On FULL COMMUNISM

FULL COMMUNISM

Cursory notes by spitzenprodukte on the evolution of a memetic non-demand.

You hear it everywhere, these days, if you walk within a certain activist milieu. It’s a token demand, a given. FULL COMMUNISM- I wouldn’t get out of bed for anything less. It’s a joke, a dumb joke. It’s a communist meme. Like all good memes, it’s pretty much devoid of meaning, in terms of content. But its use denotes something else– a Zizekian uber-demand, a demand which goes beyond. FULL COMMUNISM is both a lack, in a very real sense, but also a pointed lack, its very meaninglessness a cry for meaning.

It started as an in-joke, like all memes. Its current status bears little or no relation to that first meaning; it was emptied of its content, and the original is now of little worth except as a badge of pride to those “who were there, who saw it, maaaannn”. Of course, “Full Communism” has a specific meaning within Marxian economics; it is the stage following the dictatorship of the proletariat, where all social needs are met. For Marx, Full Communism enables a man

“to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner… without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic”

That’s as maybe, but it bears little relationship to the development of the FULL COMMUNISM meme. The subject of our study first arose as a small meme within a UK-hosted libertarian-communist web forum, Libcom.org, on the board “Libcommunity”. For context, if Libcom.org was 4chan.org, the “Libcommunity” board would be its /b/ board. The initial in-joke revolved around a member of the board wearing a complete outfit of a single sportswear brand, Lonsdale— also known as “Full Lonsdale”. Through various changes, this early-stage meme shifted form; the basic unit of the meme was FULL (X). (X) could be replaced with any verb or noun signifying an ironic hyperbolic emphasis, with a touch of malice. For example, a group member exhibiting a desire to organize activists around a single position may have been called “FULL PLATFORMIST”. FULL COMMUNISM was a variant that perpetuated in memetic form because it contained that quintessential characteristic of a meme—it held resonance and could be used in multiple contexts.

In early 2011 the ultra-leftist propaganda group Deterritorial Support Group (DSG) were featured in an article for fashion and art website Dazed Digital, and stated their aims were “full communism with lulz as a transitional demand”. Perhaps it was just the timing, coming after the student protests and in the middle of the Arab Spring, or, more likely, the structural advantage of DSG as a twitter-facing, fast-traffic group, but it was at this moment that FULL COMMUNISM broke free of its origin-group, and transferred fully into the realm of “the memetic”. Tweetable, and, more importantly, easily hashtagged, the slogan became a recurring fixture first within the London/Brighton activist Left, before spreading outside the South-East of England and across the UK.

#Occupy, the worldwide movement based upon the spectacular seizure of public space, has started to build stronger links between activist communities worldwide, especially between the UK and the USA. Not only has this created a shared bond amongst those who share the #occupy/#ows/#olsx hashtag community, but also a shared bond between those who are involved in active self-exclusion from the #Occupy movement. As a rule (and I admit these are very broad brushstrokes) many of those who most fervently identify with #occupy, and who have the most longevity within the movement, tend to be relative newcomers to the loosely delineated political “scene”. They have created an impressive spectacle, and also, undoubtably, helped shift media debate within the mainstream press towards issues of social justice and “capitalist excess”. President Obama made a hat-tip to “irresponsible” capitalism in his State of the Union address, whilst David Cameron has also taken up similar rhetoric since the protests started in London in October.

It is this very rhetoric which the community around FULL COMMUNISM wish to distance themselves from. They tend to be activists who have been involved in political action for longer, and, rather than the slightly amorphous, undefined ideology of #Occupy, self-identify dogmatically on the anti-authoritarian left; anarchists, anarcho-communists, autonomists, Maoists and the ultra-left have all taken up the semi-ironic slogan. It has also transferred to similar online-communities operating the US, who operate a creative twitter practice indulging in the absurd and the fanciful, whilst utilizing a base level of formal Marxist rhetoric and political abrasiveness.

Despite utilizing the slogan to draw clear ground between themselves and the “fluffy liberals” who coalesce around the Occupy hashtags, I wish to posit a controversial stance on FULL COMMUNISM as a hashtag community: FULL COMMUNISM operates as a memetic non-demand; that is, its vital memetic resonance functions precisely because, as most successful memes, it is essentially contentless. FULL COMMUNISM pulls together a hashtag community around a cipher of radicalism, disguising the reality, which is that within that community there are no real political demands capable of creating a sense of political purpose. Like #occupy, it is a slogan or hashtag of will rather than a hashtag of intent.

It must be pointed out that the cultural position of FULL COMMUNISM is as a sincere irony; that is, it walks the fuzzy boundary between self-parody and real desire. Take a number of the following tweets, screengrabbed earlier today:

FULL COMMUNISM ON TWITTER

The tone of these tweets are almost always light-hearted; the slogan may be utilized to signify a pleasant physical or mental state, an escape from an unpleasant experience, or an angry retort towards a person (tweeter, politician or celebrity) who expresses positions not in line with the community norm. It’s a shared aspiration, in short, which binds those who use it into a sense of commonality or solidarity. Its very extremism, excluding those who either don’t “get the joke” or, more likely, are intimidated by it, forms a common bond. This “like it or lump it” form of distanciation, couched in multiple ironic layers, is also popular with philosopher Slavoj Zizek, who is fond of making statements such as “Communism! I am absolutely in favour of egalitarianism with a taste of terror”, or claiming to be a Stalinist.

So, what is the extreme position that FULL COMMUNISM signifies? Put sharply, it doesn’t. It’s a statement defined by what it rejects, and its meaning is in its lack, its absence. FULL COMMUNISM is the analogue of #Occupy, a way to draw together into a simulated community of political solidarity without having to develop a political programme. To actually begin to define the ambition would cause the fragmentation of the community; the ideas shared under the auspice of the meme would (and could) never constitute a programme for the meme. For those hoping to build programmatic political organisations, this is the total-limit of internet politics. But for those of us who see the recent uprisings worldwide as symptomatic of a new, networked political subjectivity, this ad-hoc, anti-programmatic community is an exciting potential.

Whilst the extant meaning of FULL COMMUNISM may be, indeed, meaningless, devoid of political content, it operates on the level of common bond built upon shared frustration. FULL COMMUNISM isn’t a united desire for a shared political position. Like #occupy, it’s a shared shout of “I’m fucking sick of this shit”. Unlike #occupy, however, it also holds an added threat: “I’m so fucking sick of this shit I have no desire to reform it. I want to go beyond. I want to fuck shit up”. FULL COMMUNISM is a meme with the potential for much more resonance in the coming months, a rapidly expanding spawnpoint for dissatisfaction.

As an addendum to this argument, I’d like to forward a brief point that I feel I implicitly touched upon in this essay, but that I think we should build on explicitly. This short article is, of course, lighthearted, but I think there’s a more interesting point lurking somewhere in here. If we accept that the internet is not just a space for organizing IRL political actions, but a territory of action in itself (as the actions of Anonymous and, more recently, the Anti-SOPA actions suggest), we should think about what sort of territory it is. The idea of a hashtag community is, I think, a potential for building effective, “weak” social ties, useful in swarm and hive practices. We should be aware of how a hashtag community operates as a public space; like, for example, the salons of 19th Century Paris, or town squares. They communicate a shared ideology which others take notice of. Some will pick them up straight away as the resonance with their own lived experience is so strong, others will hang around, listening to the arguments, following different discussions, making up their own minds. The term “trending topic” only touches upon the importance of the hashtag as public space; a trending topic doesn’t just reflect an idea, or news story, it perpetuates it. The politics of the movement not withstanding, #Occupy as a hashtag broke open new public space for a much-needed conversation. Once “cracked”, it enabled many thousands of people an access to a community already discussing important issues. We should not underestimate the power of a hashtag in social change.

Originally posted at the finest products on 26 January 2012

Posted By

Jim Clarke
Jan 26 2012 00:11

Share


  • Whilst the meaning of FULL COMMUNISM may be meaningless, devoid of political content, it operates on the level of common bond built upon shared frustration. FULL COMMUNISM isn’t a united desire for a shared political position. Like #occupy, it’s a shared shout of “I’m fucking sick of this shit.”

    spitzenprodukte

Attached files

Comments

Nate
Jan 26 2012 01:49

Thinking about the opening bit about Marx --

Quote:
“Full Communism” has a specific meaning within Marxian economics; it is the stage following the dictatorship of the proletariat, where all social needs are met. For Marx, Full Communism enables a man “to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner… without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic”

I've never particularly liked this quote from Marx in the Grundrisse, but, Marx writes that "]Human anatomy contains a key to the anatomy of the ape. The intimations of higher development among the subordinate animal species, however, can be understood only after the higher development is already known." Which is to say, I'd be interested to see if memes shed any light on prior developments. Particularly this "specific meaning", which strikes me as about as vague as can be. What's communism? It's when you can do all kinds stuff without ever becoming the category one-who-does-this-or-that-stuff. To the degree that this kind of idea has had force or currency in the marxist tradition, it seems likely to me that it's been a long standing meme, even though a pre-internet meme.

Chilli Sauce
Jan 26 2012 07:56

Has Refused seen this thread yet?

Steven.
Jan 26 2012 10:21

It's excellent someone actually took the time to write this!

On a related note just did a quick Google search for "full communism" and it came back with 11,000 results. It would be interesting to see how this changes over time. (A lot of the current ones are unrelated to the meme. Amusingly, I see that full platformist Wayne Price references full communism in a couple of his texts)

Ramona
Jan 26 2012 13:01

But no mention of COMBAT LIBERALISM, maybe slightly less widely used, but surely in answer to, or 'part b' of FULL COMMUNISM? Possibly even more exclusive and in-jokey. Good article though.

Caiman del Barrio
Jan 26 2012 14:59

Isn't this kinda like a little bit pompous and overblown? I get that Spitzen's not being entirely earnest in his original, which leads me to question why it's been reposted here. Let's keep a sense of proportion here people, please.

Nate
Jan 26 2012 15:22

no YOU keep a SENSE of proportion!!!!!!!

Caiman del Barrio
Jan 26 2012 15:29

Yeah let's all slap ourselves on the back cos our leaders in DSG (no offence, Spitzen, this isn't your fault lol) deigned to borrow one of 'our' jokes.

"WE KINDA KNOW SOMEONE WHO'S KINDA FAMOUS EVERYONE. ONLY IN OUR OWN TINY MILIEU OF IRRELEVANT FANTASISTS BUT HEY IT'S COOL. 'LULZ'....AM I DOING IT RIGHT?"

Juan Conatz
Jan 26 2012 15:29

Sounds like someone took a FULL PISS in your cereal this morning.

lzbl
Jan 26 2012 15:36

WHY NOT lose all sense of proportion yourself CDB?

Jim Clarke
Jan 26 2012 16:40

Refused
Jan 26 2012 17:27

my twitter communism brings all the boys to the yard.

Caiman del Barrio
Jan 26 2012 18:08
Jim Clarke wrote:

Har har, that's funny. You've DEFINITELY never ever - what's the phrase? Oh yeah - 'had a cry' over something that's happened on Libcom. FFS the running joke in SLSF and beyond is that you're obsessed with this site.

I mean, yeah, you're all right, this doesn't really matter, but I just find it a bit ridiculous to watch you all pat yourselves on the back over the fact that an injoke you invented in a really cliquey space has now grown slightly larger while still remaining - as the author himself cedes - very cliquey and exclusive. You're basically enjoying the fact that one of Paul Mason's mates thinks you're witty. It's all a bit silly really, kinda reminiscent of social climbing and whatnot.

Jim Clarke
Jan 26 2012 18:33

There's a running joke that I'm obsessed with something I've been working on for nearly a decade? Sounds like a pretty shit joke...

There are some interesting points in the text about online activism that are worth engaging with and there is some good analysis of the way memes develop. You've chosen to ignore all of this to engage in some pretty pathetic posturing. Nobody has said 'FULL COMMUNISM' isn't cliquey and exclusive, nobody thinks using the phrase is any sort of meaningful activity (with the possible exception of Refused). Please think about the way you're coming across before you post.

Nate
Jan 26 2012 18:34

You're getting worked up over something that's happening in an irrelevant and cliquey social space. Let's keep a sense of proportion here people, please.

Caiman del Barrio
Jan 26 2012 18:36
Jim Clarke wrote:
Please think about the way you're coming across before you post.

Back atcha!

But OK, I'll drop it, you all know how I feel about it now... embarrassed

Juan Conatz
Jan 26 2012 19:19

Caiman, I'm assuming that there's a bunch of background to this that I don't know the context of that involves personal/political relationships, so maybe whatever I'm going to say won't matter much, but...

I think you're blowing this a bit out of proportion. I mean maybe this is reflective of the predisposition of certain elements of the UK communist movement to gravitate towards ingroup terminology and cynical/ironic political posturing, but I never really thought of these memes as that.

I just thought of them as light hearted jokes between people who see themselves as friends as well as having political relationships. I think these inside jokes can be a relief sometimes as well as drawing otherwise vaguely interested people more directly into our fold because of the use of humor. In that aspect, DSG has done/did a good job of that. I think you underestimate how the atmosphere of libcom or libcommunity specifically has benefited people. In the States, our equivalent was the Anarchists That Hate Anarchists (ATHA) grouping, which was a collection of Myspace/Facebook groups, photoshopped images, Infoshop/AnarchistNews trolling and spoof/joke blogs. Like libcommunity it has had some very negative aspects, particularly when certain bad characteristics spilled at or towards our own organizations or projects, but it had some positive things too. I say this completely honestly, but without ATHA I wouldn't even be involved in stuff. No libcom, no IWW in Wisconsin, no Wild Rose Collective, no RNC protests, etc. If I hadn't have found ATHA folks on the Myspace, I would have never known there was organizing going on 30 miles away from me. The internet culture shit led me directly into active involvement.

I think you also underestimate internet culture. This is something that I think DSG also got right and made a good choice pushing back at. Internet culture is mass culture. Nearly everyone is on the internet. Memes spill out into TV shows, advertisements and other forms of non-online media that many millions of people see and are familiar with. Places like 4chan which have been primarily cesspools of pop nihilism are the breeding ground of hackitivists who reference memes and go after powerful symbols of state and capital. I don't think having a relation to that is a bad thing.

Caiman del Barrio
Jan 26 2012 20:57

Hey Juan and Jim are both correct to say that there are points worth engaging with here. My irritation was mostly aimed at Libcom trying to piggyback on the back of DSG for its own self-promotion. There's a slightly ugly element of social climbing here, cos DSG are currently (posthumously) flavour of the month with celebrity pseudo-communists (Paul Mason) and alt-left art hipsters and I suppose Libcom admin think that they might improve their social lives by proxy? Not sure tbh... wink

On a further point, the cult of celebrity around this clique kinda puts into context the critique made of the (Ian) Boneheads during Libcom's formative years. Whatever happened to "ruthless criticism...", etc?

Juan Conatz wrote:
Caiman, I'm assuming that there's a bunch of background to this that I don't know the context of that involves personal/political relationships

Yeah a little bit, but it's cool. Me and Jim actually hang out quite a bit IRL and manage to snap at each other comfortably within the realms of our friendship. wink

Quote:
I think you're blowing this a bit out of proportion.

Well tbf I made one short comment about it and then it turned into a massive thing, largely stoked by provocations outside of Libcom.

Quote:
I mean maybe this is reflective of the predisposition of certain elements of the UK communist movement to gravitate towards ingroup terminology and cynical/ironic political posturing, but I never really thought of these memes as that.

I think if you had the context of the London activist scene (which many Libcom posters based here, and ex-DSGers, hover around, socially and politically), you'd understand how often these sorts of jokes are used as an exclusion mechanism, with impenetrable references and inaccessible quips actively impeding those who don't have the time or the inclination to read reams of 'ultra-left' texts, extended Twitterfeeds or a rather esoteric humour.

And btw, since you mentioned 'proportion', we're talking about an article which analyses a hashtag that is only occasionally used by a tiny section of an utterly powerless activist movement, mostly for humourous - rather than productive - ends. How is that proportionate?

Quote:
I just thought of them as light hearted jokes between people who see themselves as friends as well as having political relationships.

Well yeah, it is complicated, cos I like all of these people on a personal level and I think much of what they say is worthwhile, so I afford them the time and attention of reading and thinknig about what they say. What that sometimes means is I state where I differ. Depending on my rather unstable mood, this may come out in a reasonable or unreasonable fashion. The problem is the internet records all this shit and sometime even offers a baying crowd who seem to revel in it (just wait until someone accuses me of 'having a cry')... sad

Quote:
I think these inside jokes can be a relief sometimes as well as drawing otherwise vaguely interested people more directly into our fold because of the use of humor. In that aspect, DSG has done/did a good job of that. I think you underestimate how the atmosphere of libcom or libcommunity specifically has benefited people. In the States, our equivalent was the Anarchists That Hate Anarchists (ATHA) grouping, which was a collection of Myspace/Facebook groups, photoshopped images, Infoshop/AnarchistNews trolling and spoof/joke blogs. Like libcommunity it has had some very negative aspects, particularly when certain bad characteristics spilled at or towards our own organizations or projects, but it had some positive things too. I say this completely honestly, but without ATHA I wouldn't even be involved in stuff. No libcom, no IWW in Wisconsin, no Wild Rose Collective, no RNC protests, etc. If I hadn't have found ATHA folks on the Myspace, I would have never known there was organizing going on 30 miles away from me. The internet culture shit led me directly into active involvement.

I think that visual/didactic propaganda is much less valuable as an 'agitational' tool than personal contact. There seems to be a belief that if we spread the Good Word far enough, if we get 50%+1 agreeing with us on a moral level, then we'll have de facto revolution. Ironically, DSG would probably (broadly) agree with me on this point.

The real question, IMO, we should be asking isn't whether the internet's a good propaganda tool (it is as much as anything else is), but whether it - or its users - can struggle in their own interests towards communism, which is the question DSG regularly pose. They, of course, believe that it can (as Spitzen says in this article), but I'm yet to be convinced and see as many contradictions as potential in stuff like the SOPA strike, Occupy, etc.

I'd like to ask Spitzen what he thinks a class movement on the net would look like, and how it'd avoid falling into all the traps of IRL activism. If anything, the process he's charting here would seem to represent the aperture of another arena in which to further isolate and entrench IRL activists.

Quote:
I think you also underestimate internet culture. This is something that I think DSG also got right and made a good choice pushing back at. Internet culture is mass culture. Nearly everyone is on the internet.

Sorry but this is a massive generalisation which says a lot about (y)our respective demographics. My grandmother's never touched a computer in her life, and loadsa people restrict themselves to email and/or Facebook, or use it through their phones, where it's essentially indistinguishable from SMS or BBMs (this is especially true in the 'developing world').

As for mass culture, it's not untrue in itself but it seems like a bit of a meaingless statement due to the sheer width of the net. It's a space in which people spend time and hold billions of tiny conversations on top of a handful of huge ones, which largely replicate mainstream discourses. You could compare it to a street, a huge cafe, or even just several billion letters/phone calls, depending on the relationship the individual - cos ultimately, we are all individual consumers of a product here, often in a darkened room eschewing company to do so (in my case anyway lol) - has with it.

Quote:
Memes spill out into TV shows, advertisements and other forms of non-online media that many millions of people see and are familiar with. Places like 4chan which have been primarily cesspools of pop nihilism are the breeding ground of hackitivists who reference memes and go after powerful symbols of state and capital. I don't think having a relation to that is a bad thing.

Well yes it's interesting from a sociological/cultural point of view to see ideas emanate from the base up rather than vice versa, and hacktivism is worth further discussion (I'm not the best person for this, and I'm writing in a hurry here anyway), but there is still the unresolved issue of where these ideas go and how they develop. I mean, 4chan may have given us possibly the most popular word in youth argot currently ("fail"), but that was only allowed to develop cos of its content/context. I don't see "full communism" becoming as popular (seeing as how Libcom posters rank below the median in terms of Anglophone sense of humour wink ), and even if it did, I don't see how it could then translate into action.

Choccy
Jan 26 2012 21:01

the saddest part is, Deezer doesn't even wear FULL LONSDALE anymore sad

Juan Conatz
Jan 26 2012 21:35

Real quickly, Caiman, in the U.S. there are 245 million internet users, or almost 80% of the population. If this is reflective of "my demographic", I have a massive demographic.

Fall Back
Jan 26 2012 21:50
Quote:
There's a slightly ugly element of social climbing here, cos DSG are currently (posthumously) flavour of the month with celebrity pseudo-communists (Paul Mason) and alt-left art hipsters and I suppose Libcom admin think that they might improve their social lives by proxy? Not sure tbh...

On a further point, the cult of celebrity around this clique kinda puts into context the critique made of the (Ian) Boneheads during Libcom's formative years. Whatever happened to "ruthless criticism...", etc?

This all based on literally nothing more than one blog post (amongst hundreds of others) being reproduced on this site.

Amazing.

Steven.
Jan 26 2012 21:54
Juan Conatz wrote:
Real quickly, Caiman, in the U.S. there are 245 million internet users, or almost 80% of the population. If this is reflective of "my demographic", I have a massive demographic.

the UN estimated that in the UK 82.5% of the population were internet users in 2010. Maybe Caiman's grandmother isn't representative of the population as a whole, I don't know...

snipfool
Jan 26 2012 23:18

is the fact that less than a third of people world wide use the internet irrelevant here? not sure.

Fall Back wrote:
Quote:
There's a slightly ugly element of social climbing here, cos DSG are currently (posthumously) flavour of the month with celebrity pseudo-communists (Paul Mason) and alt-left art hipsters and I suppose Libcom admin think that they might improve their social lives by proxy? Not sure tbh...

On a further point, the cult of celebrity around this clique kinda puts into context the critique made of the (Ian) Boneheads during Libcom's formative years. Whatever happened to "ruthless criticism...", etc?

This all based on literally nothing more than one blog post (amongst hundreds of others) being reproduced on this site.

Amazing.

eh? come on. i couldn't be further removed from these cliques he speaks of (if they do exist; i couldn't say), but the things he's pointing at - the DSG love, for instance - definitely exist outside of this blog post. i don't really hold a strong opinion here - i don't know if it's 'social climbing' etc. - but i thought it was a bit disingenuous of you to make out he is simply reacting to a single post. unless this is an in-joke over his propensity to be accused of 'having a cry'? groan!

Jim Clarke
Jan 26 2012 23:15

libcom admins have ruthlessly criticised the DSG "clique" more than anybody else on the internet, so much that they don't want to blog directly on here. Paul Mason also changed the ideology he felt defined protest in our current era from libertarian communism to autonomism so we're clearly losing (although that is a lot more accurate). We didn't even all get invites to his book launch after party...

Nate
Jan 27 2012 01:46
Caiman del Barrio wrote:
we're talking about an article which analyses a hashtag that is only occasionally used by a tiny section of an utterly powerless activist movement, mostly for humourous - rather than productive - ends.

I agree w/ this totally and think the point about exclusion that you made is important too.

Juan Conatz wrote:
I have a massive demographic.

This is true and is the talk of my IWW branch.

Jim Clarke
Jan 27 2012 02:05

Two quick points: firstly, I'm being a bit semantic here but this isn't about a hash tag, it's about a phrase. Secondly I don't think 'full communism' is used as an exclusion mechanism, there are plenty of ways that people on the London-Brighton communist scene act to socially exclude themselves (like helping the police, amirite?) but I don't think using a slightly obscure way of describing the type of society we want to see is one of them. Thinking about it there is probably a wider point to make about the type of language we use which Juan talked about here and by-strategy picked up on in this review, this just doesn't seem to be a significant example of it.

the button
Jan 27 2012 10:20
Jim Clarke wrote:
We didn't even all get invites to his book launch after party...

cry

Caiman del Barrio
Jan 27 2012 15:41

On top of mine and Snipfool's points about the still relatively low figures of internet users globally (which largely trump the silly comments about my grandma)...

Juan Conatz wrote:
Real quickly, Caiman, in the U.S. there are 245 million internet users, or almost 80% of the population. If this is reflective of "my demographic", I have a massive demographic.

OK but what exactly does that demonstrate? Are all of those people aware of internet memes, or memes of memes, etc? I mean, you're kinda superimposing your personal experience of the internet on top of 245 million other people! I understand that for you internet anarchy-activist injokes were very formative and inviting, but do you honestly conceive of them as a method of mass recruitment or consciousness raising or something?

And this is without discussing the typically solitary and isolated nature of internet usage, the selfish, individualist spite of anonymous forum culture, and the liberal lifestyle dimensions to the arguments around internet 'freedom'. I mean, SOPA fills me with dread (I actually lay awake wondering about it last night, only partially cos I was stoned wink ), but I can't see a mass movement over what is essentially a consumer choice (which is what Google, Youtube, etc users essentially are if we replace actual monetary exchange with the forced consumption of targeted advertising) demonstrating the requisite amount of class solidarity. Can you?

Caiman del Barrio
Jan 27 2012 15:47
Fall Back wrote:
Quote:
There's a slightly ugly element of social climbing here, cos DSG are currently (posthumously) flavour of the month with celebrity pseudo-communists (Paul Mason) and alt-left art hipsters and I suppose Libcom admin think that they might improve their social lives by proxy? Not sure tbh...

On a further point, the cult of celebrity around this clique kinda puts into context the critique made of the (Ian) Boneheads during Libcom's formative years. Whatever happened to "ruthless criticism...", etc?

This all based on literally nothing more than one blog post (amongst hundreds of others) being reproduced on this site.

Amazing.

This is one of a number of rhetorical devices you use in discussion, which I think are largely motivated by a desire to undermine and belittle the 'opponent' (cos snipes like that would seem to indicate such an approach to discourse) and thusly provoke them. After 9 years of knowing each other, you know full well that I'll take the bait so you can then sit back on your pedestal and tell everyone how 'mental' I am.

So I'm asking you publicly: if you actually have a point to make, drop the condescension (towards me, at least) and do it in good faith.

Jim Clarke
Jan 27 2012 15:57

Well why do you think Mason's a pseudo-communist? He's union rep at his workplace, writes books about working class history, has just written a book in which he says capitalism doesn't work etc.

I'm pretty sure that most internet users are aware of lolcats.

Fall Back
Jan 27 2012 16:23

Given you've had a giant rant over the reposting of a blog relevant to the site (given that it's about communism and DIRECTLY REFERENCES THE SITE), I'm loathe to allow you to try present yourself as the voice of reason here. But whatever, let's give it a go.

As you so frequently do (given that as you raise I've known you for 9 years, so have seen this many times before), you have had a giant kick off - for the sake of your sensibilities I won't say tantrum - over basically nothing.

You've taken a minor event (the blog being reposted in this instance) and through a process of invention and inexplicable extrapolation turned it into something else. So one admin reposting a blog somehow, and without any real explanation becomes something entirely different.

Instead of just a blog being reposted, it's "social climbing". We think we're cool because DSG used one of our old jokes. We're back slapping to hide from our lack of real world traction. We want to fit in with some hipster communist scene we're neither part of, or for the most part barely even encountered. It's an attempt to exclude people from an in-crowd (Altho quite how this is achieved by the act of explaining the parlance is beyond me) Something about Paul Mason. None of this has any real basis in logic or reality - you haven't argued or pointed to anything. It's just a rant. Seemingly from nowhere. It's shadow boxing against something that I don't think really exists. At best, it's massively out of proportion to what is, at worst, a slightly silly blog.

It's one blog post amongst hundreds we reproduce here. It doesn't mean any of this shit. Sometimes a repost is just a repost.

And that's it. That's why i'm not responding to your points like srs bsns. Because I don't think you've really made any - or if you have, they're either so mangled, misplaced or misdirected, it's hard to actually grasp them, or find what you're trying to say. But hey, go ahead a bring up something I once said in 2008 or something.