I imagine their agreed positions are what 'represent' the organisation. What they publish is, I imagine, what they think worth publishing, a contribution to debate etc.
Aside from the ICC and the sparts I'm not aware of any group that only publishes articles that are perfectly representative of the organisation line.
It's common when publishing something you disagree with to either write an introduction, or in some cases a response within the same issue outlining some areas of difference. Aufheben has done this, an old copy of Wildcat I've been reading does it, we do it on here. However in all those cases the article being published isn't from within the group - it's something that's been submitted/picked up on from elsewhere, but as you say has some kind of merit to make it worth reading.
In terms of organisations, people are far more likely to read magazines, or pamphlets, than aims and principles or position papers - so really they should be quite clear about what they're publishing.
i agree with unity, but there's a problem with some things, like internet forums for example, which are public but aren't really "publishing." for example revol68 is the most prominent member of Organise! because of his posts here, which his organisation can't control
I imagine their agreed positions are what 'represent' the organisation. What they publish is, I imagine, what they think worth publishing, a contribution to debate etc.Aside from the ICC and the sparts I'm not aware of any group that only publishes articles that are perfectly representative of the organisation line.
We publish things that are not 'perfectly representative of the organisation'. In fact we are discussing one now. What we did do though was publish the position of the majority within the organisation, and will have a reply from the minority in next month.
What SRB was saying was that certain people 'get the public spotlight', and that they do not necessarily represent the organisation. I think that this is a problem.
Devrim
i agree with unity, but there's a problem with some things, like internet forums for example, which are public but aren't really "publishing." for example revol68 is the most prominent member of Organise! because of his posts here, which his organisation can't control
I think that when he talks about politics he represents his organisation. If somebody was representing our organisation like that we would discipline them. In fact we did with Leo. There is a problem if the organisation can't control it.
Devrim
I don't think that necessarily follows, Revol has never styled himself as the voice of his organisation and it's not particularly healthy to stifle him simply because he's 'Revol, who's in Organise' rather than 'Organise's Revol'.
Subordinating individual voices outside the inter-organisational debates can give quite as false an impression as letting individuals have too much autonomy in their writing etc - I'm sure the members of the ICC for example don't all agree on everything, but the impression they give is that once you're in, you are brainwashed out of all individual thought until you can only parrot the party line.
Personally, I find that kind of emphasis on killing free expression in the public sphere disturbing.
I don't think that necessarily follows, Revol has never styled himself as the voice of his organisation and it's not particularly healthy to stifle him simply because he's 'Revol, who's in Organise' rather than 'Organise's Revol'.
Actually, I was talking about his swearing, and general abusiveness. I wouldn't want my organisation to be represented like that.
Personally, I find that kind of emphasis on killing free expression in the public sphere disturbing.
So you think it is OK that those who are 'the brainy thinkers, most prolific writers and public loud mouths' basically project the image of the organisation, and I think finally set the policy?
Devrim
Of course not, but that's simply a case for making sure if someone is posting their opinion that they are clear it's not representative of the organisation they're a part of. I've never read anything by Revol and assumed that's the position of Organise (unless he's specifically said that it is), and why would I? He's an individual not an audio book.
Of course not, but that's simply a case for making sure if someone is posting their opinion that they are clear it's not representative of the organisation they're a part of.
Do you think that people should be in organisations whose positions they oppose on important issues?
Devrim
Depends what you regard as important (I wouldn't expect a Tory to join SolFed but I won't lose sleep over an anarcho-syndicalist who dual-cards with the wobblies), but generally, as long as people abide by the A&Ps I don't see there being a problem. I do think it's unrealistic to expect everyone in an organsation to agree on everything - and if a group grows beyond a few dozen people, the chances of that happening fall to nil.
Quote:
Do you think that people should be in organisations whose positions they oppose on important issues?No but, positions? issues? It begs the question of what an organisation is for in the first place.
I am sorry, if it is not clear.
For example if a member of our organisation opposed our position on the PKK, we would expel them.
Devrim
Depends what you regard as important, but generally, as long as people abide by the A&Ps I don't see there being a problem. I do think it's unrealistic to expect everyone in an organsation to agree on everything - and if a group grows beyond a few dozen people, the chances of that happening fall to nil.
I don't think that everyone has to agree on everything, but there must be a common frame work. I don't think that that is impossible.
Devrim
if a member of our organisation opposed our position on the PKK, we would expel them.
But how precise is that? Does that extend to the methods used in dealing with them or just the preffered outcome?
Basically I think the question is what level of agreement should be expected, not whether theoretical/tactical unity (which gets progressively more difficult the more fine print is involved) should be required.
On that level, I'd give a fair bit of freedom for people to express themselves as I think it's as important to show there is a continuing debate/evolution going on as it is to show unity.
Quote:
if a member of our organisation opposed our position on the PKK, we would expel them.But how precise is that? Does that extend to the methods used in dealing with them or just the preffered outcome?
Basically I think the question is what level of agreement should be expected, not whether theoretical/tactical unity (which gets progressively more difficult the more fine print is involved) should be required.
I don't think that is the point. We see people in the anarchist movement blatantly argue against the positions of their own organisations on major issues. We wouldn't tolerate it. It is not libertarianism. It is liberalism.
Devrim
Sorry, I think that you edited in this, and I didn't notice it:
Basically I think the question is what level of agreement should be expected, not whether theoretical/tactical unity (which gets progressively more difficult the more fine print is involved) should be required.
If we agree that theoretical unity is essential how deep to you think it should go, 'Capitalism is bad'?
Devrim
As I say, depends on what is regarded as a major issue. If someone's arguing for Bolshevism they're probably not the right sort for Solfed, but if they're just arguing over whether DA is worth keeping or whether we should continue to regard the SAC as an enemy of SolFed I don't think that's particularly a problem.
i'm sorry Devrim but i'd really question how many people would be willing to join an organisation that didn't simply expect members to agree on sme central political points but who also policed their behaviour online and chastised them for their means of expression, most people with some dignity and pride would pretty much tell youse to go fuck yourselves, I think it's sad that Leo accepted this shit from youse.
i'm sorry Devrim but i'd really question how many people would be willing to join an organisation that didn't simply expect members to agree on sme central political points but who also policed their behaviour online and chastised them for their means of expression, most people with some dignity and pride would pretty much tell youse to go fuck yourselves, I think it's sad that Leo accepted this shit from youse.
Actually, it was also about him growing up a little, and realising that he didn't have to swear like a twelve year old constantly. I think that members of an organisation represent that organisation, and should be responsible to it. That includes how you present yourself, and your ideas because it reflects on the organisation.
Devrim
revol68 wrote:
i'm sorry Devrim but i'd really question how many people would be willing to join an organisation that didn't simply expect members to agree on sme central political points but who also policed their behaviour online and chastised them for their means of expression, most people with some dignity and pride would pretty much tell youse to go fuck yourselves, I think it's sad that Leo accepted this shit from youse.Actually, it was also about him growing up a little, and realising that he didn't have to swear like a twelve year old constantly. I think that members of an organisation represent that organisation, and should be responsible to it. That includes how you present yourself, and your ideas because it reflects on the organisation.
Devrim
You represent the organisation in certain times?
I mean if Leo suffered from premature ejaculation would you hold him accountable to the organisation for letting down te left communist tradition?
What about if he's drunk in a pub?
The fac tis I post on libcom as an individual, yes I'd imagine people in Organise might ask questions if i started arguing in favour of politics at odds with the agreed positions of the group but it's frankly none of their business if I tell you or anyone else to go fuck themselves.
I think that when writing on politics is one of those times.
Yes but only if the person seriously argues against the aims and principles of the group, it's none of the organisations business if they stay within those parameters, it is afterall a political group not a fucking finishing school.
Yet many groups who Organise! has political disagreements with use your potty mouth to avoid dealing with the arguments themselves, and successfully portray you as a troll to a fairly large audience.
tha's true but that's the same with all groups, unless of course you want to be in the cult like ICC or the nanny minded EKS.
Hmm there is such a thing as ‘bringing the organisation into disrepute’, but generally I’m wary of applying this to any but really outrageous behaviour (eg. smacking people about, stealing and similar behaviour which is antisocial enough to actively harm the reputation of the group if the member remains unpunished), but I don’t think generally that cussing a blue streak online is up there, it does harm to revol but I don’t think Organise is like that in general...
also considering the libcom collective inculdes Jack and John. who aren't exactly shrinking violets you should look closer to home if you want to apply this argument.
We discuss it though, and tell each other off if we think they're making themselves look like wankers (no not just Jack). As should be expected of all friends and comrades.
Agree with John that we're by no means great at this, but no-one in libcom has ever said "ooh you nanny you're not fucking the boss of me" when we do it either.
New clashes between locals and riot police erupt in the south Corfu town of Lefkimi over the construction of open refuse dump.
This is a proletarian critique of the U.S. based Nation of Islam (NOI). With anything between 20,000 and 100,000 members and capable of engineering massive reactionary mobilizations, the Nation represents a significant counter-revolutionary force. The pamphlet looks at NOI's history and evolution, the way it exploits its membership and its promotion of anti-working class, sexist, homophobic and racist ideology. Melancholic Troglodytes hope this text will encourage further analysis of NOI, religion and race from a class perspective.
Don't you think that you should control what gets published so that it represents the organisation?
Devrim