DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Crimethinc [+Scottish Nationalism and Forum Etiquette]

86 posts / 0 new
Last post
gav's picture
gav
Offline
Joined: 22-09-03
Mar 1 2005 16:36
AnarchoAl wrote:
Nick's never advocated uniting along "national" as opposed to class lines, at least not since he's been an anarchist (most of the time I've known him). The fact that we need an internationalist proletarian revolution doesn't mean that Scotland's colonisation is irrelevant to our political activites here.

ahem

Nick Durie wrote:
There are a few reasonable grounds for greater autonomy for the Scottish people.

note the use of "scottish people" and not "international proletariat".

Nick Durie wrote:
I also do not see a desire for greater autonomy and control over our lives as Scots (Scottish nationalism - note Wayne that I am a nationalist and do not want a Scottish state)

roll up! roll up! welcome to the broad church of anarchism! where all ideology is welcome! even nationalism!

JoeBlack
Offline
Joined: 28-10-03
Mar 1 2005 16:45
Jack wrote:
In fact, me not taking these fucks seriously is PART of me taking the project of the self emancipation of the working class as the most serious thing in the world.

Oh I get this - its just you actually sound dead like 'these fucks' in the way you talk to people. You sound like some teen punk rocker wailing about someone putting milk in his tea. You have created an internet persona that is a monster that stands in your way.

I suggest you consider the impact it has on the boards of you (and others) filling up thread after thread with your name calling and in jokes. Do you reckon it makes enrager a good inclusive space that people are serious about libertarian politics are likely to use. Or do you reckon if they are not already part of your gang they might take one look, conclude 'what a bunch of stupid teenagers' and head off elsewhere.

So when I refer to you not taking things seriously I mean precisely your inability to recognise that you don't have to 'dance' all the fucking time and on every single thread.

gav's picture
gav
Offline
Joined: 22-09-03
Mar 1 2005 16:49

thread moved from Introductory Thought

the button's picture
the button
Offline
Joined: 7-07-04
Mar 1 2005 16:54
gav wrote:
thread moved from Introductory Thought

..... thread moved from Introductory Thought while I was reading it. Spooky.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Mar 1 2005 16:56

See I agree with the critique, but not with the solution. I'm more with joe here. There is a great deal of wasted potential whenever a young person who wants to get involved is put off by foul language and rhetoric.

I'd rather engage constructively with politically inept groups and beat them repeatedly through well-executed critiques and debates than let them continue to recruit, irritate, cynicise and finally eject people who might have a great deal of potential.

I personally know several people on these boards who were originally drawn from Revo for example, non-engagement and alienation from these groups would almost certainly have led in the first place to them turning away entirely rather than continuing to educate themselves until they have a decent position.

AnarchoAl
Offline
Joined: 29-05-04
Mar 1 2005 17:15
gav wrote:
AnarchoAl wrote:
Nick's never advocated uniting along "national" as opposed to class lines, at least not since he's been an anarchist (most of the time I've known him). The fact that we need an internationalist proletarian revolution doesn't mean that Scotland's colonisation is irrelevant to our political activites here.

ahem

Nick Durie wrote:
There are a few reasonable grounds for greater autonomy for the Scottish people.

note the use of "scottish people" and not "international proletariat".

Nick Durie wrote:
I also do not see a desire for greater autonomy and control over our lives as Scots (Scottish nationalism - note Wayne that I am a nationalist and do not want a Scottish state)

roll up! roll up! welcome to the broad church of anarchism! where all ideology is welcome! even nationalism!

It's perfectly possible to be a revolutionary and still have reforms you'd like to see. Nick sometimes expresses himself in odd ways, and I'm not going to get into an argument over exact wordings of what he's said on this board.

I do however know him in person and in both his actions and ideology he's a class struggle anarchist, advocating unity on class lines. He's more of an advocate for taking down the local (scottish) bourgoisie than most comrades I meet. I have never, ever, heard him argue that we should align ourselves with the local bourgoisie.

revol68 wrote:
His nonsense about cultural imperialism and scottish nationalism really don't sit with his claims to be a communist, as anyone could tell you that cultures don't fit into nice geographical entities and that the idea of a culturally homogenous people is the wankfest of only the crappest functionalist sociologists. Plus only a moron could overlook the role that the "scottish enlightenment" had on imperialism or claim that scotland has been culturally oppressed anymore than say yorkshire, cornwall, or ulster scots. Cultures are dynamic and fractured, they aren't solid and can't be artificially preserved without become nothing but reactionary ideology.

When has he overlooked Scottish imperialism or the cultural oppression of yorkshire et al? In fact he's made posts to enrager where he made clear that the colonisation of Scotland is not unique,. and that the Scottish state did something similar to the Picts, and that the English state did something similar to its 'regions'.

Obviously race, nation et al are social constructions- Nick himself is always pointing out that the idea of Scottishness was created by the Scottish state. That doesn't change the plain fact that my gran would get the belt if she spoke "Scotticisms" in school, and that this was a deliberate policy by the British state to create a new British national identity. People still speak Scots (though less and less all the time sad ), but the effect of colonisation has been to make them feel ashamed, guilty and inferior for this.

I really think it's pretty understandable for Scottish people to be upset about this, and I think it's very relevant to our organising here, because (another one of Nick's points) local languages/dialects are used to express solidarity between people of similar social class. The further up the social heirarchy you go in Scotland, the more southern-Anglicised the speech is (and yes, similar effects are seen in Yorkshire or wherever I'm sure). The tactical implication of this is that using Scots words and phrases in our propaganda helps to connect it to working class people's lives and experiences in a way that using English simply wouldn't. Nae Mair Pish is still our best, most successful slogan, and its use as a chant on demos continues to spread.

Obviously I don't agree with NIck on everything he ever says, but he's an intelligent man and genuinely a communist and a comrade. He's also one of the most hard-working anarchists in Glasgow. Sometimes he doesn't phrase his ideas in the best way, but don't talk to him like he's stupid or as though he's never encountered your arguments before. Why does everyone seem to think they have the One Holy Truth?

gav's picture
gav
Offline
Joined: 22-09-03
Mar 1 2005 17:36

from what i have gathered from various threads, i would say nick has good politics, ie communist. however calling for an increase in nationalism to gain some small reforms is a bad tactic, because ultimately it will take a lot of work just to get to this transitional stage, and it ignores the negative affects an upsurge in nationalism will have on the working class in scotland.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Mar 1 2005 19:24

Saii - if this forum really is such a tired old repetitive sequence of events, surely you play your role in said sequence by dissing someone from Colchester for grammatical misuse of a swearword, letting the debate run for 20 pages over all manner of topics, and then admitting you 100% agree with said CAG person??

Questionauthority
Offline
Joined: 17-12-04
Mar 1 2005 19:48

Damn, why is it I always end up posting so late in a topic that instead of the posts being about the topic itself they have deviated off....well the deviations are still interesting to read.

Quick back to crimethinc, when i first came across it i was rather disgusted by the whole fucking idea, the holes you can point on their "intro" page are almost too easy. They are just happy to abadon everyone else and live on the underbelly of capitalism oh the revolutionary aspect of it..... roll eyes

I fell inclined to add my views on what the topic has deviated too...As a guy who isnt out of school yet I am not scared off from this board simply because its gonna take more than some swearing dotting peoples posts. Majority of people are much thicker skinned than that. I will also be one to admit my knowledge on some topics is limited and I would rather read revols scathing posts rather than a polite rebuttle of something that is obviously shit. (not arse kissing either.) as a way of learning. Either people are interested in serious class struggle and learning bout it (so they end up here...) or they are lifestylists who think its trendy to brick a window who end up on crimethinc.

One question to revol tho: You don't want to actively recruit but I assume you dont want to scare people away who are interested right?

AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Mar 1 2005 20:11

I was wondering where this thread had got to

revol68 wrote:
all criticism must be warded off, all critiques watered down in the name of "the movement". .

I think your missing my central point here. I've nothing against political critiques. I just don't think shouting 'tosser' 'stupid' or other insults over and over actually qualify as a political critique. In fact the sort of self indulgent behaviour looks and sounds a lot like what I most dislike about 'cultural' protest movements.

revol68 wrote:
, it's about the development of working class struggles, about highlighting and pushing those tendencies, it is not about dreaming up abstract blueprints and rallying people to build it, for a libertarian communist the outline of a desirable future can already be detected in certain potentialities stirring within the present. The present is not at one with itself: there is always tendencies within it that point beyond it, the shape of every historical present is structured by it's anticipation of a possible future.

Great the old SWP method of stating the blindingly obvious with the aim of convincing people your opponent stands for the opposite. I've seen that one used for nearly 30 years now so forgive me for being underwhelmed.

revol68 wrote:
Dropping out and trying to build a new world or creating a sphere of suppoused autonomy within the present is therefore counter revolutionary as it wastes those potentialities that already exist and so surrenders the present and hence future to capital.

What do you mean by 'counter revoutionary' above. I could see a 'wrong', i'irrelevant' or even a 'silly' but 'counter revolutionary'. That would seem to put the wombles around the same level as fascists - is that really what you mean or is it that everyone apart from you are your mates is 'counter revolutionary'. Either your jogging towards maoism without realising it or your using harsh words to distract from a pretty weak argument.

If you have an argument make it free of hyperbolic jargon and let us judge how counter revolutionary some gang of vegan squatters really are.

AnarchoAl
Offline
Joined: 29-05-04
Mar 1 2005 20:40
revol68 wrote:
there is a difference in understanding that your granny got the belt for speaking funny wink and holding that the revival of a dead language will in anyway shape or form challenge capitalism or help build working class self empowerment.

That's the thing, Scots is not a dead language. It's more of a slightly maimed language.

revol86 wrote:
Quote:

really think it's pretty understandable for Scottish people to be upset about this, and I think it's very relevant to our organising here, because (another one of Nick's points) local languages/dialects are used to express solidarity between people of similar social class.

Again what the fuck is this mystical scottish people? sorry but im sure most people living in scotland don't give two flying fucks about reviving "Scotticisms". Rather it seems more like the kind of thing the middle class would be interested in, in order to foster a means of social cohesion as the realities of capitalism increasingly fracture the social fabirc.

Revol, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about here. There are people who live in a geographical area known as "Scotland". They have a degree of common linguistic and cultural heritage. This heritage includes the language known as Scots, which is still spoken, but mainly by the working class.

revol68 wrote:
you say local dialects unite people on social class, what reactionary balls, it is a poor form of class solidarity that rests on an accent.

It's one that already exists here. You can condemn the population of Glasgow as being full of reactionary balls if you like, but class solidarity is expressed through language. I really don't care if you think the working class of Glasgow should stop this practice, and I doubt somehow they would either.

No it's not some wonderful magic bullet or 100% positive, as someone who lived in Surrey for the first 7 years of my life my accent's caused me problems before. But it's the reality of the situation, and our activities and propaganda have to reflect this.

AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Mar 1 2005 21:50
revol68 wrote:
No but your continued insistence that we should engage with them respectfully as some sort of proto comrades implys a commonlaity,

Actually if you read back over this thread you'll observe I'm chiefly complaining about the way you and others engage with people here on enrager. That said I do think you get much further be engaging peoples ideas respectfully or if thats not worth while (and often its not) simply ignoring them. Going off on a mad rant really does make you look a lot like them.

It's also true that all of us have changed our opinions as the years go by. Your more likely to do so as a result of someone engaging with what you say as opposed to someone jumping up and down and calling you names.

I'm also complaining about the in jokey atmosphere here that is just as much about forming an exclusionary sub culture as insisting on checking to see if someone packet of biscuits contain animal products.

revol68 wrote:
Considering how much shit anarchists give Trots I think it's fair that we extend the same hand to a buch of spoilt brats who don't even seek revolutionary change.

For the most part I argue with trots in a serious fashion as well for the same reasons - I'm a bit more cutting but I even try and cut the worst of that out.

revol68 wrote:
well if that is soo obvious why the hell do you put such emphasis on outeach to activist bullshit? i know that class struggle is pivotal to you but it seems from from your paper that anarchsim is a blue print for a fair and free society and you see your role as recruiting people to this idea, this isn't just a criticism of the WSM it's an issue I have with lots of anarchist groups.

Why is it one or the other? We are obviously interested in putting forward anarchism as an idea and in real involvement in struggles. There should be no contradiction between these two - indeed how you get to do one without doing the other I don't see.

revol68 wrote:
The fact that you admit some of the language used in the past regarding republicanism was aimed at the republcian left displays a certain mentality that see's anarchism as something you recruit people to

What is with this fear of recruitment except perhaps as a mirror held up to trotskyism? Of course I want to see people become anarchists and to join anarchist organisations. Of course part of what this is about is crafting arguments that are aimed at particular groups. Otherwise why bother producing any written stuff that is not simply news. Indeed why post here - who knows what innocent passer by might be recruited by your corrupt words?

revol68 wrote:
If what I said was so obvious you wouldn't support candidates for SIPTU general secretary posts, nor would you hold the view that the Unions can be democratised or that the working class can't develop revolutionary organs without your leadership of ideas.

Jesus is this going to descend into a 'everything the WSM has ever done wrong' list. Seriously - backing Des was more about our personal respect for an activist we had worked with for decades then it was a strategy for transforming the unions. In any case our role was mostly that of trying to make sure he got on the ballot paper in the first place.

revol68 wrote:
But then again the platform presents anarchism as a political programme that battles to win the hearts and minds of the masses as opposed to a living expression of their own resistance. I have no problem with the formation of groups around common political outlooks but what I have is a problem with is these groups seeing themselves as somewhat external to the class or revolutionary organs in themselves.

Of course revolutionary groups are 'somewhat external to the class' - its far more dangerous when they believe they are the class and that they speak for the class. The nature of revolutionary organisation is to group together workers (and some people from other classes) who have different views to that of the 'average worker'. Such groups then put out publications and hold meetings in order to try and shift the politics of the 'average workers' in a libertarian direction. If you can't face up to that you shouldn't be in any organisation whether formal or informal.

revol68 wrote:
The WSM's position on unions and it's cack handed analysis of anarcho syndicalism suggests that you feel the working class can not create revolutionary organs around their immediate experiance of capitalism. An attitude that may correctly reflect the current status of the working class but one that is historically ill thought out. Infact the working class's past failings have came about when their immediate organs have been replaced by outside "political" organs from Russia 1917, Spain 36 and Paris 68.

You cannot seperate the reasons why the Russian working class allowed the Bolsheviks to seize soviet power from the (lack of) political influenced and level of organisation from those currents that might have argued for a different course of action. The working class is well capable of creating its own organs of self management when capitalism is in crisis - the problem is that there is always an ideological battle to then be won within the class in order that it retain control in the hands of these organs alone. In Russia and Spain power was handed over to a central state body which was then able to bury the revolution before the class became aware of what a mistake had been made.

Paris '68 is a different kettle of fish all together - it never got all that near a revolution. But the same problem was present - the ideological strangle hold of the CP and Socialist Party before May served to isolate the movement into seperate blocks at the point where it might have moved forwards.

Like it or not revolutionary history is not about the big bad wolf stealing the revolution away. It is about anarchists failing to convince the working class to keep power in its organs alone. The bolsheviks were not very strong in early 1917 but the anarchists were hopelessly confused and disorganised.

revol68 wrote:
If they are counter revolutionary in the sense that they undermine a real revolutionary project by diverting into spheres which are unrevolutionary, all the while they do it in revolutionary garb.

If there was some sort of revolution going on outside our windows this might have a very limited and very flawed meaning to it. There isn't. Calling them counter revolutionaries is every bit as silly and counter productive as calling them fascists.

Deezer
Offline
Joined: 2-10-04
Mar 2 2005 00:55

Anarcho Al wrote;

"There are people who live in a geographical area known as "Scotland". They have a degree of common linguistic and cultural heritage. This heritage includes the language known as Scots, which is still spoken, but mainly by the working class."

I've heard many people speak with an accent say stuff like Nae Mair Pish in Ballyclare, Antrim, Ballymena, Larne and in all the towns and villages of County Antrim, parts of County Down and County 'London'derry. If what you are calling Scots is a language, part of a common linguistic heritage marking out 'Scotland' as a nation, this should surely lead you to the conclusion that at least the north-east of Ireland should really be part of this geographical area, or nation, known as "Scotland".

But really nae mair pish is the same as no more piss only spelt a bit closer to how its locally pronounced (and theres nothing wrong with that in itself) - and that local and 'distinct' pronunciation that marks out the Scottish people actually exists outside Scotland. Just so's you understand I'll say to you C'mon Nae Mair Pish about nationalism.

circle A red n black star

AnarchoAl
Offline
Joined: 29-05-04
Mar 2 2005 02:42

I'm going to stop talking about this now, because there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about my position on this, and even more about Nick's. If/when I meet any of youse in person I'll be happy to discuss it, but I don't think the internet is proving the best forum for the discussion.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Mar 2 2005 10:08
Quote:
we want to develop the best praxis and im afraid that we aren't going to that whilst we are held back by the dead weight of activist shit and the myth if recruitment

This board was built by ex-wombles, among others. Various of us still hang around the squat movement and go to squat parties, or get involved in things like anti-war marches even though we know it'll do fuck all.

Disengagement has been the myth, because it simply hasn't happened, and can't because many of the sort of people who come to our way of thinking have gone through the 'activist shit' first and retain links and friendships from those periods.

What has happened is a great deal of arrogance has built up among some who really should know better, on all sides. Disengagement has been repeated over and over again by people who have not in fact disengaged, and are still trawling over the same arguments again and again, allowing themselves to be distracted rather than simply getting on with what they preach and not worrying about anyone else.

So what if crimethinc are pants? So what if the WOMBLES aren't going anywhere? It's not your job to slag them off, there are plenty of people who do that already. By providing a reasoned, measured critique whenever asked, and behaving pleasantly when not, their position is usually exposed and without the kind of grossly insulting behaviour that would give them a reason to put off younger members from coming to our viewpoint.

You don't have to defend them in debates or anything like that, because (obviously) mindless solidarity without critique is a recipe for disaster but it actively wastes effort insulting them or even to expel them from actions where they may be of some use.

Quote:
have you heard the language of kids today?

As in peppering a reasonable point with vitriol you fucking weasel not the use of swearwords in general. roll eyes

Quote:
Saii - if this forum really is such a tired old repetitive sequence of events, surely you play your role in said sequence by dissing someone from Colchester for grammatical misuse of a swearword, letting the debate run for 20 pages over all manner of topics, and then admitting you 100% agree with said CAG person

I've never said I'm not a a hypocrit sometimes wink. I also like a bit of banter with people I generally agree with and respect and who I reckon can take it in the way it's intended, that's not what I'm talking about here, which is the consistent and pointless attacks going on against people who a) don't understand the ethos of the board, b) are fundamentaly nice enough people who you wouldn't dislike if you met them in the street c) can hide their poor politics behind the old cry of 'you're just insulting me and not debating at all'.

Refused's picture
Refused
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Mar 2 2005 10:31

Basically, Saii likes to play Devil's Advocate. Now, is teaching pigeons to play Devil's Advocate fundamentally wrong?

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Mar 2 2005 11:02

Thanks for that eloquent summation of my time on enrager refused, my oh my what a clever chap you are generalising thousands of words through the phrase 'devil's advocate'.

Pillock.

Refused's picture
Refused
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Mar 2 2005 11:26

Actually it was more like a rephrasing of this:

Saii wrote:
I've never said I'm not a a hypocrit sometimes

grin

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Mar 2 2005 15:52

I make no secret of the fact I want us to get along (or at least, because I'm a realist, not waste time fighting), I simply try and couch it in language you dogmatic sectarian fuckups can understand cos i know you're a bit slow like that wink .

Choccy's picture
Choccy
Offline
Joined: 9-12-04
Mar 2 2005 16:37
revol68 wrote:
well obviously i don't wanna scare people off, thats what my flirting skills are for.

Nah obviously the internet amplifies everything, im not quite such a dick in real life.

And im actually quite patient with people who have a genuine interest, what does get my back up are arseholes who post apparently profound and innovative insights that are in reality just shite.

this is actually true. I remember chatting with Revol about 4 years ago and harboured some vaguely moralistic pro-life stuff and he didn't even bite my head of or say suck my balls, he just chatted away and said why i was talking shite, in a nice way.

Choccy's picture
Choccy
Offline
Joined: 9-12-04
Mar 2 2005 16:41
Boulcolonialboy wrote:
But really nae mair pish is the same as no more piss only spelt a bit closer to how its locally pronounced (and theres nothing wrong with that in itself) - and that local and 'distinct' pronunciation that marks out the Scottish people actually exists outside Scotland. Just so's you understand I'll say to you C'mon Nae Mair Pish about nationalism.

ulster-scots basically does come across as the phonetic spelling of the north-antrim accent.

Nae Parkin!

Toxictears
Offline
Joined: 12-11-03
Mar 2 2005 18:53

Crazy. This threads gone crazy. neutral

xeirecorex
Offline
Joined: 8-12-03
Mar 2 2005 23:31

revol68, in fairness you seem like a prick.

I hope I don't know you.

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Mar 3 2005 05:29
Saii wrote:
Quote:
we want to develop the best praxis and im afraid that we aren't going to that whilst we are held back by the dead weight of activist shit and the myth if recruitment

This board was built by ex-wombles, among others. Various of us still hang around the squat movement and go to squat parties, or get involved in things like anti-war marches even though we know it'll do fuck all.

The war is a central issue that affects the lives of millions, some drop out hippies aren't! Why would you compare the two. Anti-war movements always have the potential to be mass movements, squats don't. There were never, and will never, be a million people coming out to protest in favour of fecking squats.

Sorry i know you know this but why phrase a post that badly?

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Mar 3 2005 10:20

Why is it that people always pick out individual parts of lengthy posts which are afterthought comments?

Obviously the two aren't exactly similar, but the outcome of marches and protests has been, and in fact, in terms of tactics it could be said we let ourselves down badly by falling into the trap of largely - though not entirely - following the liberal plan of protest marches and not following through sufficiently with promoting tactics which could have had more impact (D/A protests at bases designed to inform/shame the soldiers, picketing airbases, recruitment centres, heavier targeting of individual politicians, development of non-liberal research and literature for publication etc).

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Mar 3 2005 12:15
cantdocartwheels wrote:
Anti-war movements always have the potential to be mass movements, squats don't. There were never, and will never, be a million people coming out to protest in favour of fecking squats.

Cantdo - just cos punks squat doesn't make squatting bad. Squatting is a great example of collective direct action which improves the life of w/c people. Sure it's small now (although thousands of workers do squat in the UK at the moment) but there have been mass organised squatting movements with mass support (e.g. post WW2).

Saii - I'm an ex-Womble. How is that an argument in favour of their politics? Or are you just saying be nice cos they might change their minds like we did? If so fairy nuff 8)

Garner
Offline
Joined: 30-10-03
Mar 3 2005 12:34
John. wrote:
Saii - I'm an ex-Womble. How is that an argument in favour of their politics? Or are you just saying be nice cos they might change their minds like we did? If so fairy nuff 8)

Speaking as another ex-womble, I think a lot of them have much better politics as individuals than they do as a collective - they just haven't had the good sense to leave yet.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Mar 3 2005 12:36

That's exactly what I'm saying. I would have thought given the content of my earlier posts that it'd be obvious I'm not a huge fan of the squatted social centre movement (though I'm a BIG fan of permanent ones) or direct action without long-term/tactical thinking behind it, but I see no need to spend time I don't have to by slagging them off, and who knows they could prove me wrong one of these days. Probly not, but you never know wink.