DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Aufheben riots article discussion

84 posts / 0 new
Last post
jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Nov 12 2011 01:51

wow just wow.

lines, honest to god, you've blown my mind.

wellclose- er... libcom has hosted aufheben articles for quite some time. (in fact, being on another continent libcom is the only way i've ever read aufheben.) hence, it's no surprise a new aufheben article would be posted on the site, with or without a 'fuck you'.

also, just to say i was right all along about the identity of some of the 'new' posters.

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Nov 12 2011 03:23

jesuitshitsquad:

Quote:
libcom has hosted aufheben articles for quite some time. (in fact, being on another continent libcom is the only way i've ever read aufheben.) hence, it's no surprise a new aufheben article would be posted on the site, with or without a 'fuck you'.

Just wanted to point out that Aufheben usually appears as a hard copy magazine at the time of the anarchist bookfair in October and that this same magazine is then put into electronic form free on the internet a year later, presumably when most of the hard copies have been sold, and their production costs have been recouped. As far as I know, this is the first time the main article in Aufheben has been put up on the internet within a couple of weeks or so of it being published (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong). But, for instance, issue 19, which although is labelled 2011, was in fact produced in October 2010, was only put up on libcom on October 30th this year less than 2 weeks ago: http://libcom.org/forums/announcements/aufheben-19-2011-out-now-11122010#comment-451561

lines
Offline
Joined: 6-11-11
Nov 12 2011 06:55

This is reaching epic comic proportions.

Yes, Mike Harman, I do remember that we discussed your editing of the intro to the article. In bringing up this again I was pointing to a different issue. I was trying to make the point that you must have had the go-ahead from Aufheben, if you are not actually in Aufheben, to change these words.

As I asked, “Was there some confusion amongst the editorial board over the provenance (source or ownership) of this article?”

But the problem is that, apparently, no one from Aufheben is engaged in this discussion, on any of the forum threads. So, no one actually knows anything.

This leads one to think that Aufheben does not actually exist. Was Aufheben simply a figment of our imaginations?

Anyway, I think that Aufheben and their crew probably need a holiday after all this malarkey. I hear Verona is very nice. I would offer to pay for the hire of a bus but, since it now transpires that Aufheben do not actually exist, I am not sure there is much point.

[This last paragraph is a joke – thought I’d better make that clear.]

Jokes aside, can we stay on topic and clear all this up, please? This is very important for all of us here. And can we clear it up sooner rather than never?

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Nov 12 2011 07:03

Pretty much anyone can edit anything on this site. I've contributed articles by Aufheben and edited the intro and even edited parts of articles already on here. But I'm sure a shadowy conspiracy is much more interesting.

lines
Offline
Joined: 6-11-11
Nov 12 2011 07:58

Just to make it absolutely clear:

I, at least, do not see any of this as a 'shadowy conspiracy'.

I view it as a bumbling and bungling farce... in which it seems that some people are staying very quiet, and some people are being very obfuscatory, in the hope that they will be able to escape from it all without a deep sense of public embarrassment.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Nov 12 2011 08:10

lines, you come off as a fool, a complete mental. I do think that there is merit to the arguments "against" JD, but the way in which you (and Sam, and bootsy for that matter but not as bad as you lines by) behave on this forum and the frankly insane ramblings in this thread, not to mention what appears to be some form of obsession, makes me now start to actually doubt whether I should actually take your arguments serious anymore. why should I "trust" any of your arguments when you're just spouting off nonsensical fantasies. it's really getting quite pathetic.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Nov 12 2011 08:10
lines wrote:
I was trying to make the point that you must have had the go-ahead from Aufheben, if you are not actually in Aufheben, to change these words.

No, not at all. In the same way we didn't get Marx's permission to add a one line intro to http://libcom.org/library/value-price-and-profit-karl-marx. Talk about obfuscatory.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 12 2011 08:56

This article was published early after one of the critics of Aufheben requested it be put up. I'm not going to publish their PMs without permission but they can confirm it's not a conspiracy... to er, publish an article, or whatever's meant to be sinister about it.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Nov 12 2011 09:22

Personally, I just assumed it was posted online because it was a very timely article and they wanted it to be in dialogue with other post-riots analyses. To do this most effectively would mean making it available online for widest distribution.

Re intake v. published by Aufheben:

Speaking with someone associated with Aufheben, I was led to believe it was a matter of time. The Aufheben editorial process is lengthy and since there wasn't enough time for that to properly occur with the riots, they published it as an intake. Seems pretty simple and logical to me.

Fall Back's picture
Fall Back
Offline
Joined: 22-09-03
Nov 12 2011 09:27
Samotnaf on Oct 31 2011 wrote:
By the way, the latest Aufheben text on the August riots is very good (as far as I can see - I wasn't there). But it's not written by the Aufheben team - it's an "intake", which means that it's written by an outsider.

A conspiracy so deep that even Samotnaf is involved.

lines
Offline
Joined: 6-11-11
Nov 12 2011 09:45
lines wrote:
Just to make it absolutely clear:

I, at least, do not see any of this as a 'shadowy conspiracy'.

I view it as a bumbling and bungling farce... in which it seems that some people are staying very quiet, and some people are being very obfuscatory, in the hope that they will be able to escape from it all without a deep sense of public embarrassment.

Although I think Samotnaf was right to raise this issue in the first place, I do not share his general theoretical perspective, which is close to that of Aufheben, which is why his initial appraisal of the article was positive, and probably still is.

The points I am trying to make are elaborated in the posts above and on the other threads.

It is particularly interesting that my post of Nov 12, 10.21, seems to have caused much consternation. But this post does need a reply, from Trevor Brooking or from 'Aufheben', and an elaboration from Avantiultras.

Rachel
Offline
Joined: 18-07-09
Nov 12 2011 09:47

Khawaga thank you for your frank assessment. It is really surprising how much attention lines has got with his posts, especially on the other threads where he links to the whole website devoted to this. Don't people suspect that lines (and his other sockpuppets, and possibly his longtime ally/allies), are TAKING THE PISS? Do you really think he's got a good point with his Unmoveable Communist thesis, or don't you suspect that he is just someone who lives in a dull part of the world and can't find a better hobby? He believes in nothing and stands for nothing, and laughs at those who do.

no1
Offline
Joined: 3-12-07
Nov 12 2011 12:06
Fall Back wrote:
Samotnaf on Oct 31 2011 wrote:
By the way, the latest Aufheben text on the August riots is very good (as far as I can see - I wasn't there). But it's not written by the Aufheben team - it's an "intake", which means that it's written by an outsider.

A conspiracy so deep that even Samotnaf is involved.

Rachel wrote:
Don't people suspect that lines (and his other sockpuppets, and possibly his longtime ally/allies), are TAKING THE PISS?

It looked like Aufheben were conspiring with the libcom collective, but now we have EVIDENCE that they are ALL in it together! OMG!!!
Not getting out of bed without my tinfoil hat on! I demand that everyone publish their full name, address and occupation to prove their communist credentials. No smoke without fire! We need to be told, we must uncover the real truth behind this!!!!!!!!!!!!

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Nov 12 2011 19:48
lines wrote:
This is reaching epic comic proportions.

This is right, for the wrong reasons roll eyes

Is this what is going to happen every time Aufheben publish and article? People are going to accuse the group of publishing Clifford Stott articles (even though Aufheben-gate has nothing to do with the group publishing Stott)? This is how conspiracy theories develop people. By all means say what you want about J's occupation, but asking for proof that this article wasn't written by Stott? Ludicrous

lines
Offline
Joined: 6-11-11
Nov 13 2011 03:22

Like the Wizard of Oz it now becomes clear that Libcom is much smaller and more existentially confused and desperate than it would appear on the surface.

But don’t take anything from me seriously, I run around naked in the desert like a ‘complete mental’! Sabah al quair, hawaja.

The article published by ‘Aufheben’ does indeed demonstrate a strange brazenness from all those connected to it, as I indicated earlier and Wellclose Square has indicated more recently.

Will ‘Aufheben’ be ‘driven out of town’, or will you all choose to endure their haughty silence and ‘Cheers me dears’ cocky confidence forever?

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Nov 13 2011 04:41

There is no silence here. I think people have been clear. The attempt to throw shit against the wall and see what sticks has failed. This is just mentalness. There is no way you can ask if this article has been written by Stott and presume nobody is going to ask you if you have lost the plot....

lines
Offline
Joined: 6-11-11
Nov 13 2011 05:27
lines wrote:
I think that the authorship of this article is an important issue in light of the recent discussion concerning an Aufheben member and in light of the connections I have made between the modus operandi, or ideology of Aufheben and the work of the ESIM team.

The probem is that people will be left to wonder if the article was written by J - but maybe he is no longer a member of Aufheben (which would be an important fact in itself). The other possibility would be that the article was written by Clifford Stott, which I think is unlikely, but not completely out of the question, of course. Or maybe it is the case that the Aufheben group supply critique and analysis to J in his work persona? I mean by this, are all of Aufheben engaged in social psychology work/study?

The other reason that the authorship of this particular article is important is that it could be seen as 'brazen' that Aufheben continue to pursue this feature of (seeming to) combining their academic study with their political interventions - in the light of the recent controversy.

Dear Arbeiten,
What is the purpose of you and others deliberately misinterpreting what I am saying?

The point some might need to have addressed though (and thanks for bringing this back to the fore) is the question of who Trevor Brooking is... because it don't half look like he is JD now.

This is not what I am looking for, however. I do not think there has been any conspiracy, only an embarrassing sequence of bungling.... and for me and others it is now quite clear that whoever is associated with 'Aufheben' is, in effect, JD.

But the comedy has to stop at some point and people need to decide if a line has been crossed here (many times over a period of many years) or if it has not. Clearly several of you here have decided it has not, that is fine, of course. Good luck with that.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Nov 13 2011 05:42
lines wrote:
But don’t take anything from me seriously, I run around naked in the desert like a ‘complete mental’! Sabah al quair, hawaja.

You're the one that needs to wake up from the dream world you've created, lines. At least others make critiques that are at least somewhat based in reality, you're just making shit up, dreaming up the wildest fantasies. Before you started posting I was much much more partial to Sam et. al.'s arguments (though I find how they chose to deal with all of this far from stellar), but now I am not so sure anymore. I don't know you relationship to Sam, Bootsy or the rest, but if there is even a small link, then I just have to assume that a lot of what's been posted could very well be bs. This has been a farce from the get go, from almost everyone involved, but lines, you're something else. You're mental, but not even funny mental.

lines
Offline
Joined: 6-11-11
Nov 13 2011 06:53

Khawaga,

I know of Samotnaf, but I have never met him (I disagree with some of his perspectives). I don't know who Bootsy is.

Don't you think you are going a bit over the top here?

Calling people 'mental'?

What about someone from 'Aufheben', or Trevor Brooking answering some of these things?

And, as my old mate, Serge Forward (I know him from long ago!), has suggested, all this other analysis has perhaps meant that the central issue of 'Aufheben' crossing a line here has been forgotten.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 13 2011 16:52
lines wrote:
What about someone from 'Aufheben', or Trevor Brooking answering some of these things?

you mean like he already did on page 1? confused

Trevor Brooking wrote:
As far as we are aware neither of us is Clifford Stott (or JD).

I don't suppose there's any chance of discussing, you know, the article?

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Nov 13 2011 16:53
Quote:
Don't you think you are going a bit over the top here?

Calling people 'mental'?

What about someone from 'Aufheben', or Trevor Brooking answering some of these things?

Because you're weaving fantastic conspiracy theories out of how articles are edited on Libcom, who writes Intakes and because Trevor Brooking wanted to clear things up. As others have said, almost anyone can edit stuff on Libcom (in that way sort of like wikipedia), Intakes is known to be written by people not part of Aufheben (and it doesn't matter whether they're a group or just a magazine). The only thing that I can't be completely certain of is who Trevor Brooking is, but since you're the only one that seems to be throwing a fit over him (her?) coming on here to clarify things, and considering that you refuse to believe the two other very simple facts about Libcom and Intakes, I see no reason why I should believe your fanciful theory over Trevor's very simple explanation that he is who he says he is.

If anyone is going over the top here, it's you. I've not been engaged with this Aufheben-gate, mainly lurking. I've commented two or three times on the issue before this. One saying that I found Sam's arguments damning, once saying that Bootsy seem to be obsessed and ego-driven and now about how you've behaved in this thread.

You should note that because of this thread I now don't know what to think anymore (and I am going to do some more reading around on the whole issue) whether Aufheben (or rather J) has crossed a line. And it's all down to the behaviour of the anti-Aufheben crowd; you all seem maniacal. If you'd adopted a more calm style it would not detract so much from your actual arguments. Why all the deranged energy? Part of it is clearly outrage, but that can be channeled in different ways.

Boydell's picture
Boydell
Offline
Joined: 10-01-04
Nov 13 2011 17:53

CLASSIC Libcom thread. Some of the lines of reasoning put me in mind of a young Ted Rogers on 3-2-1:

"So, lets see, Trevor Brooking, played alongside Billy Bonds, famous tea brand Brooke Bonds, what lives in a brook, an otter, similar to a stoat, what sounds like stoat - that's right, the author is Clifford Stott!"

I know 'Trevor Brooking' and can confirm he's not anything to do with 'aufhebengate', and is none of the people involved. OK? Settled? Ahhh but who am i?

"So, lets see, Boydell, first part boy..... what are teenage boys most identified with....... masturbation.....into a tissue, tissues are used to pick up dust, dust, dusty...... that's right, it's our old friend Dusty Bin!"

Sorry, i know Aufhebengate is a serious issue to some but the accusations on this thread about Trevor are a bit mad.

Good article i thought, good sum-up and I for one had never made the connection about consumer goods not being on the High St like in 1981, interesting.

lines
Offline
Joined: 6-11-11
Nov 14 2011 08:25

Thank you for confirming that Trevor Brooking is not JD. I never said Trevor Brooking was Clifford Stott, no one reads posts properly.

It is interesting that the article that Trevor Brooking (and his partner) wrote could easily have been written by JD - not because of the subject matter but because of the conclusions (which were highlighted by me in a previous post to the locked thread - I have now copied that post and analysis below).

Thus my postulate, drawn from reading this article by Trevor Brooking and partner, that, "It is now quite clear that whoever is associated with 'Aufheben' is, in effect, JD," - still stands.

And this is why this particular article is so interesting right now, not because it tells us something about the locations of 'major shopping outlets' these days... which is just another tedious fact which smacks of sociological inquiry.

lines
Offline
Joined: 6-11-11
Nov 14 2011 11:39

I have realised that my analysis of this article by Trevor Brooking and partner is not on this thread - I originally posted it into the Strange Case thread (which was locked)... it should, of course, be here.

This was written a couple of weeks ago:

This post concerns the article in the most recent Aufheben, written by Aufheben, entitled:
“Intakes: Communities, commodities and class in the August 2011 riots – Aufheben”

It begins with a section from this article, parts of which will be referred to later. To make it clear, it would seem that, on reflection, there is a connection between the ideology of Aufheben, and the recent ‘scandal’. This connection is no surprise to some, some of us have criticised the theory, conclusions and style, and the haughty attitude of Aufheben from the beginning of their endeavours.

Aufheben: “‘Cops, slaves to the commodity’
What were the cops doing in all this? There was some outrage in the bourgeois press that they apparently ‘stood by’ and let the ‘rioters’ do what they wanted. Clearly they didn’t always ‘stand by’, since they were ‘proactive’ in Hackney and certain other places, and they protected some places but not others. Yet some of those on the side of the ‘rioters’ have also seen something sinister in the sight of cops standing back from burning cop-cars and from certain attacks on property. In the otherwise really good YouTube film ‘Rebellion in Tottenham’,68 the fact that the cops apparently allowed people to trash and burn two of their vehicles is interpreted by some speakers as a deliberate ploy; the cars were left there so that people would attack them so that the cops would then be able to legitimately escalate their riot tactics. The cops deliberately escalated the riot, apparently.

Where have we heard this kind of explanation before? Almost every time there is a kick-off, it seems. According to one of the Militant stewards at the time, the great poll tax riot of 1990 was set up by police ‘agent provocateurs’; apparently, the cops, working at the behest of the government, ‘wanted’ the riot in order to ‘discredit’ the anti-poll tax movement.69 Similarly, when the Tory headquarters at Millbank got trashed at the student demo last year, there was a claim that the lack of cops outside was evidence of a conspiracy to make the student movement look bad. On the student demo two weeks later, the police van abandoned in Whitehall was supposedly left there ‘deliberately’ so that people would trash it, to discredit the protest and to give the cops an excuse to attack the crowd (which they were kind of doing anyway with an indiscriminate ‘kettle’ of all and sundry).

These kinds of explanations are typically premised upon an understanding of ‘politics’,
within which the cops and the crowd are competing to win over an audience in the ‘middle ground’ who only support ‘rioters’ when they are victims. These kinds of explanations are politically disempowering, for the ‘victims’ are inevitably outwitted by the Machiavellian planning and superior anticipation of the super-intelligent cops.
If such conspiracy theories are true, there is no point taking action for the real action takes place behind the scenes. However, explanations such as this are rarely true and in general are complete bollocks. The supposed clever strategies of the cops at the poll
tax and the student demonstrations appear to have backfired somewhat, for it was the cops who were the losers and victims, the ones treated for post-traumatic stress disorder and made to look like incompetent fools, while the movements each took encouragement from the events. In the case of Tottenham, there is a simpler and much more plausible explanation for what happened that night than cop conspiracy. One of
the main concerns for the cops when the cars were burning and they stood back was most likely to be Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the ‘right to life’.

In other words, they stood back because they believed that someone could have died if they got stuck in; and if it was a toss up between a car and a life the choice was obvious to them. They didn't want to risk either another Blakelock70 (corporate manslaughter) or killing a rioter, with all that would have implied for an escalation – against them. Acting Assistant Chief Constable Tim Godwin of the Metropolitan Police stated to a Home Affairs Committee after Tottenham:
‘I think we would be having a different conversation if we had a young person on life support at the moment as a result of a brain bleed or some other injury. I take great pride in the fact that we filled up prison places as opposed to hospital beds’.’
So from their perspective it was a good result - because nobody got killed. In general, the cops simply are not sophisticated or organized enough to plot in the way that some people imagine. They just react from one set of circumstances to another; and, in many cases (poll tax, Millbank) ‘cock-up’ is simply a far more plausible explanation for what the cops are up to than conspiracy. During the ‘riots’ in London in August, it took the Metropolitan Police two days to assemble 1,900 officers trained in public order (riot police) after the incident in Tottenham. On the first night (Saturday) they had 480 available for duty and on the Sunday evening 1,27573 for the whole of Greater London.

As senior officers explained, the ‘thin blue line’ was spread very thin and these logistical problems were compounded by the rapid and diffuse spread of disturbances in the capital as well as the intelligent manoeuvring of the looting crowds. By the time the Met had procured enough riot units to potentially control the situation, the horse had already bolted. These concrete factors are far more realistic explanations for the apparent ‘lack of action’ by the Met, than conspiracies based around ‘police angry about cuts’ and sinister stories of them ‘allowing it happen’ for hidden political reasons.

What is more interesting were the tactics employed by the various constabularies. Thirty years before in 1981 the police had (similarly) been caught hopping by the scale and ferocity of the initial ‘riots’ in Brixton, London (April) and Toxteth, Liverpool (July). Although at the time partially tooled up with large unwieldy riot shields, their initial tactics essentially involved static phalanxes of police officers plodding (sic) on
foot slowly forward in an attempt to retake neighbourhoods under the control of rioters. As a result, their casualties in the face of missiles and petrol bombs were massive. The escalation and modification of policing tactics, particularly in Manchester over 7th-9th July 1981, were a direct result of the injuries sustained by police and their perception of ‘defeat’ during their deployment to the neighbouring city of Liverpool in the preceding Toxteth disorders. These new tactics included the use of mobile police units, ‘snatch squads’ to target ‘ring leaders’ and most controversially the use of semi-armoured police vehicles as high speed battering rams to break up crowds.

This aggressive policing style, previously unseen in mainland Britain (though developed and long-used by the security forces in Northern Ireland), was a significant factor in the suppression of further disorders in Moss Side and Greater Manchester over the following week. Their ‘successful’ use in further disturbances in Toxteth later in that month led to a death and serious injuries to several ‘rioters’.

In August 2011, a similar pattern emerged, however this time the police were already ‘tooled up’ to a much greater degree. Failures to effectively disperse crowds in Tottenham and other areas of London on Saturday and Sunday night led to the deployment of armoured vehicles in several locations in London during the third night of rioting (Monday 8th).

These ‘Jankels’ were used to scatter crowds and drive them out of contested areas. Assistant Commissioner Steve Kavanagh of the Met. stated: ‘The use of armoured vehicles driving at speed towards these looting individuals is a new tactic never used before. It's quite shocking for the people of London to see that's what we have to do.’ Despite Kavanagh’s lack of historical knowledge of policing, it appears that many in the Met saw these ‘old tactics’ from Northern Ireland and July 1981 as the way forward.”
ETC

From: http://libcom.org/files/Communities,%20commodities%20and%20class%20-%20Aufheben.pdf

The whole of the article is fascinating. Not for the insights it gives (the police are not that clever) but for the gathering of information and the relation this information has to the perspectives of those involved in the production of Aufheben and those who have formulated the Elaborated Social Identity Model (Stott, Reicher and a member of Aufheben), which seems to be being taken up, or is being encouraged to be taken up by Stott and his team, by police forces around the world. (See, for example, http://improvingpolice.wordpress.com/)

I always mistook the reason for Aufheben’s writing style as symptomatic of their attempts at journalism. It has now become evident that the style is also generated by the tenets of academic discourse and research – with the occasional tossing in of the word ‘bollocks’ in order to display ‘proletarian intelligentsia’ credentials.

Why the fascination with statistics and graphs and a writing style that resembles journalistic analysis? Well, it is part of the passion of one of the members of Aufheben, and it is his job, of course. It will probably be wondered by a few here if the Aufheben writer has worked, in his capacity as an advising social psychologist, with any of the police officers mentioned in the article?

I am uncertain as to what the argument of the article actually is, beyond informing us that the police are not clever enough to be conspiratorial all the time. But even this platitude becomes strangely interesting in light of the social psychologist’s work. Would it be better if the police were more conspiratorial? But not in order to escalate tensions, rather, in order to dissipate them? If they followed the advice of Stott and the team then they would certainly be able to ‘infiltrate’ and control crowds in a more subtle way – and this has been proven, apparently, in the controlling of football crowds.

The Aufheben article quite openly argues the case that the police are not too clever, and, more importantly, that they suffer losses and damage in their mismanagement of situations. This is described in situations from the 1981 in the UK through to the riots last August. See the text above.

It is very useful to know that the police aren’t so clever, and that things they do may not be conspiratorial - but this is ‘common knowledge’ for many of us, a platitude. It is invariably in the mismanagement of situations, or the mismanagement of the economy, that human beings rebel against the status quo. We have seen this countless times. We saw it in World War One; we are now seeing it in Greece and, in a minor way, in Oakland. How far these rebellions go, of course, is another matter. Some would argue, for example, Paul Mattick, or the nihilist communists, that it is only in economic catastrophe, or, in other words, catastrophic mismanagement of the economy, that communism is possible.

What is really weird is that the article argues that when the cops mismanage things then the crowd makes gains against them….

From the section of the article above, Aufheben:

“The supposed clever strategies of the cops at the poll tax and the student demonstrations appear to have backfired somewhat, for it was the cops who were the losers and victims, the ones treated for post-traumatic stress disorder and made to look like incompetent fools, while the movements each took encouragement from the events.”

“Thirty years before in 1981 the police had (similarly) been caught hopping by the scale and ferocity of the initial ‘riots’ in Brixton, London (April) and Toxteth, Liverpool (July). Although at the time partially tooled up with large unwieldy riot shields, their initial tactics essentially involved static phalanxes of police officers plodding (sic) on
foot slowly forward in an attempt to retake neighbourhoods under the control of rioters. As a result, their casualties in the face of missiles and petrol bombs were massive.”

…YET, the work of Stott and the team, through their ESIM framework, and through their direct workshopping/training/whatever with the police, are actively trying to encourage the police to manage crowds more intelligently (more humanely too, of course) and the basis of their advice is their research. Which, quite clearly, it could be argued, this Aufheben article is a product of or, even, a part of.

This leads us onto more interesting terrain, the closing of ranks around the Aufheben member.

As the writer Steven said, we have more pressing matters on our hands than agonising over this issue, like the austerity measures and the stuff in Oakland – these matters take up all my time, don’t you know, even if I am not in the same country in which they are happening… because they are the class struggle. I don’t even have time to go to work or talk to my wife because of my commitments to battling the austerity measures. Already the class have wondered where I am as I have spent so much time on the Aufheben scandal.

Of course, Steven and others are only repeating part of the argument Aufheben used in their initial response to TPTG which they used, it could be argued, to deflect attention from this ‘minor’ affair. As a friend said, “I don't know what is more depressing - the defence of [the Aufheben member] or Steven et al believing they are playing an important role in current events.” He also pointed out that that the original text came from activists in Greece…

Is someone going to get hold of the secret Aufheben response (only sent to trusted comrades) and publish it?

Is the real issue here (for Aufheben and Libcom) the fact that J has been exposed to the cops as a ‘communist’?

But why would that be a problem since he doesn’t agree with anything written by Stott and Reicher, and he has only had his name put on things he doesn’t agree with, and he has had to speak to cops as part of his day job?

The real problem for the rest of us (not Aufheben or the Libcom administrators) is that this affair reveals more about the ideological bases, or the modus operandi of Aufheben than it does about one person’s infidelities. This is why some people here have used the word ‘shame’. ‘Shame on us’ as one poster put it. This is the really important aspect – and it is the reason that this affair will not be resolved, only passed over and forgotten. The milieu which visits Libcom and elsewhere is weak. There are no lines in the sand.

It is the theoretical/ideological core of Aufheben and, by extension, the libertarian/communist/anarchist/marxist left/milieu which is the problem – it is this core of errors, at the heart of communist politics, which should be rooted out and laid bare.

Put very simply, on one side you have people who say that the consciousness of people must be changed before communism can happen, and that communism is a progression developing on from capitalism – which means, in essence, that people’s ideas have to change while the structure of production (minus private owners) remains the same.

On the other side you have people who say that people’s ideas only change when they are forced to change by new circumstances… and from this perspective we are left with the possibility of communism only coming about through and after the catastrophic mismanagement of capitalism (when the fall of current ideology will create the space for new ideas – new consciousnesses).

The Aufheben member is quite clearly, for some of us, part of a LEFT (in Aufheben) and ESTABLISHMENT (in academia) process that works for the continued sensible management of capitalism.

As has been said long ago, this perspective, like that of all other reformist attitudes and initiatives forms the basis of all future modifications of capitalism and its sociological/ideological dominance.

Just like the environmentalists, for example, the true, though largely unrecognised, objective for the extended leftwing milieu that surrounds Aufheben is the saving of capitalism. One hundred years of history have not been enough to make this fact clear.

The baseline for communists is that we don’t cooperate with capitalism as communists. Even if this means going home and doing nothing. Instead of promoting the self-management of production we should be putting forward the much more problematic slogan, “Destroy all Workplaces.”

There will be no solution to this affair in Libcom, and possibly none in the wider libertarian community. (But I would like to be surprised here.) The Aufheben/Libcom strategy clearly seems to be the managerial and PR one of toughing it out. After the steam has gone from this then we will all be able to move on. If anyone brings it up again they will be told, “But we have gone over this all before, there is no point bringing it up again, we need to move on.”

Destroy all Workplaces.

(PS – please feel free to begin the abuse at your leisure )

(PPS – an interesting analysis: http://madlib.anarchyplanet.org/ )

PPPS:
If Aufheben didn't write the article then why did they write this at the beginning of it:

"Aufheben's detailed analysis of the August 2011 UK riots.

The following article was written in the immediate wake of the August ‘riots’ of 2011 in Britain and is an attempt to provide an empirical base to an analysis of the unrest. Commentators across the political spectrum have spewed out speculative explanations for the disturbances. What unites most of them is their lack of evidence and fixation on anecdotal or exceptional incidents within the ‘disorders’. Within the limited time available, we have attempted to gather as much quantitative and qualitative evidence as possible to underpin this examination. This evidence comes from various sources, including mainstream media statistics (events, arrestees, locales), relevant academic studies, social media, video and audio footage, some interviews with ‘looters and rioters’ and our own experiences as participants.
The first part of this article presents a brief ‘history’ of the August events. This is followed by an analytical comparison with the ‘riots’ of July 1981 that considers their spatial and temporal characteristics. The final part employs quantitative and qualitative evidence to examine aspects of the August events such as ‘looting’, the composition of the crowds and policing tactics."

Even if this wasn't written by an actual member of Aufheben (maybe it was written by a recent ex-member, for example) the article is in their style and fits perfectly the perspectives of Aufheben.

no1
Offline
Joined: 3-12-07
Nov 14 2011 09:09
lines wrote:
It is interesting that the article that Trevor Brooking (and his partner) wrote could easily have been written by JD - not because of the subject matter but because of the conclusions (which were highlighted by me in a previous post to the locked thread - I have now copied that post and analysis below).

Thus my postulate, drawn from reading this article by Trevor Brooking and partner, that, "It is now quite clear that whoever is associated with 'Aufheben' is, in effect, JD," - still stands.

What I find interesting is the all-encompassing logic of your political argument, which dispenses with the need to be based in (bourgeois?) reality thereby taking confirmation bias to a whole new level.

lines
Offline
Joined: 6-11-11
Nov 14 2011 11:34

Dear No1,

So, are we to read from this vague sentence that you support 'Aufheben' in all this?

Or are you trying to hedge your bets, in the hope that all this will go away and you won't have to make a decision?

It does seem tough for some of you here.

But I would recommend that you just go through the links provided all over the place, read a bunch of 'Aufheben' articles, then assess whether the perspectives of JD are repeated in the article under discussion here. (Read the long post above pointing to connections between the academic work of JD and the communistic work of Trevor Brooking and partner.)

As, others say: simple really.

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Nov 14 2011 11:46

Sorry guys, just a quick explanation..

avantiultras wrote:
Take my advice you pezzo di merda: stop hiding! We love you and we wonna kiss you! Come down here to Verona and bring your good friend Dr. Stott: Some ultras will be ready to prepare everything needed for a warm reception!

Firstly, threats of violence on this site are not allowed. However, secondly, this particular quote seemed odd as most people with a passing knowledge of Italian football know that Verona ultras are famously fascist. For instance,


Or to be honest, just google 'Verona ultras' and look at the images.. you don't even have to write 'fascist' or anything.. these guys are ridiculous!

So because it seemed weird that an ultra-left communist would be hanging out with far-right ultras we checked it out. As it turns out, avantiultras is someone in Greece (pretending to be a football hooligan in Verona), who shares an IP address with dr.faustus, whose sole activity on libcom appears to be TPTG-related.

Anyway, we've banned avantiultras as multiple IDs aren't allowed on libcom. But they can feel free to continue using 'dr. faustus'.

lines
Offline
Joined: 6-11-11
Nov 14 2011 12:14

Yes, earlier on this thread I asked Avantiultras to elaborate on the accusation he made. But nothing has been forthcoming (I am presuming he would be able to reply as 'Dr Faustus'?). I was also disappointed that Trevor Brooking or 'Aufheben' didn't post a sensible or robust reply.. or any reply whatsoever, but that seems to be their haughty style.

I have no idea about the Verona 'ultras'. Never heard of them before. My game is Rugby League.

But let's not get distracted from the article under discussion here.

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Nov 14 2011 12:50

Well, I only banned him about ten minutes before you posted this so if he'd not responded previously it would have been for some other reason.. though yes, you're right, if he wanted to continue posting as 'dr. faustus' then that would be fine..

It's probably worth noting that I've just checked, and the second TPTG letter (where TPTG quote and express agreement with 'avantiultras') was actually added to libcom by dr. faustus.

But yeah, I agree, can people discuss the Aufheben article (which funnily enough I've been too busy to read!)..

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Nov 16 2011 19:40

I'm pretty certain that avantiultras (who is not part of the tptg) and dr.faustus (who I think is) are 2 different people, who have obviously at some time or other shared the same internet connection. Perhaps posting guidelines should say that 2 different posters must never share the same connection (not that that in itself would prevent one person presenting themselves as 2 different people, but it would make it harder for you to accuse 2 names of being one and the same person).

Topic locked