Sic: international journal for communisation

Minister of Sic

Which parts are smears?

This post has been removed because it did abide by our site's standards -admin

admin: Samotnaf temporarily banned while we investigate a comment which we have unpublished

Samotnaf has sent me this via a PM and over the phone he said I could send it here if I felt like it. So here it is:
New

Just seen this bit about my article, and Steven's deceitful comments.

1. Steven writes " the title is inaccurate, calling him a "minister"
He is a minister - a junior minister.

2. He says: " decrying the "silence" on the issue from Blaumachen, which basically hasn't existed in nearly a year" The silence decried is that of Sic, not specifically Blaumachen.

3. He says "claimed TC organised meetings on Syriza, which they didn't and claimed a member of Blaumachen spoke at them, which they didn't" It's true I claimed TC organised the meetings, and when I recognised my mistake I publicly admitted it. It was based on the fact that it was advertised on a TC site, the only site I had seen (up till then) in which the ad for the meetings appeared. But it is definitely not true that an ex- member of Blaumachen did not present the meeting. He'd been a member for several years up until its dissolution, a dissolution which was not made public until after the publication of my text. This was originally put up on the ads for the meeting but was taken down after an email from the TPTG sent 3 or 4 days before the meeting. The fact that either the organisers lied or they were misinformed by Andreas, the former Blaumachen member, is not something I can possibly know about.

4. As for his " he tries to somehow tie the selling out of one member to the politics of the groups, which is petty and ridiculous. People from all elements of the political spectrum change their views, but that doesn't mean that the previous political perspective was invalid in some way" The guy from Blaumachen and others round it had at the beginning of this year been planning to write a book on the state with Woland but shelved it when he became a minister. He had had very close relations with Syriza since 2012, yet this was of no interest to his fellow Blaumachen members nor the people round Sic, who published an article by him in Sic 2 which came out in Februrary 2014. "Petty and ridiculous" ? You decide.

5. Steven writes: "Samotnaf apologises for his error in his later response, which he blames on being "impatient". However checking your facts isn't "impatience", it's a basic thing you need to do before writing something: particularly if it's something where you are making allegations about and attacking comrades."

The only thing I apologise for is the fact that I claimed TC organised the meeting. Steven, however, has yet to apologise for the complete and utter distortion of his post - "Which of course is something which there has been previous form about"

What? You banned him, for exposing this? Surely, whatever his "administrative" mistakes-- minister, junior minister, official, whatever, the exposure is critical to the development of some sort of movement independent of Syriza?

The question is-- support for Syriza, yes or no? Do you push for Syriza to submit every action it contemplates to the parliament, and then agitate for a vote against Syriza's commitment to paying the IMF, to honoring the debt?

Hey, not for nothing, but if you're banning Samotnaf for bring this to light when almost everybody else has sealed his/her lips, all I can say is "fuck you"-- you've made a big mistake and it's you who should be banned. Or something.

This sounds, unfortunately, and with greater, far greater consequences, like the Aufheben horseshit, where it appears that advising the police was just so much realpolitik.

What 'outright lies' has Samotnaf told?

In his article on 'Aufhebengate' I recall him making the point that 'small acorns of self-recuperation grow into mighty oaks of counter-revolution'... seems rather prophetic, unfortunately.

Steven.

However that doesn't mean I think that dishonesty, smears, personal attacks and outright lies are a helpful contribution to the workers' movement. What do you disagree?

Dishonesty, smears, attacks and lies aren't helpful. But where's your evidence of these? The postscripts by TPTG, Samotnaf etc to the Minister for SIC article, which clarify most of the issues you later object to, were added on 16/4/15, only a couple of days after the text was first published, and over 2 weeks before you claimed on May 1 that the article contained "untrue smears" (as opposed to what, 'true' smears?). You say:

However checking your facts isn't "impatience", it's a basic thing you need to do before writing something: particularly if it's something where you are making allegations about and attacking comrades.

But this applies equally to yourself. In your eagerness to label Samotnaf a dishonest smearer, you are ignoring the substantive content of the linked document and engaging in smears yourself. How is this a helpful contribution to the ‘worker’s movement’?
You write:

Then he tries to somehow tie the selling out of one member to the politics of the groups, which is petty and ridiculous. People from all elements of the political spectrum change their views, but that doesn't mean that the previous political perspective was invalid in some way

Of course it is possible that Woland simply woke up one day and fell into the position of Secretary-General of a government ministry. But is this likely? Woland was the most prolific theorist in Blaumachen (at least of those texts circulated in English). How does one go from total opposition to the state, to becoming a high-level state functionary? Are we to take it that there is no relationship between the theory one produces, that one can easily on the one hand theorise the need for a total opposition to existing society, and on the other hand lead workshops for the cops and military or build a career as a high-level bureaucrat? Or is it more complex than that, is there a relationship to what we write and think, and how we act? Do our lives, the actual material situations we inhabit, not influence the things we write? And do the things we write and think allow us to justify the weird double-existences we inhabit? If our wage work (for those of us ‘lucky’ enough to have it) is not up for debate, how can we be sure it has no reflection in our theoretical activity? If it is taken as given that everyone here is against SYRIZA, then surely trying to understanding SYRIZA’s recuperation of the movements of the squares is essential. The point is not to dismiss everything that BM, Aufheben or whoever have produced, but to scrutinise it, to see how these Jekyll-Hyde moments come to be, and maybe, learn something from it to stop future movements being so easily recuperated? I write this as someone with a lot of time for much of the stuff coming out of the ‘communising current’ in general, and Woland/BM’s ‘era of riots’ theory in particular. I don’t see anything petty or ridiculous about trying to examine relationships between the ‘politics’ of these groups and the activities of their participants. Communist theory is after all the ruthless criticism of everything existing.

I think this is the crucial point to the various texts by Samotnaf, TPTG, Wildcat and others around ‘Aufhebengate’ and ‘Wolandgate’ – not to merely slag-off JD or Woland, but to draw attention to the relationship between profession and movement; to examine the role such people play in the capitalist division of labour, the costs they pay for a professional career. Slurs, and refusals to engage with the substance of these arguments, are not helpful contributions at all.

Meanwhile, some of the participants in Woland's anti-state reading group have put together a statement on the Woland Affair:
(English translation is halfway down)
About Woland

Some time ago, we were informed, by the internet and not by himself, that ex comrade Woland –with whom we participated in the same reading group about the state– was appointed to a very high governmental position. From this position and from the choice of accepting it proceed that the said person must be identified and confronted for what he is: a high ranking cadre of the greek state and the present coalition government between the left and the far right. The services of preserving existing misery that this cadre provides (can) relate with the affair of the struggle against it only in a antagonistic manner. Period.

Samotnaf

This post has been removed because it did abide by our site's standards -admin

Samotnaf posted the above comment (now republished), falsely stating that admins had edited out the content of his post due to 'standards'. This was not true, so we unpublished the post, and have temporarily banned him while we discuss it.

07/05/15: edited to add we have now un-banned Samotnaf, but this is a final warning. Faking admin posts is completely dishonest and unacceptable.

Spassmaschine has brought some sense back into this discussion. Admin's may have been technically correct in their action but best not to inject comments here based on past personalised attacks around the 'Aufhebengate' affair that readers can still find on this site if they wish.

Steven wrote:

the title is inaccurate, calling him a "minister", decrying the "silence" on the issue from Blaumachen, which basically hasn't existed in nearly a year, he claimed TC organised meetings on Syriza, which they didn't and claimed a member of Blaumachen spoke at them, which they didn't. Then he tries to somehow tie the selling out of one member to the politics of the groups, which is petty and ridiculous. People from all elements of the political spectrum change their views, but that doesn't mean that the previous political perspective was invalid in some way (even though politics-wise I'm more of a fan of TPTG than Blaumachen, although Blaumachen had an excellent name)

Samotnaf apologises for his error in his later response, which he blames on being "impatient". However checking your facts isn't "impatience", it's a basic thing you need to do before writing something: particularly if it's something where you are making allegations about and attacking comrades.

Which of course is something which there has been previous form about.

I quoted Samotnaf as saying:

1. Steven writes " the title is inaccurate, calling him a "minister"
He is a minister - a junior minister.

2. He says: " decrying the "silence" on the issue from Blaumachen, which basically hasn't existed in nearly a year" The silence decried is that of Sic, not specifically Blaumachen.

3. He says "claimed TC organised meetings on Syriza, which they didn't and claimed a member of Blaumachen spoke at them, which they didn't" It's true I claimed TC organised the meetings, and when I recognised my mistake I publicly admitted it. It was based on the fact that it was advertised on a TC site, the only site I had seen (up till then) in which the ad for the meetings appeared. But it is definitely not true that an ex- member of Blaumachen did not present the meeting. He'd been a member for several years up until its dissolution, a dissolution which was not made public until after the publication of my text. This was originally put up on the ads for the meeting but was taken down after an email from the TPTG sent 3 or 4 days before the meeting. The fact that either the organisers lied or they were misinformed by Andreas, the former Blaumachen member, is not something I can possibly know about.

4. As for his " he tries to somehow tie the selling out of one member to the politics of the groups, which is petty and ridiculous. People from all elements of the political spectrum change their views, but that doesn't mean that the previous political perspective was invalid in some way" The guy from Blaumachen and others round it had at the beginning of this year been planning to write a book on the state with Woland but shelved it when he became a minister. He had had very close relations with Syriza since 2012, yet this was of no interest to his fellow Blaumachen members nor the people round Sic, who published an article by him in Sic 2 which came out in Februrary 2014. "Petty and ridiculous" ? You decide.

5. Steven writes: "Samotnaf apologises for his error in his later response, which he blames on being "impatient". However checking your facts isn't "impatience", it's a basic thing you need to do before writing something: particularly if it's something where you are making allegations about and attacking comrades."

The only thing I apologise for is the fact that I claimed TC organised the meeting. Steven, however, has yet to apologise for the complete and utter distortion of his post - "Which of course is something which there has been previous form about

bootsy wrote:

What 'outright lies' has Samotnaf told?

Spassmachine wrote:

Steven. wrote:

However that doesn't mean I think that dishonesty, smears, personal attacks and outright lies are a helpful contribution to the workers' movement. What do you disagree?

Dishonesty, smears, attacks and lies aren't helpful. But where's your evidence of these? The postscripts by TPTG, Samotnaf etc to the Minister for SIC article, which clarify most of the issues you later object to, were added on 16/4/15, only a couple of days after the text was first published, and over 2 weeks before you claimed on May 1 that the article contained "untrue smears" (as opposed to what, 'true' smears?). You say:
Quote:

However checking your facts isn't "impatience", it's a basic thing you need to do before writing something: particularly if it's something where you are making allegations about and attacking comrades.

But this applies equally to yourself. In your eagerness to label Samotnaf a dishonest smearer, you are ignoring the substantive content of the linked document and engaging in smears yourself. How is this a helpful contribution to the ‘worker’s movement’?
You write:
Quote:

Then he tries to somehow tie the selling out of one member to the politics of the groups, which is petty and ridiculous. People from all elements of the political spectrum change their views, but that doesn't mean that the previous political perspective was invalid in some way

Of course it is possible that Woland simply woke up one day and fell into the position of Secretary-General of a government ministry. But is this likely? Woland was the most prolific theorist in Blaumachen (at least of those texts circulated in English). How does one go from total opposition to the state, to becoming a high-level state functionary? Are we to take it that there is no relationship between the theory one produces, that one can easily on the one hand theorise the need for a total opposition to existing society, and on the other hand lead workshops for the cops and military or build a career as a high-level bureaucrat? Or is it more complex than that, is there a relationship to what we write and think, and how we act? Do our lives, the actual material situations we inhabit, not influence the things we write? And do the things we write and think allow us to justify the weird double-existences we inhabit? If our wage work (for those of us ‘lucky’ enough to have it) is not up for debate, how can we be sure it has no reflection in our theoretical activity? If it is taken as given that everyone here is against SYRIZA, then surely trying to understanding SYRIZA’s recuperation of the movements of the squares is essential. The point is not to dismiss everything that BM, Aufheben or whoever have produced, but to scrutinise it, to see how these Jekyll-Hyde moments come to be, and maybe, learn something from it to stop future movements being so easily recuperated? I write this as someone with a lot of time for much of the stuff coming out of the ‘communising current’ in general, and Woland/BM’s ‘era of riots’ theory in particular. I don’t see anything petty or ridiculous about trying to examine relationships between the ‘politics’ of these groups and the activities of their participants. Communist theory is after all the ruthless criticism of everything existing.

I think this is the crucial point to the various texts by Samotnaf, TPTG, Wildcat and others around ‘Aufhebengate’ and ‘Wolandgate’ – not to merely slag-off JD or Woland, but to draw attention to the relationship between profession and movement; to examine the role such people play in the capitalist division of labour, the costs they pay for a professional career. Slurs, and refusals to engage with the substance of these arguments, are not helpful contributions at all.

Steven has yet to answer a single one of these points. Why?

Not wanting to dull the intellectual rigour of this conversation but I find it absolutely hilarious that in all the discussion, no ones's yet bat an eyelid that Samotnaf has just blatantly lied about us censoring his posts, going so far as to fake an admin comment to make it look like we had!

S. Artesian is probably the funniest example with his rapid insinuation that libcom is censoring people in a bid to support Syriza (what the actual fuck?!) before quickly disappearing but even Spikymike and Spassmaschine, who actually steer the convo towards something more constructive, seem to ignore it, as if it's completely normal to write fake posts to undermine radicals you don't like.

I also think it'd be useful to stop all this "Samotnaf said this", "no, he said that" (and for GerryK to stop playing the role of his messanger boy). He's a registered user on this website and can post himself what he wants to say. I think it's absurd that he continues to play the martyr while asking us to ban him and pretending we're deleting his posts.

To say that someone who was knowingly named as co-author of a work was a co-author is hardly a “smear” – one can split hairs about the actual meaning of having yourself named as co-author if you want. But Dr J has since willingly co-authored with Stott anyway - so "this can of worms" has never really closed. Dr J is still happy to collaborate, co-publish and be publicly associated with Dr Stott, who continues to work closely with police on refining their practice. Eg, it was Stott who conceived and oversaw the introduction of the ‘police liaison officers’ who harass demonstrators and activists and who were initially trialled in Brighton; http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/sep/04/sussex-police-criticised-harassment-protester-liaison

Stott’s self-description;

My early post-doctorate career focused on understanding the crowd dynamics of football ‘hooliganism’ particularly the ‘rioting’ involving English fans travelling into Continental Europe. In the past decade my career focus has been on extending these important theoretical developments toward an applied and impact agenda, primarily through integrating ESIM analyses of rioting into professional policy and practice among police forces globally. More recently, I have moved away from the increasingly narrow confines of Psychology toward the interdisciplinary environment of Criminology where I have been focused upon developing research within the broad agenda of security and justice. I have published over 50 articles in leading interdisciplinary peer reviewed journals and co-authored and edited three books: ‘Football Hooliganism, Policing and the War on the ‘English Disease’’ co-authored with Dr Geoff Pearson (University of Liverpool); ‘Mad Mobs and Englishmen: Myths and Realities of the 2011 riots’ co-authored with Professor Steve Reicher; ‘The Crowd in the 21st Century’ co-edited with Dr J.... (University of Sussex). [See here; http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9781138922914/ ]

Recent Research Projects

... N8 Policing Research Partnership. Co-investigator on a £50,000.00 project funded by the College of Policing Innovation Fund within which I was the project co-lead on Public Order Policing.

... ESRC funded Knowledge Exchange Partnership with the OPCC West Yorkshire and West Yorkshire Police. I am the project lead for the Public Order strand which involves a series of field based observations, training and dissemination event.

http://www.law.leeds.ac.uk/people/staff/clifford-stott/

Dr J’s name also appears on several other works as co-author with Stott.

The police seem to know the value of Stott & co’s work even if apologists try to downplay it;

“Dr Clifford Stott has worked with the Metropolitan Police Service to research and develop theory which has fundamentally changed the way in which we manage crowd events and protest.” – Mark Rowley, Assistant Commissioner, Specialist Crime and Operations, Metropolitan Police. http://www.esrc.ac.uk/news-and-events/features-casestudies/case-studies/30853/policing-crowds-without-force.aspx

Steven has yet to answer a single one of these points. Why?

I think that is obvious. 'Who are the libcom group?' - bureaucrats, academics, celebrity-siblings, journalists, IT professionals, doctors... Of course, they dress it up in the language of class struggle. Bureaucrats become 'council workers', professors become 'education workers'. But it is clear they defend Syriza because they know - perhaps only in their unconscious, though we see it too clearly - that when the time comes they too will be the ministers of austerity, spouting mealy mouthed lies about 'objective conditions'.

I didn't disappear, anymore than Steve "wouldn't answer a single one of these points." I too had more important things to do.

The point I raised about Syriza was not in direct relation to "Libcom's position." I don't think this is anything other than what it is-- a listserv. The point was raised because it seemed to me that charges were being raised against Samotnaf that were really petty, and deflecting, obscuring the main, and only real point.

Now, as Hudson said in Aliens, maybe I haven't been keeping up on current events... [but I have], and please stop me if I'm wrong, but the "skinny" on this sound and fury is that, advertised on a website of a group, or association, or something that is generally considered communist, small c, and anti-Leninist, anti-Stalinist, anti-collaborationist, was a meeting, talk,so-called assessment of the situation in Greece by a current collaborator with the Syriza government who was NOT identified as such; and this current collaborator was a former participant in one or more "left communist" formations who had yet to be identified and repudiated for what he was and what he had become.

Samotnaf exposed this. Good for him. And good for us. That's the point of saying the issue is acceptance, tolerance of, participation in the charade of Syriza as anything other than a mechanism for suppressing class struggle. That's the point, the only point that really matters in this discussion.

You want to make a big thing about Samotnaf "posing" as the Libcom admins? Don't you get the joke? WTF was Woland doing but posing as what he wasn't in order to perform his act of self-aggrandizement.

PS. As for Steve's responses: now he's not sure about this, he's not sure about that etc.etc. Earlier however he was sure enough to charge Samotnaf with lying, smearing etc.etc.

Bureaucrats become 'council workers', professors become 'education workers'. But it is clear they defend Syriza because they know - perhaps only in their unconscious, though we see it too clearly - that when the time comes they too will be the ministers of austerity, spouting mealy mouthed lies about 'objective conditions'.

While Aufhebengate for sure didn't reflect well on the libcom group, I am sorry, whatever the fuck their professions/jobs are don't matter one bit. That's you working clarseness speaking as if being working class is an identity. And the libcom group has never defended Syriza, quite the opposite.

So why lie? Whatever good critiques you may have, supported by evidence even will just make it so much harder to trust.

None of us is an academic, the celebrity sibling comment is a joke, and what on earth is wrong with working in IT or being a doctor? Who do you go to when you're ill, or who do you call when your internet's down?

It is throwing middle class professional shit on the wall to see what sticks. Yet again revealing the shallow identity politics of the poster; at best the poster just have hangups since the 1950s. The professor comment really seals it though; it is typical of the identity crowd to shit on anyone in academia (weirdly reflecting the general hate society have for the freeloading teachers, what with their months long summer vacation) not realizing that the majority of professors are that in title only, many, like in the US, being paid maybe $1000 per course per term at the maybe 6 different colleges they have managed, against the odds, to get a course to teach. And to top it off, it is in some places impossible to find teaching gigs during the summer; and you can't get a job as a barista unless you lie about your education. But hey, at least we get a "summer break" so all is peachy. But nope, that is not good enough for this crowd: real communists work in factories and get their hands dirty!

Cue the responses about the "ideological function" of teachers...

Samotnaf wrote:[i]

This post has been removed because it did abide by our site's standards -admin[

/i]
I emphasise "it did abide by our site's standards ".
Since removing a post for abiding by the site's standards doesn't make sense, it must surely be a joke. It may not be funny, but banning someone temporaraily for making an unfunny joke and then reinstating them but warning them they will be banned permanently if they repeat the offense should mean that everyone from libcom admin and half the posters get temporarily banned and then warned if they make an unfunny joke again that they will be permanently banned. Perhaps the standards of this site should include: "Anyone making a "gag" that doesn't make us laugh will get a gag". Maybe I should be gagged for making that one. Maybe. But anyway libcom admin should certainly be banned because they're a bad joke and no-one's laughing.

They all come out of the woodwork; seriously dudes it's been years. You guys really are starting to be like the Alex Jones crowd. but just sad rather than funny.

well, if people believe it to be true and also believe it to be true that academics are for some reason the bastion of ideological purity for bourgeois society (not completely wrong on that assertion), then the libcom group are death camp guards. Then it doesn't matter what your jobs really are.

Spycatcher's post is obvious bullshit and trolling.

The issues are what they always were: was somebody "posing" as a left communist in fact acting, assisting, aiding, the bourgeoisie "manage" "suppress" "deflect" class struggle, and was that person exposed?

Steven

Well I don't really want to open this can of worms again ... Yes we know that he agreed to be named as a co-author ... and he acknowledged this was a mistake and completely rejects the article.

Then why’d you think he would carry on being named as co-author in works equally as damning from any radical perspective? The blurb from his 2013 book co-edited with Stott makes clear how the theory and its conclusions are equally applicable to and overlap across both public order and mass emergencies;

Crowds in the 21st Century presents the latest theory and research on crowd events and crowd behaviour from across a range of social sciences, including psychology, sociology, law, and communication studies. Whether describing the language of the crowd in protest events, measuring the ability of the crowd to empower its participants, or analysing the role of professional organizations involved in crowd safety and public order, the contributions in this volume are united in their commitment to a social scientific level of analysis.

The crowd is often depicted as a source of irrationality and danger – in the form of riots and mass emergencies. By placing crowd events back in their social context – their ongoing historical and proximal relationships with other groups and social structures – this volume restores meaning to the analysis of crowd behaviour. Together, the studies described in this collection demonstrate the potential of crowd research to enhance the positive experience of crowd participants and to improve design, planning, and management around crowd events.

This book was originally published as a special issue of Contemporary Social Science.
http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9781138922914/

This also makes clear the application of their theories in multiple situations;

MAKING THE CASE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
Psychologists Professor Stephen Reicher AcSS of the University of St Andrews, Dr Clifford Stott of the University of Liverpool and Dr John Drury of the University of Sussex have been studying crowds for nearly 30 years using a variety of methods: interviews, surveys, ethnography and experimental studies. They have found that, contrary to popular belief, people do not adopt a ‘mob mentality’ (i.e. lose their identity and lose control of their actions) once in a crowd. Instead, they act in terms of a shared social identity rather than their own personal identity.

These social identities appear to develop though the interactions that take place between crowd members and other groups and it is out of these that violence is generated and escalates. As a result, public order policing can be more effective if it is based upon the recognition of the diversity of sub-groups within a crowd, their specific beliefs and goals and how these can be facilitated. That way, the police can win the majority to their side and so aid crowd members themselves to police disruptive minorities.

Police forces have increasingly adopted these ideas as best practice and they were used with great success at the European Football Championships in Portugal in 2004. The notion of ‘dialogue policing’ has spread across Europe and Scandinavia and, in 2010, the UK adopted the ‘social identity approach’ for public order policing in the HMIC report Adapting to Protest – Nurturing the British Model of Policing.

This new approach encourages the police to use targeted interventions which distinguish between crowd members rather than treat everyone as the same.

This research has also been applied to improve our understanding of crowd behaviour in emergency situations. The team’s work – which has examined a variety of events from the sinking of The Herald of Free Enterprise to the 7/7 attacks in London – has shown that emergencies lead to an emergent sense of shared identity, self-organisation and mutual self-help, so that the emergency services need to ask how they can assist people in what they are already doing rather than impose themselves on the public.

A 2009 NATO report on psychological care for people affected by disasters and major incidents adopts the team’s approach as standard and the researchers are now helping health authorities, emergency planners and the government devise new procedures for what to do if and when disaster strikes.

http://britsoccrim.org/new/docs/AcSSMakingtheCasecrimepdf.pdf

- Making the Case for the Social Sciences No.4 - Crime - Academy of Social Sciences, British Pyschological Society & British Society of Criminology (2011).