice - was going on officially 'within the union structure' - should it therefore not be supported? (Should workers on principle refuse union strike pay? Or only anarchists?) Should workers have instead relied on the widespread financial support and solidarity from the wider working class - pretty much absent in Enfield & Basildon? It's not as if the union motion tactic was the only way money was raised, more direct approaches to other workers and the wider working class were done also. Should the workers have gone hungry and defaulted on mortgages rather than compromise revol's anarchist principles?
If you're going to say this is a moralistic argument amounting to whining about 'taking the crust of bread out of the mouths of starving workers' that's probably cos you are making a moral judgement of a practical tactical choice. As I said on the original thread, union money was no substitute for the absent wider w/c solidarity - but it wasn't absent cos union money was accepted, but rather the other way round, union money was sought in the absence of wider w/c support that might've made it unnecessary. But that absence is not a reason to let a struggle fail. I don't see any negative impact (nor corruption/"confusion") in having accepted the union money; the Visteon ex-workers got a better deal thru being able to sustain their struggle, helped by that money and by other sources - and by other forms of more direct solidarity. The result is a better inspiration for future workers' struggles than a 'noble failure' and financial kick in the teeth earned by conforming to holy abstract anarcho or left-comm principles.
Jun 5 2009 12:24
revol68 wrote:
notch8 wrote:
revol68 wrote:
Did I say there was no attempt at this? No I didn't, what i did say was that passing motions through Union branchs is antithesis to this.The implications in both your and Devrims posts is that anarchists are at worst substituting one for the other, or at best equating the two.
Eh no, what was explicit was Devrim criticising anarchists and communists pursuing and suggesting others pursue passing Union Branch motions.
Well check post 17 of the union motion thread, where Devrim acccuses the people getting motions passed of "advancing it as a general strategy".
Jun 5 2009 12:58
revol68 wrote:
a reaosn why motions are so easily passed and money so easily given is because it allows the unions to present themselves as backing struggles, when in truth it's at best windwo dressing to maks their real role or at worst to gain leverage over a struggle
They'll present themselves as backing struggles anyway, at the height of Visteon I was getting at least one email most days from UNITE about how they were winning for the workers, despite the fact that theyd already talked Enfield and Basildon workers out of their factories.
In the case of Belfast, the workers there, post-deal have no illusions about UNITE's 'real role', at leadership level anyway; and from an anarchist perspective, Im more depressed about the roles that Gerry Adams, Alex Atwood and even Basil fucking McCrea have been able to portray themselves in; as the workers friends and allies.
Can comment on articles and discussions
I agree with what Revol has to say. It was an awful headline, which is against the politics that we put forward in so many ways.
Yes, mistakes can happen, but the reaction to Revols criticism has been more of an attack than admitting of a mistake.
He is also right about how it would have been different if it had been a WSM headline.
Devrim