S. Artesian, Double Standards Regarding Libcom's Posting Guidelines

Eh, grow up.

The discussion posts you're referring to seem as civil as it gets in these forums.

S. Artesian makes sound and valid points, always backing them up with some justification, often steeped in history. No ad hominem attacks, and the "personal insults" have been flung from the other direction. Did you not just notice you called Artesian a "fuckwad" or are you that far inside your own head? Notice I'm polite enough to say head instead of ass, so you don't call me a fuckwad or a dickhead or whatever else has been floating around here lately.

Removed in protest of Libcom's policy allowing texts by admitted racists.

I would like to ask the admins to change his username to Jean-Paul Sartresian.

I second that motion. :)

Removed in protest of Libcom's policy allowing texts by admitted racists.

.

Removed in protest of Libcom's policy allowing texts by admitted racists.

Sorry, not sure what you are referring to specifically. Can you provide links to where he has breached the posting guidelines? If you do this we will review.

I can't help but think this post by el psy has something to do with the flurry of rational activity denouncing Michael Schmidt. Someone is downvoting some pretty plain facts about Schmidt...

S. Artesian is the devil of course, as we've all suspected.

.

Removed in protest of Libcom's policy allowing texts by admitted racists.

William Everard

I can't help but think this post by el psy has something to do with the flurry of rational activity denouncing Michael Schmidt. Someone is downvoting some pretty plain facts about Schmidt...

S. Artesian is the devil of course, as we've all suspected.

as someone who thought from the start of the whole schmidt affair that the defences of schmidt were fucking bullshit, i think artesian can be a real fucking knob at times, not asking for admin action, just saying

Removed in protest of Libcom's policy allowing texts by admitted racists.

Come on, mate, if you can't even take the heat here, where you are basically among comrades, on a site in which leftist arguments usually prevail, who all oppose fascism, then where can you take the heat?

(Having read the discussions on Black Flame I am as surprised it is here, well less so, since it purports to be pro-anarchist, as I was that the Harman book was here, but I wasn't bothered if the Harman book remained, since I don't own this site, which is a really good repository of useful texts. The point being that Harman's organization and politics were/are specifically anti-anarchist. I would never have read either book, by the way.)

"When anyone ever says: "I've got bigger fish to fry" it always means they have flounced off in a huff.

And I am only just finding time in the next couple of days to answer your questions, too!

You should get a temperature control on your blood so it doesn't keep boiling all the time.

Don't go. Let's stop the swearing and the insults and have a group hug.

Steven.

Sorry, not sure what you are referring to specifically. Can you provide links to where he has breached the posting guidelines? If you do this we will review.

steven, we've been here before.

Removed in protest of Libcom's policy allowing texts by admitted racists.

Pretty soon, I'm sure there will a thread dealing with Schmidt's breakdown, and his treatment, and his recovery, and his rehabilitation, and whether or not he has "suffered enough" done enough penance to be accepted back among his libertarian comrades.

No I think he needs to be shunned permanently based on what I've read, and there's no sign that any apologies have been in good faith.

I'm not yet convinced either way on removing vs. keeping but disavowing the work that was already on the site before this came out. Should also note we've had a policy of hosting texts we have massive disagreements with for years (Hakim Bey ffs) with critical introductions. It's OK to disagree with that, and even as an admin sometimes I end up fuming at texts we host on the site, but we're an archive rather than a journal at least as far as history/library content is concerned.

Also when we remove posts, we normally just unpublish, but in this case (at least with anything prominent on google), I'd want to instead replace the content with a statement, and we don't have such a statement for that, or precedent for doing so really either.

Removed in protest of Libcom's policy allowing texts by admitted racists.

You're more than free to stop posting. Alternatively, you could ask for your account to be banned.

Removed in protest of Libcom's policy allowing texts by admitted racists.

It might be better if Libcom issued a statement on the entire matter, including the phony "independent investigatory commission" baloney that was floated in the attempt to recuperate the reputations of those defending Schmidt, and of course, has now sunk beneath the waves

That's not impossible. I've not yet personally seen a self-contained adequate statement on Schmidt, but also not in a very good place to write one at the moment. Maybe you could write your own statement?

I'm not asking for that. I'm asking for the right to close my account as a protest against the policies of Libcom.

That's not technically possible with the current infrastructure of the website. You can change your password/e-mail address to lock yourself out (the closest to cancelling the account), or we could ban you, or you can wait for us to upgrade the CMS which will be a few months but will definitely provide that feature once it's done.

removed

S. Artesian

Or I can go through the tedious task of removing all my posts and substituting a message that post removed in opposition to Libcom's policy re the posting of texts by admitted fascists. OK, I'll try that.

wow you must have a lot of free time if you can spend ages doing something so pointless and juvenile.

Also not sure why this is such an issue right now. You know we host loads of text by Marx, right and that he was a racist? See also: Bakunin and Proudhon, who were anti-Semites. Not to mention a bunch of stuff written by people in the early 20th century whose politics changed and they became fascists later on.

We are an online library. We don't only host texts by people who are perfect and have never said anything offensive ever, or whose views we agree with completely. If we did this our site would be our 5 introductory guides, and that's about it. Hell we even host articles by Kevin Keating, who is racist, anti-Semitic, violent, threatening, homophobic and says discriminatory things about disability. And we totally disagree with his politics. But we are an online library for a pretty wide range of opinion.

removed

It's not about your spurious claim that this site is run by 'nazi enablers'.

It's because you feel you have been 'defeated' by epc and zugzwang, isn't it?

Thought you were made of sterner stuff?

That's what you have been telling everyone here for as long as I can remember, anyway.

"When push comes to shove", as you said recently about your claimed comradely grit....

... Run away?

Tom Henry, whatever one thinks of Artesian's behaviour here; your competitiveness and pathetic attempts at baiting and wind-ups make you look like a complete arsehole.

Red Marriott

Tom Henry, whatever one thinks of Artesian's behaviour here; your competitiveness and pathetic attempts at baiting and wind-ups make you look like a complete arsehole.

Agreed.

I've met Artesian face-to-face and despite whatever disagreements we have, he's still a comrade who I know will have my back. That means a lot.

Steven.

Also not sure why this is such an issue right now. You know we host loads of text by Marx, right and that he was a racist? See also: Bakunin and Proudhon, who were anti-Semites. Not to mention a bunch of stuff written by people in the early 20th century whose politics changed and they became fascists later on.

We are an online library. We don't only host texts by people who are perfect and have never said anything offensive ever, or whose views we agree with completely. If we did this our site would be our 5 introductory guides, and that's about it. Hell we even host articles by Kevin Keating, who is racist, anti-Semitic, violent, threatening, homophobic and says discriminatory things about disability. And we totally disagree with his politics. But we are an online library for a pretty wide range of opinion.

Actually, no I don't know that. I don't know Marx was a racist. Marx never advocated racial supremacy as a social policy; never thought racism was a solution to any class conflict. If you have any evidence of Marx doing either of those things, then by all means bring it forth and we can give it the same kind of bullshit disclaimer you are providing for the Michael Schmidt posts. This isn't about off-hand remarks in personal correspondence. This is about policy, programs, actions, publicly advocated. Too subtle a distinction for you? Work a little harder.

And you know who else I know weren't racists- the two taboos, Lenin and Trotsky. They weren't racists, but they aren't welcome in the Libcom library, are they?

As for Bakunin and Proudhon, yeah I pointed that out too, but apparently you aren't familiar with the origins of this issue-It started with the "libertarian" protests against the posting of Harman's People's History of the World. Then Battlescarred and others objected vociferously to that inclusion because Harman was a leading member of the SWP, and the SWP had covered-up the sexual abuse of women comrades by "comrade delta." I brought up Schmidt's presence; Bakunin's and Proudhon's and Kropotkin's endorsement of inter-imperialist war-- and also Chomsky's "defense" of Pol Pot and endorsement of Hillary Clinton-- which earned me the label of "idiot" from Craft....not that I give a flying fart.

Despite the fact that there wasn't the slightest bit of evidence that Harman knew of that abuse, participated in the cover-up (in fact he died several years before it became public), his book was gone-- because, well he was associated with the SWP; he was a "Leninist" and the book "could be found elsewhere" ad infinitum, ad nauseum, ad bullshit-um.

You have Kevin Keating? You're welcome to him. He's ok to include in your online library; Schmidt is ok to be in your online library. Bakunin's ok to be in your online library. Pol Pot supporters are OK to be in your online library. But not Chris Harman a "Leninist"-- and certainly not Lenin or Trotsky. Lukacs? That pathetic dilettante who wrote what has to be one of the most backward renderings of Marx's relationship to Hegel and dialectics ever perpetrated, and couldn't wait to get in line with Stalin? He's OK, too.

This place is enough to gag a maggot.

I'd much rather be in the company of those who would rather be in the company of a Lenin or a Trotsky or a Chris Harman, than those who rack themselves up in line with Schmidt, Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotkin, Lukacs, Chomsky, etc.

I'm going to track down some Mussolini pre 1916, and post it here, while I take my time removing my posts from thisplace.

removed

Though I mostly lurk, I'm with S. Artesian on this issue. If you were bugged enough to think it was a good idea to get rid of Harman's book but are making excuses to keep Schmidt, your rationale is that Harman was associated with bad people or perhaps did bad acts and so deserves to be removed, but Schmidt's work is somehow valuable enough so that his bad acts don't strike out his works; then you have to make the case that Harman's work is meritless enough or his bad acts bad enough so that the bad acts outweigh the merit, while simultaneously arguing the opposite in Schmidt's case i.e. that either his work is exceptionally good such that his bad acts are actually not so bad relative to it (he might be a racist, white supremacist, and a fascist who negatively affected the organizations he was in and continues to parade himself around as a celebrity anarchist journalist...but Black Flame is such a good read!).

While a case might be made for the former, it's arguing the latter would be awfully disappointing, because either way it helps recuperate Schmidt within anarchism and I can't imagine that Black Flame is good enough to warrant that. The situation should be clear: either one can say that a person's reprehensible acts are not a consideration when evaluating whether their works should be archived by Libcom or one can drop Schmidt and other obviously reprehensible people whose works aren't up to snuff.

I could, of course, be said to be unfairly circumscribing the question. There might be other considerations that mean that keeping Black Flame and other Schmidt works would be worthwhile. It might be argued that keeping the PDF of Black Flame around makes it so that people will be directed to a...strongly worded disclaimer...and having the PDF around makes this disclaimer more likely to reach more people (the negative effects of having the PDF around are either put aside or are apparently outweighed by this benefit). To this, I want to point out that, for me at least, I can get to the PDF hosted on Libcom through a Google search without ever landing on the page that contains the disclaimer; and if I were to try to get Black Flame through the Libcom webpage, I would see the disclaimer regardless of whether the PDF was actually hosted here. While this doesn't fully negate the argument, I think this demonstrates its supposed benefits would actually be rather small while all the negative effects of keeping Black Flame remain. There might be other arguments for other benefits of keeping Black Flame around; these can be answered in turn as they are brought up.

As an aside, whatever one argues, hopefully the metric for merit isn't just having enough anarchist bona fides, or dismissing works out-of-hand for perceived--or even actual--Leninism or something, despite the work's merits.

I think the blog post by Mike Harman, "On accountability", has useful reflections on these questions.

Artesian says:

"I'd much rather be in the company of those who would rather be in the company of a Lenin or a Trotsky or a Chris Harman, than those who rack themselves up in line with Schmidt, Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotkin, Lukacs, Chomsky, etc."

I think we are now getting somewhere with this.

There are two broad 'teams' here, and this what I have been trying to establish.

However, I think the 'anarchist' team is also leftist. They are ultimately playing on the same side as the more orthodox Marxists and against what might be termed 'the proletariat'.

For the record, even though I have said that I seem to be the only one defending basic 'anarchist' positions here (though epc and zugzwang have also done this), I do not consider myself an anarchist.

DevastateTheAvenues

I could, of course, be said to be unfairly circumscribing the question. There might be other considerations that mean that keeping Black Flame and other Schmidt works would be worthwhile. It might be argued that keeping the PDF of Black Flame around makes it so that people will be directed to a...strongly worded disclaimer...and having the PDF around makes this disclaimer more likely to reach more people (the negative effects of having the PDF around are either put aside or are apparently outweighed by this benefit). To this, I want to point out that, for me at least, I can get to the PDF hosted on Libcom through a Google search without ever landing on the page that contains the disclaimer; and if I were to try to get Black Flame through the Libcom webpage, I would see the disclaimer regardless of whether the PDF was actually hosted here. While this doesn't fully negate the argument, I think this demonstrates its supposed benefits would actually be rather small while all the negative effects of keeping Black Flame remain. There might be other arguments for other benefits of keeping Black Flame around; these can be answered in turn as they are brought up.

yeah one of the admin changed things earlyer have a look https://libcom.org/files/Lucien%20Van%20Der%20Walt%20and%20Michael%20Schmidt%20Black%20Flame%20vol%201.compressed.pdf

radicalgraffiti

yeah one of the admin changed things earlyer have a look https://libcom.org/files/Lucien%20Van%20Der%20Walt%20and%20Michael%20Schmidt%20Black%20Flame%20vol%201.compressed.pdf

That's fair, but I'm still getting to a version without a disclaimer through this link, which can be reached directly via Google:
https://libcom.org/files/Lucien%20Van%20Der%20Walt%20and%20Michael%20Schmidt%20Black%20Flame%20vol%201.pdf

Though I imagine this version can be removed easily enough. That said, the point S. Artesian and William Everard have made, that keeping Black Flame around as a worthwhile anarchist text serves to recuperate Schmidt within anarchism, still stands and should be considered on balance with whatever reasons one thinks makes it worthwhile.

Devastatettheavenues and radicalgrafitti,

Your posts above should really be on the Black Flame thread, not here, people might miss the points you are making if you leave them here.

Red Marriott and Hieronymous. I only know Artesian from what he writes here. As I have said before, I am sure he is a lovable fellow in the flesh. But yes, the point was to get Artesian to show more of 'his hand', and it has worked. I think if he is more honest here then debate can be done more sensibly, but he has a way to go with this.

I don't think it was hard to spot my own obvious and deliberate winding up of Artesian, after he has called me some terrible things and without a shred of humor in his prosaic heart, by the way. Although he got quite poetic when he wrote:

This place is enough to gag a maggot.

But comments like this are really unreasonable and ungrateful after all the years he has been here and all the good work the Libcom admins do to keep this site running.

(By the way, I think that there are probably three broad 'teams' at work here on the Libcom forums, rather than just two, I neglected to factor in the communizers and 'ultra-leftists'. But they all, in my opinion, serve a similar purpose in reality.)

Removed in protest of Libcom's policy allowing texts by admitted racists.

That's possibly the most pathetic snit-fit I've seen on libcom.

This seems slightly exaggerated. I'm not sure if this concern about fascism has crossed a line, or if it's just an excuse. Anyway, I'll leave you guys to it. I'd have problems if the attack was on Bakunin, Proudhon, and their place here. I guess that the original accusation was that they were quick to offend, this doesn't give the opposite impression

S. Artesian

Bakunin's ok to be in your online library.

S. Artesian

]I'd much rather be in the company of those who would rather be in the company of a Lenin or a Trotsky or a Chris Harman, than those who rack themselves up in line with Schmidt, Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotkin, Lukacs, Chomsky, etc

The Libcom Library without Bakunin would be sort of like the Marxists Internet Archive Library without Marx.

Certainly, Bakunin was an ass for his occasional anti-semitic rants but AFIK he never took or attempted to take his antisemitism any future then that. Conversely, I can see your point about Micheal Schmidt because unlike Bakunin the evidence is pretty solid that Schmidt deliberately sought out fraternal associations with white-nationalists amongst whom he, as the Libcom disclaimer says, "advocated merging anarchist and white supremacist ideas."

At the end of the day, these decisions about what/what not to host are not a science, but a question of judgements. However...

My original contention was that Chris Harman's works shouldn't have been posted here because he is not a thinker of the anarchist-communist or anti-state Marxist traditions, nor is he of historical significance, and therefore his work doesn't belong here regardless of his moral failings (i.e. even if he wasn't an asshole, it still wouldn't be appropriate to host his work), but his moral failings, and the fact that he was a leading figure of the SWP for much of its existence lends to my arguments.

With Schmidt, it's different because his texts/ideas were of relevance to the politics of this website, but subsequent controversies exposed worrying facts about him. Therefore, a disclaimer is not necessarily an unsensible option.

However, I don't mind one way or the other whether his work remains or are removed.

Craftwork

At the end of the day, these decisions about what/what not to host are not a science, but a question of judgements. However...

My original contention was that Chris Harman's works shouldn't have been posted here because he is not a thinker of the anarchist-communist or anti-state Marxist traditions, nor is he of historical significance, and therefore his work doesn't belong here regardless of his moral failings (i.e. even if he wasn't an asshole, it still wouldn't be appropriate to host his work), but his moral failings, and the fact that he was a leading figure of the SWP for much of its existence lends to my arguments.

With Schmidt, it's different because his texts/ideas were of relevance to the politics of this website, but subsequent controversies exposed worrying facts about him. Therefore, a disclaimer is not necessarily an unsensible option.

However, I don't mind one way or the other whether his work remains or are removed.

It sounds to me like "historical significance" is just another way to say "anarchist bona fides"; I'm sure that Harman is of significance to other socialist traditions, even if they are SWPies. Further, not being a work of anarchist-communism or anti-state Marxism shouldn't immediately discount it; it doesn't say anything yet about whether or not the work is meritless. Consider that Libcom has, say, Black Reconstruction in America by W.E.B. Du Bois in the library. By no stretch of the imagination could you put Du Bois in the anarchist or anti-state Marxist camps--and in fact supported Pan-Africanism and anti-imperialism, generally supported both the USSR and PRC, and even made nice with Mao in person (shock! horror!)--but I would be dumbfounded if anyone thought his work didn't have any merit for either of these traditions.

As for Schmidt's place in the Libcom library, he may have been relevant, but I think the question is whether those who want Black Flame here are ready to vouch for its merit balanced against the, ahem, "controversy" and "worrying" facts about Schmidt.

It's a very stupid discussion the reveals very clearly the particular ideological biases of those involved. Just let the shitty texts stand and let commenters discuss how Schmidt ended up being a fascist infiltrator and Harman committed the unforgiveable sin of belonging to an abusive left organization (whoever heard of THAT ?!?!)

These admins are priceless... Seriously, why is this a conversation and why the hell are you sticking your asses out on this? What does an anarcho-communisationer have to do to get thrown out of the "Libertarian Communist" movement? Seems like so long as they're some half-arsed academic or wannabe professional bigshot then you can do whatever the hell you want.

Tell your friend over at Aufheben I'll be thinking of him next I find myself getting kettled... I'm going back to the damn library and staying well away from the comments.

removed

True that though.

So far we've done the following:

- added a content note to every article we could find by Schmidt, linking to the 1,000 post forum thread.

- unpublished any 'general' articles by Schmidt that there's absolutely no good arguments for hosting whatsoever.

- added a note to the PDF of Black Flame itself.

- added a note to a critical review of Black Flame, written before the controversy came out, that's not authored by Schmidt or Lucien Van Der Welt at all.

@DevastateTheAvenues good point with the older version of the PDF, I've replaced that version of the file as well so they both have the bright yellow message now.

We're still discussing exactly what the end-result with those remaining items should be internally. S Artesian's point that we should remove all the Bakunin/Kropotkin and add some Trotsky I can't take in good faith, but:

I could, of course, be said to be unfairly circumscribing the question. There might be other considerations that mean that keeping Black Flame and other Schmidt works would be worthwhile. It might be argued that keeping the PDF of Black Flame around makes it so that people will be directed to a...strongly worded disclaimer...and having the PDF around makes this disclaimer more likely to reach more people (the negative effects of having the PDF around are either put aside or are apparently outweighed by this benefit).

This is exactly the issue, and the trade-off is well put, but it'd really be better to discuss it in the comments on: https://libcom.org/library/black-flame-volume-1-lucien-van-der-walt-michael-schmidt as others have pointed out.

removed

Why are you putting "essential" "libertarian communism" and "proud" in quotes, despite neither the disclaimer nor me using any of those words?

Just quickly on Chris Harman, we have a whole set of articles critical of the SWP, written both before and after the rape crisis - so generally the site does a decent job of exposing the SWP for what it is. Could always be better but there's enough to get an idea without having to wade through or guess.

With Schmidt there is the 1,000 comment forum thread, but we don't have coherent content explaining the situation yet, and none of the top results for 'black flame anarchism' on google even have a reference to his racism/fascism except this site.

removed

Pennoid

Harman committed the unforgiveable sin of belonging to an abusive left organization (whoever heard of THAT ?!?!)

Harman was one of the leaders of an abusive left organisation. There's a difference.

removed

Can I just remind everyone that this thread was about S. Artesian's 'bad' behaviour, not the argument over whether the piece of shit Black Flame book should be removed from the Libcom library or not. The fact that it has been derailed into another Black Flame thread does not, I think (?), alter the allegiances. (Unless someone else wants to count up the votes with this as a factor?)

But hey look, since we are all such democrats here, I have just done a count of the up and down votes and the results are in:

'Pro' S. Artesian: 49 votes
'Anti' S. Artesian: 45 votes

Unclear: 2

I was not sure about post #6 which seemed to garner two 'anti' S. Artesian votes, so I put it into the 'anti' section. But it may not have been anti. If it wasn't 'anti' then it just increases S. Artesian's approval ratings here.

Artesian wins! (He always wins.)

This means, as I have been telling S. Artesian all along, that he, and his brand of Leftism, have majority support here. (Presuming no one else posts, of course, and I am guessing this post will bolster the 'pro' Artesian camp by several votes.)

Tom Henry

Can I just remind everyone that this thread was about S. Artesian's 'bad' behaviour, not the argument over whether the piece of shit Black Flame book should be removed from the Libcom library or not. The fact that it has been derailed into another Black Flame thread does not, I think (?), alter the allegiances. (Unless someone else wants to count up the votes with this as a factor?)

But hey look, since we are all such democrats here, I have just done a count of the up and down votes and the results are in:

'Pro' S. Artesian: 49 votes
'Anti' S. Artesian: 45 votes

Unclear: 2

I was not sure about post #6 which seemed to garner two 'anti' S. Artesian votes, so I put it into the 'anti' section. But it may not have been anti. If it wasn't 'anti' then it just increases S. Artesian's approval ratings here.

Artesian wins! (He always wins.)

This means, as I have been telling S. Artesian all along, that he, and his brand of Leftism, have majority support here. (Presuming no one else posts, of course, and I am guessing this post will bolster the 'pro' Artesian camp by several votes.)

This is unhealthy.

Devastate the avenues,

Don't be such a serious sausage.

Take yourself less seriously.

It's funny, in an Albert Camus, 'Absurdist', kind of way.

PS
Voting approvals update:
'Pro' S. A. - 52
'Anti' S. A. - 45

Two more votes for the 'pro' camp.

It's turning into a landslide.

Obviously someone will say: "Not really, Tom Henry, it's just that people are voting against you because you are an arsehole."

But that would be either missing or distorting the point:

Is Libcom a platform for offensive Leninists and their supporters, or is it a platform for Libertarian Communists?

Looks like I am close to being banned not only after sticking up for libertarian communism, but also Libcom itself. And also putting up with Artesian's relentlessly foul and self-righteous mouth.

As I said above, S. Artesian (and his politics) always wins here:

https://libcom.org/forums/general/chill-out-14072017#comment-595939

I did predict this, in a reply to zugwang on another thread.

Such is life. But don't get the violins out!

It's not because you're sticking up for libertarian communism. it's because you're obsessively counting votes as though there's some sort of popularity competition between you and Artesian.

Fwiw I think Artesian has behaved very badly in the course of the Black Flame articles in particular (I've never had any time for the sort of person who tries to bully collectives into doing what they want) but I don't bother up or downvoting about it. I also think your above posts are an unedifying display of pique and haven't voted on that subject either.

Rob Ray.

I actually probably side more with S. Artesian on the specific Black Flame issue, but not on the Harman book issue. I have implied this at least.

It's not about a popularity contest between me and Artesian. That's a really silly interpretation of what I have been trying to do here. Also, I don't ever use the up/down vote buttons as I think they have a deleterious effect on how people read posts.

I am just trying to show what weight Artesian and other 'Leninists' have here. I think that it is useful for good folk like zugzwang to see this. Like zugzwang, I am surprised that there is such little opposition to Leninism and Leftism here on the forums.

Having said that I still think libcom is a great resource and people should respect the fact that Libcom is run by admins and it is not owned by the posters.

Having said that, I have been given a warning from the admins for defending libertarian communism in the face of Leninism.

But I am not complaining about this since I do not own Libcom. It is up to the admins what course they take. I will always use the fantastic library. And good luck to Libcom. (Just in case I get banned before I can say anything else.)

I'd quite like to see a shift of focus from S.Artesian's smacked arse routine. So how about starting off a "creeping Leninism on Libcom" thread? Fuck it, I'll do it myself.

"Weighing" influence in upvotes and downvotes is turning it into a popularity contest, and particularly silly if you don't even engage with or believe in using them yourself.

You do that, Serge, I'm worried about the creeping Leninism here, and I don't put it in quotations. AIn't got enough time to engage fully here. Too busy with other things.

Rob Ray,

I thought you were a wordsmith who understood the English language.

Read again what I have written.

removed:tdtf

removed: wotwu

Artesian: this is a further warning for you on personal abuse. Cut it out or you will be banned.

Tom Henry, you were not warned for sticking up for libcom, you were warned for posting an off topic comment attacking another poster on a thread whose purpose was specifically to try to defuse tensions on the site.

Both posting off topic comments and posting abuse are breaches of the posting guidelines.

S.Artesian

It's all about me me me....

Fixed.

removed:woft

removed: cgaff

Yes, you will win, if past history is anything to go by. But maybe things will change:

https://libcom.org/forums/theory/there-creeping-leninism-libcom-16072017

Everything I write proves you are right.

I have said this from the beginning.

You don't get it do you? ( I know this is a phrase you use, so forgive me.)

But I don't care what you get or don't get. I never wanted to enter a discussion with a Marxist Leninist on Libcom. What I care about is what the people who identify as libertarian communists, or close to that, get about you and your sympathisers.

And anyway, I thought you were leaving this place that, as you so rudely said, could 'gag a maggot'?

If you don't actually do what you say you are going to do, with such venom and bile as well, then how can we trust anything you say?

I expect a few more down votes, at least, for this saying this, of course.

S Artesian

Exactly what's abusive

Abuse isn't just about whether you use bad words or not. In the course of the last few threads you've engaged in the same sort of belittling intellectual snobbery, passive-aggressive threats and accusations (still waiting for that final flounce you promised because you're so morally outraged at all the tacit racism on here) and other manipulative tossery that every other political headbanger likes to try when they're not getting their own way.

And you all seem to think you're the first to try it and you're oh-so cleverly straying just the right side of outright insults, as though older hands haven't seen your sort many times before.

You're right. Tom Henry's vote counting is silly. The appropriateness of Leninism on a libertarian communist website is well worth a discussion though. For the record, I'm fine with the 'w' word. And yes, you are a prima dona (I'm waiting for you to tell someone they'll never work in this town again) but your flounce has to be the worst flounce ever.

My post 71 is in reply to Artesian's post 65.

I didn't see the posts that have come after post 65.

Steven, with respect, how can you say that posting abuse is a breach when people like Artesian have been able get away with it for so long here?

Also, with complete respect again, to hoist me on my own tiny breach is surely just validating what I have been arguing?

Yes, Serge, my vote counting is silly - wasn't that obvious from the start?!

I thought I had made that plain, ffs! Gawd!

Everyone here needs to take a step back and lighten up so they can read and think straight.

But they should have done it a good while ago.

But nothing's over til the funerary music begins.

There's a golden rule of both design and journalism Tom which I think may apply here: If people are consistently misunderstanding your intent it's likely your failing, not theirs.

with respect, just because you are a journalist does not mean you are an expert in understanding, Rob Ray.

You say people are misunderstanding what I am saying, but are they really? And if they are why are they?

A more subtle approach to understanding here might be in order than your crude one?

As in, I suspect that I have upset you in some way, and this is the cause of your objection. But your objection then, if I am correct, is not entirely honest?

But, before you reply, I accept that I am wrong and you are right.

Not saying I am, but if three people in a row are misunderstanding you it probably means you weren't being terribly clear. Also please knock off the "I accept that I am wrong and you are right" stuff. It comes off as incredibly snarky.

Leninism is something that can be argued against quite adequately, though only if it's thought worthwhile to tediously repeat the same old conflicts and there are good arguments that there's better ways to spend one's energies. But it's just a fact that there's an area of semi-leninism that thinks bolshevism was right in its time but maybe semi-impractical now and such people seem to have a (sometimes patronising) attraction towards libcom, even if only to play the loyal opposition. But behaviour like Tom Henry's long-winded competitive egotism and petty baiting - while not generally breaching site guidelines etc - is imo a worse long-term influence on the atmosphere and tone of the place. Even though, or especially because, it's dressed up as pro-libertarian communism.

The point was to end the conversation with you, because you didn't get what I was saying, and I suspected that you would persist in your (deliberate?) misunderstanding, and you still don't, from what you are saying. So that's what I meant. It wasn't sarcasm.

So, with respect, no need to continue, because it will just end badly.

I didn't say sarky, I said snarky. Perhaps you should improve your reading comprehension skills? don't bother replying, you're clearly just out to get me along with everyone else.

The above, just in case it wasn't clear, is a mildly satirical facsimile of your posting style aimed at supporting Red's general point about the rather unpleasant way you've been approaching these arguments.

Sorry, but 'snarky' means 'snide' or 'sarcastic'. Look it up.

And yet you read it the latter way while I meant it the former way - I can only assume from this that you are being deliberately disingenuous and must hate me. I don't think we should talk any more. Many apologies, let's just assume you're right, like you always are.

Artesian is now behaving like a baby what with throwing a massive temper tantrum and Tom is even more full of himself in his self righteousness. Neither of you are "winning".

*Insert "joke" about being banned which is actually just a thinly disguised passive-aggressive dig*

No Rob Ray, it was I who suggested we stopped talking first - oh the irony that I am now replying!

I am not familiar with the term snarky, I presumed it meant sacrastic. What is the difference between 'snide' and 'sarcastic'?

Khawaga,

Everyone here needs to quit this thread and engage with the relevant threads about the political tendencies that are dominating Libcom. As well as the other usual threads.

I reckon sitting on the fence and not knowing what is happening here is not acceptable anymore. Unless one states what side of Leninism one sits on.

I never said I was winning ever - I keep saying I am losing and that I will lose! Strueth!

S. Artesian

removed: cgaff

S. Artesian

removed:woft

Tom Henry

I never said I was winning ever - I keep saying I am losing and that I will lose! Strueth!