# Dockers attacked in Strasbourg



## montevideo (Jan 18, 2006)

the dockers attacked in strasbourg working class heroes or activist stuntism of the worse kind giving 'our' class a bad name?
_
"Police in Strasbourg have used tear gas and water cannon to disperse dock workers who marched to the European Parliament in a mass protest.

She said the dockers beat drums and chanted slogans, then began throwing stones, firecrackers and canisters that gave off clouds of coloured smoke. The police fired tear gas and water cannon.

At least 13 dockers were arrested and 12 policemen injured. A parliament spokesman said the protests had caused "considerable damage", running into hundreds of thousands of euros. 

The dockers, from across the EU, had converged on Strasbourg to protest at controversial proposals to open up port services to greater competition."_
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4617262.stm


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jan 18, 2006)

heroes clearly - don't you know that _proper_ working class people with _proper_ working class jobs like dockers or miners can never be stuntist montey?  


PS why 'attacked' - surely they attacked first, want do you expect the cops to do, let them trash parliament?


----------



## Random (Jan 18, 2006)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> PS why 'attacked' - surely they attacked first, want do you expect the cops to do, let them trash parliament?



lol, yeah, why must protestors always be the victims?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2006)

Let's make this important action the cover for a pointless attack on other people whilst we're at it.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jan 18, 2006)

> why must protestors always be the victims?


exactly what i was saying! Its such an annoying habit. like 'we were violently grabbed by the cops' - like theirs any other way to nick someone and like you expected something completely different...


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jan 18, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Let's make this important action the cover for a pointless attack on other people whilst we're at it.


we aren't and you do that all the time.

All the info was contained within the link, i personally have nothing to add.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2006)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> we aren't and you do that all the time.
> 
> All the info was contained within the link, i personally have nothing to add.


 I'm on about him and the OP, not you. Have a look at the state of it _and the question_ asked.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jan 18, 2006)

i thought you were; but both sides are gently pisstaking so why limit yourself to montey? Everyone who has now posted has ignored the actual content.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2006)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> i thought you were; but both sides are gently pisstaking so why limit yourself to montey? Everyone who has now posted has ignored the actual content.


 The  real content of the OP was a hidden attack on other people though - that's my point. It wasn't about the dockers or their action at all. It was using their action as a cover for some london bollocks- in which the action will probably be ignored.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jan 18, 2006)

look i'm not THAT thick* i did get that straight away; but i still think that all ppl on the thread have ignored the issue just as much as montey.

anyway, back to the dockers thing.

How do we feel about this dispute being portrayed as an anti-foreign thing in that report? i'm not sure i understand really; Docking is a totally international trade (look at solidarity for the liverpool dockers) so how can it be 'opened up' to foreign competition? If you need to dock your cargo in holland, you can't cut costs by docking it in turkey or china - you dock it in holland.


*not preternaturally so anyway


----------



## audiotech (Jan 18, 2006)

Pretty confident from the pictures like.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2006)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> How do we feel about this dispute being portrayed as an anti-foreign thing in that report? i'm not sure i understand really; Docking is a totally international trade (look at solidarity for the liverpool dockers) so how can it be 'opened up' to foreign competition? If you need to dock your cargo in holland, you can't cut costs by docking it in turkey or china - you dock it in holland.
> 
> 
> *not preternaturally so anyway


 That depends on the cost of other methods of transport from Turkey to Holland after docking. They do move plenty of stuff around like that. Profit is what dictates the logic of the situation. Not what would be most sensible.


----------



## Isambard (Jan 18, 2006)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> How do we feel about this dispute being portrayed as an anti-foreign thing in that report? i'm not sure i understand really; Docking is a totally international trade (look at solidarity for the liverpool dockers)



MC5's picture shows a banner of the German public and services union Ver.di.


----------



## Top Dog (Jan 18, 2006)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> anyway, back to the dockers thing.
> 
> How do we feel about this dispute being portrayed as an anti-foreign thing in that report? i'm not sure i understand really; Docking is a totally international trade (look at solidarity for the liverpool dockers) so how can it be 'opened up' to foreign competition? If you need to dock your cargo in holland, you can't cut costs by docking it in turkey or china - you dock it in holland.


its about deregulation - much the same thing as what the liverpool dockers dispute was about... enabling them to bring in unskilled workers at the risk of safety, contracts and pay under the european port services directive. Its also supported by dockers all over europe


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2006)

I don't like re-posting stuff, but fuck it, i've already typed it out:

There've been rolling strikes over the issue of port liberalisation for the last few years in almost every country in the EU, this has been a big issue for while now. It's good to see that people aren't just sitting back and letting the fact that the EU parliament is likely to boot the legislation for a second time stop them from organising, because they will be back in afew years, maybe even via the backdoor. 

The cross-borders nature of the protests in the really interesting thing here and something we'e going to be seeing alot more of over the coming years as the EU starts to swing it snew weight around. Atm this sort of thing has mainly been limited to those directly involved in cross-border trade, dockers, HGV drivers etc. 

It's a dangerous strategy for the EU because it's got the potential to open up some fractures bewteen those local states/local capitals who depend on a high measure of protection or subsidy and the (inter)national state/big capital. 

Of course the unions are working hard to get the developing cross-border co-operation under their direct control..


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Jan 18, 2006)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> its about deregulation - much the same thing as what the liverpool dockers dispute was about... enabling them to bring in unskilled workers at the risk of safety, contracts and pay under the european port services directive. Its also supported by dockers all over europe


but not outside...?

Is this abou unskilled foreign workers being let work at european docks, or the work GOING to non-eu countries where standards are low?

Its interesting to think about how to build solidarity between workers at the different ends of the exchange rate IYSWIM - non eu workers earn so much less than EU ones.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2006)

Taxamo Welf said:
			
		

> but not outside...?
> 
> Is this abou unskilled foreign workers being let work at european docks, or the work GOING to non-eu countries where standards are low?
> 
> Its interesting to think about how to build solidarity between workers at the different ends of the exchange rate IYSWIM - non eu workers earn so much less than EU ones.


 Well the first thing to do is to stop the attack at the point it's happening - which is at EU docks. And at the same time if possible help those elsewhere to organise themselves to impose those same conditons for themselves as well and support any struggle that arises from that. It doesn't have to be one way - (them coming here and lowering our wages) they try and tell us it does, but it doesn't.


----------



## Top Dog (Jan 18, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Well the first thing to do is to stop the attack at the point it's happening - which is at EU docks. And at the same time if possible help those elsewhere to organise themselves to impose those same conditons for themselves as well and support any struggle that arises from that. It doesn't have to be one way - (them coming here and lowering our wages) they try and tell us it does, but it doesn't.


and lets remember Tax, that similar attacks are taking place at ports all over the world... theres been struggles recently in Peru and India against de-regulation and privatisation to name a couple. Outside of the EU, US, Canadian and Australian dockers have shown solidarity against this EU directive


----------



## Top Dog (Jan 18, 2006)

*International Dockers Victory thread*

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=147949


----------



## montevideo (Jan 19, 2006)

Interesting. It was indeed an important action, evidenced by the robust discussion that treelover initiated on the very subject on the thread linked to. 

But for the nature of this thread i was particularly interested what people thought of the dockers activities in strasbourg.  Far for some weird fuck calling it an 'attack' it was simply a question posed (the witch finder general's years of chasing swp & fake republicans around bulletin boards with obessional vigour has got to him).

So in light of the orginal question i wonder if the dockers activities in strasbourg could be described as 'anti-social', plus do you think those dockers in strasbourg doing what they did gave dockers a bad name?

Of course if people wish to pad platitudes back & forth, then who am i to argue.


----------



## revol68 (Jan 19, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> Interesting. It was indeed an important action, evidenced by the robust discussion that treelover initiated on the very subject on the thread linked to.
> 
> But for the nature of this thread i was particularly interested what people thought of the dockers activities in strasbourg.  Far for some weird fuck calling it an 'attack' it was simply a question posed (the witch finder general's years of chasing swp & fake republicans around bulletin boards with obessional vigour has got to him).
> 
> ...



oh fuck of you tedious cunt.

You don't have a fucking clue, it is not the militancy of the WOMBLES and other lumpen sections of the suppoused "anarchist movement" that brings derision but rather their shit incoherent politics and the anarcho ghetto they are entirely imersed in. 

I fully support the Dockers actions, what i wouldn't support is a bunch of jumped up K monkeys iniating some sort of ill concieved substitutionist action in their place, one that would no doubt end with a bunch of people with rather bad body odour being penned in by the police for 5 hours.


----------



## montevideo (Jan 19, 2006)

revol68 said:
			
		

> oh fuck of you tedious cunt.
> 
> You don't have a fucking clue, it is not the militancy of the WOMBLES and other lumpen sections of the suppoused "anarchist movement" that brings derision but rather their shit incoherent politics and the anarcho ghetto they are entirely imersed in.
> 
> I fully support the Dockers actions, what i wouldn't support is a bunch of jumped up K monkeys iniating some sort of ill concieved substitutionist action in their place, one that would no doubt end with a bunch of people with rather bad body odour being penned in by the police for 5 hours.



just to be clear

-you support them going to strasbourg, you support them smashing windows, you support them attacking the police? As a good tactic? A necessary political step?

_"Bringing derision"_ Isn't that like rupert the bear bringing derision on elvis presley for wearing stupid trousers?


----------



## revol68 (Jan 19, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> just to be clear
> 
> -you support them going to strasbourg, you support them smashing windows, you support them attacking the police? As a good tactic? A necessary political step?
> 
> _"Bringing derision"_ Isn't that like rupert the bear bringing derision on elvis presley for wearing stupid trousers?



do you really see no difference between the Dockers and the Wombles summit hopping?

if you can't it would appear your heads foggier than negri's shite "multitude".


----------



## Random (Jan 20, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> So in light of the orginal question i wonder if the dockers activities in strasbourg could be described as 'anti-social', plus do you think those dockers in strasbourg doing what they did gave dockers a bad name?



So FFS, you were posting up this thread about the dockers' actions in an attempt to score points off a couple of people that you're having an argument with?


----------



## In Bloom (Jan 20, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> Interesting. It was indeed an important action, evidenced by the robust discussion that treelover initiated on the very subject on the thread linked to.
> 
> But for the nature of this thread i was particularly interested what people thought of the dockers activities in strasbourg.  Far for some weird fuck calling it an 'attack' it was simply a question posed (the witch finder general's years of chasing swp & fake republicans around bulletin boards with obessional vigour has got to him).
> 
> ...


Do you really consider this complicated?

Beating up police and trying to trash parliament - good.
Beating up old men and burning down nurseries - bad.

How fucking difficult, for fucks sake


----------



## kasheem (Jan 20, 2006)

What's this Wombles stuff about?

It probably would have been better if the dockers hadn't caused material damage. Something needs to be done to make a statement but this is just providing ammo for the neolibs.


----------



## districtline (Jan 20, 2006)

Isambard said:
			
		

> MC5's picture shows a banner of the German public and services union Ver.di.



i wonder what the ver.di bosses say about that  they are, after all, not the union most known for direct action...


----------



## Raw SslaC (Jan 20, 2006)

What a bunch of fucking morons you lot are!

Your just fucking sorry excuse for anarchist when you fucking can't see thru your own bullshit world. 

Thank fuck your "activity" stays on the interweb, you sad fucking tossers.

 

p.s. useless comments please


----------



## districtline (Jan 21, 2006)

Raw SslaC said:
			
		

> What a bunch of fucking morons you lot are!
> 
> Your just fucking sorry excuse for anarchist when you fucking can't see thru your own bullshit world.
> 
> ...



i'm not an anarchist


----------



## Raw SslaC (Jan 21, 2006)

districtline said:
			
		

> i'm not an anarchist



Phew...thank fuck for that!


----------



## montevideo (Jan 21, 2006)

Random said:
			
		

> So FFS, you were posting up this thread about the dockers' actions in an attempt to score points off a couple of people that you're having an argument with?



i was asking a question about their activities in strasbourg. You can offer an answer, maybe have an opinion on it, or not. Your choice. 

Let me put itanother way, when you heard about the dockers kicking off in strasbourg, what was your view? How did this reflect on your more engrained views of _'activist stuntism'_/_mass spectacles_/etc? 

If anything it is getting people to look how their political viewpoints are formulated.


Steely silence seems to be the stock response.


----------



## catch (Jan 21, 2006)

Steely silence? Or perhaps more interested in providing some positive publicity about the dockers protest, and plenty of other news about working class struggles, than using it as an excuse for silly point scoring on the internet?


----------



## jimmer (Jan 21, 2006)

catch said:
			
		

> Steely silence? Or perhaps more interested in providing some positive publicity about the dockers protest, and plenty of other news about working class struggles, than using it as an excuse for silly point scoring on the internet?


Don't be silly, that's clearly not 'anarchist' enough...


----------



## montevideo (Jan 22, 2006)

catch said:
			
		

> Steely silence? Or perhaps more interested in providing some positive publicity about the dockers protest, and plenty of other news about working class struggles, than using it as an excuse for silly point scoring on the internet?



so the information is out there & people are busy discussing the in & outs over on treelover's thread (!) but what this thread is about is the dockers activities in strasbourg. Do you have an opinion on it? What did you think when you heard about it?

There you go a couple of questions, nothing hard or strenuous, no attacks (although the fact that people see it as an 'attack' in itself is revealing).


----------



## montevideo (Jan 22, 2006)

jimmer said:
			
		

> Don't be silly, that's clearly not 'anarchist' enough...



unlike ketamine consumption & _graf_ perhaps?


----------



## montevideo (Jan 22, 2006)

of the 13 dockers arrested for the strasbourg riots:

8 belgians were given jail sentences (between 1 & 4 months), 2 others were were given suspended sentences,
1 french docker was jailed for a month, another had his sentence suspended
a spanish docker was given a 5 month suspended sentence.


----------



## jimmer (Jan 22, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> unlike ketamine consumption & _graf_ perhaps?



Look, I really don't want to get into this whole Wombles/Libcom feud, I think it's really silly.   

Do you really think Libcom is a bad resource?


----------



## montevideo (Jan 22, 2006)

jimmer said:
			
		

> Look, I really don't want to get into this whole Wombles/Libcom feud, I think it's really silly.
> 
> Do you really think Libcom is a bad resource?



fair enough.

I think it has serious problems, organisationaly & structurally. Starting & ending with those involved.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 22, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> fair enough.
> 
> I think it has serious problems, organisationaly & structurally. Starting & ending with those involved.



Is this your way of saying that you don't like the people who run the site, so you won't accept that the site is good or useful?


----------



## catch (Jan 22, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> organisationaly & structurally.


form over content 

monte, when I heard about the strrikes and protest the day before, I put an article up announcing it, when I heard about the tear gas/smashed windows on parliament building, I put up a quick positive article up on it. another libcommer did the most recent one. I don't feel any necessity to spell out my views on these events on this thread, since they should be very clear from the articles linked, and it's very obvious what the intention of this thread is - i.e. it's got fuck all to do with what actually happened.

Do you have a link for those sentences?


----------



## Random (Jan 23, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> i was asking a question about their activities in strasbourg. You can offer an answer, maybe have an opinion on it, or not. Your choice.



You were asking a loaded question, packed with in-joke phrases, directed at a few people that you'be been having running arguments with.  I don't see what use you hoped the thread to have for people who aren't squabbling over the political meaning of the term 'anti-social'.

For myself, I think that symbolic protests have an important part to play; I've always said that.  There is, however, a big different between a protest movement using stunts, and a social movement using them.


----------



## montevideo (Jan 24, 2006)

> Is this your way of saying that you don't like the people who run the site, so you won't accept that the site is good or useful?



It is an appalling resource,  due almost exclusively down to those involved. Would it be a better resource with different people, depends entirely on what you want a resource to be.




			
				catch said:
			
		

> form over content
> 
> monte, when I heard about the strrikes and protest the day before, I put an article up announcing it, when I heard about the tear gas/smashed windows on parliament building, I put up a quick positive article up on it. another libcommer did the most recent one. *I don't feel any necessity to spell out my views on these events on this thread,* since they should be very clear from the articles linked, and it's very obvious what the intention of this thread is - i.e. it's got fuck all to do with what actually happened.
> 
> Do you have a link for those sentences?



The article about what happened is stasbourg is a direct lift from the bbc website. 

Steely silence then. You have no opinion on what actually happened with the dockers in strasbourg?


----------



## knopf (Jan 24, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> You have no opinion on what actually happened with the dockers in strasbourg?



It's obviously not "local" enough for them.


----------



## montevideo (Jan 24, 2006)

Random said:
			
		

> You were asking a loaded question, packed with in-joke phrases, directed at a few people that you'be been having running arguments with.  I don't see what use you hoped the thread to have for people who aren't squabbling over the political meaning of the term 'anti-social'.
> 
> For myself, I think that symbolic protests have an important part to play; I've always said that.  There is, however, a big different between a protest movement using stunts, and a social movement using them.



hmm, oddly enough...

_7. Our intentions, as anarchists/anti-authoritarians, should not be fixated on any dogmatic and simplistic pole - 'always-violent' or 'never-violent'. Rather, we should try to make coherent analysis of the broader social context so as to identify the potential role of an active confrontation as a demo. The most important thing is to project a clear social-political meaning to the demo, whether we confront or not; a meaning connected with the broader social struggle against state and capital._
http://www.wombles.org.uk/g8/10theses.php


----------



## jimmer (Jan 24, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> It is an appalling resource,  due almost exclusively down to those involved. Would it be a better resource with different people, depends entirely on what you want a resource to be.



Regardless of your personal differences with those involved, it is an excellent resource, and does a lot for the spreading of libertarian politics. Have you actually looked at it? We have thousands of pages of content, a massive library, a regularly updated newswire, a large history section, and growing organise and thought sections, as well as providing web hosting and forums for a variety of anarchist groups.

Which is why people actually visit it:

Traffic Rank for libcom.org:  295,129

Traffic Rank for wombles.org.uk:  3,595,698



What the dockers did in Strasbourg was blatantly fucking cool...


----------



## montevideo (Jan 24, 2006)

jimmer said:
			
		

> Regardless of your personal differences with those involved, it is an excellent resource, and does a lot for the spreading of libertarian politics. Have you actually looked at it? We have thousands of pages of content, a massive library, a regularly updated newswire, a large history section, and growing organise and thought sections, as well as providing web hosting and forums for a variety of anarchist groups.
> 
> Which is why people actually visit it:
> 
> ...



ah yes interweb statistics, always reliable.

Again it depends what you want a resource to be. The newswire is simply media echo; transfering info from other sites (which are more informed, more informative & generally provide a better service). Simply linking to these sites would i think be more ingenuous & honest of you.

The library at larc has a wider range of books, pamplets, magazines bigger newspaper archive with a greater political scope, & a greater variety of subjects (woefully underused, but there you go), what your library provides then is an easy access limited service. If convenience is useful then you have a point, but to suggest it is 'massive' is strectching it a bit, by a long shot.

The network aspect could potentially be the most useful & indeed interesting part, groups & organisations have a communal point of contact to exchange ideas, activities, information etc, (strangled at birth by the living abortion that is the forums). Of course for networking to have any credibity all the groups involved would have to have equal input & integral to the decsion making process of the site. This would of course involve a bit of organisation & graft (2 things libcom people have no experience in). It would also mean taking control out of the hands of a few individuals & opening up the resource to collective responsibility (something the libcom peole have no experience in).

As a port of call for lazy radicals run privately by a group of individuals it is indeed a resource. A useful one to whom, i have no idea?


----------



## revol68 (Jan 24, 2006)

hmm Monte have you actually looked at the library on Libcom recently? It has a fuckinh massive amount of literature, it's really impressive.

And as for the forums well it serves a function in that we have seen the development of a certain tendency of young people who probably would have drifted away from the "political scene" through burn out and dispair at activism. The level of debate on libcom varies hugely from thread to thread but at it's best it is leap years a head of the theorectical debates anywhere else.

Face it your problems with Libcom are entirely personal, and hence you can't bring yourself to admit that is a very good resource, one that is a damn site fucking better than the WOMBLES excuse for a website.


----------



## The Black Hand (Jan 24, 2006)

revol68 said:
			
		

> hmm Monte have you actually looked at the library on Libcom recently? It has a fuckinh massive amount of literature, it's really impressive.
> 
> And as for the forums well it serves a function in that we have seen the development of a certain tendency of young people who probably would have drifted away from the "political scene" through burn out and dispair at activism. The level of debate on libcom varies hugely from thread to thread but at it's best it is leap years a head of the theorectical debates anywhere else.
> 
> Face it your problems with Libcom are entirely personal, and hence you can't bring yourself to admit that is a very good resource, one that is a damn site fucking better than the WOMBLES excuse for a website.



Hi Darlings, just a few observations Quantity doesn't make quality you know, and to me Libcom is an ultra left website, with startling gaps. For example, the miners (you know, they were the 'vanguard' of the working class, over a million of them after the second world war) are not there at all except for 'the Miners Next Step'. Which is wierd.      Also no Class War? It looks like the partiality/prejudices you accuse others of are your own. Perhaps you attempt too much, e.g. the section on crime and punishment is extremely small etc...


----------



## revol68 (Jan 24, 2006)

Attica said:
			
		

> Hi Darlings, just a few observations Quantity doesn't make quality you know, and to me Libcom is an ultra left website, with startling gaps. For example, the miners (you know, they were the 'vanguard' of the working class, over a million of them after the second world war) are not there at all except for 'the Miners Next Step'. Which is wierd.      Also no Class War? It looks like the partiality/prejudices you accuse others of are your own. Perhaps you attempt too much, e.g. the section on crime and punishment is extremely small etc...



fuck me would you ever fuck up about the fucking miners! DO you think of nothing else than EP Thompson and the fucking miners!

and as for Class War well considering it's suppoused to be a library of theory and not cackhanded tabloid sloganism, of course, Class War won't feature.


----------



## jimmer (Jan 24, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> ah yes interweb statistics, always reliable.



Sorry, that was a bit of a cheap shot, but I do think those stats are fairly reliable. 



> Again it depends what you want a resource to be. The newswire is simply media echo; transfering info from other sites (which are more informed, more informative & generally provide a better service). Simply linking to these sites would i think be more ingenuous & honest of you.



Not all the news is copied, we do write a fair bit ourselves, but we're not quite at the stage yet where we can write everything ourselves. We're always looking to expand the news and find new people to get involved so we can improve it.



> The library at larc has a wider range of books, pamplets, magazines bigger newspaper archive with a greater political scope, & a greater variety of subjects (woefully underused, but there you go), what your library provides then is an easy access limited service. If convenience is useful then you have a point, but to suggest it is 'massive' is strectching it a bit, by a long shot.



I think several thousand texts is pretty 'massive' but that could be a difference of opinion, all I know about the LARC library is some books appeared there after disappearing from Freedom so can't comment on whether it's better or not. I do think accessibility is important, having a great resource that no one can use isn't much good, thousands of people view pages in our library each month, how many people use LARC's one? The library is another aspect of the site we're constantly working on, and trying to get more people involved with.



> The network aspect could potentially be the most useful & indeed interesting part, groups & organisations have a communal point of contact to exchange ideas, activities, information etc, (strangled at birth by the living abortion that is the forums). Of course for networking to have any credibity all the groups involved would have to have equal input & integral to the decsion making process of the site. This would of course involve a bit of organisation & graft (2 things libcom people have no experience in). It would also mean taking control out of the hands of a few individuals & opening up the resource to collective responsibility (something the libcom peole have no experience in).



I can't say I'm a huge fan of the forums, there are some quality threads on there, but others aren't so good. I think your points about networking and the decision making process of the site could apply if the site had been setup by a large number of groups. But it wasn't, I don't see why we should be accountable to anyone but ourselves, Libcom is our project we've done the hard work, why should we let other people/groups participate in our decision making processes (which is very democratic and non-authoritarian). The Libcom Group is well organised, works hard at mainting such a large resource, and we take collective responsibility for what we do. Trying to accuse us of not believing in those principles or not working along those lines is a bit out of order.



> As a port of call for lazy radicals run privately by a group of individuals it is indeed a resource. A useful one to whom, i have no idea?



That's a bit harsh, I think half a million page views a month suggests that it is a useful resource, otherwise people wouldn't be visiting it would they! I wish you wouldn't use your personal and political difference with people in our group to condem the whole resource.



Attica - we're aware of the gaps, they're something we're working on, as I've said above the site is constantly expanding. I'm not trying to say the site is a totally comprehensive resource for anyone interested in class struggle, but it's a start and probably the closest to a comprehensive resource than anything else I've seen.


----------



## jimmer (Jan 24, 2006)

revol68 said:
			
		

> and as for Class War well considering it's suppoused to be a library of theory and not cackhanded tabloid sloganism, of course, Class War won't feature.


 I wouldn't have a problem with Class War stuff going in the library, I think it's important for people to see what Class War was/are about and what they thought/think.


----------



## cats hammers (Jan 24, 2006)

Attica said:
			
		

> Hi Darlings, just a few observations Quantity doesn't make quality you know, and to me Libcom is an ultra left website, with startling gaps. For example, the miners (you know, they were the 'vanguard' of the working class, over a million of them after the second world war) are not there at all except for 'the Miners Next Step'. Which is wierd.      Also no Class War? It looks like the partiality/prejudices you accuse others of are your own. Perhaps you attempt too much, e.g. the section on crime and punishment is extremely small etc...



Stuff on miners - 

The miners' struggle: the need for autonomous organization against the unions
Wildcats In The Appalachian Coal Fields

Stuff on Class War -

Death of a Paper Tiger - Reflections on Class War


----------



## revol68 (Jan 24, 2006)

Libcom Jack said:
			
		

> Stuff on miners -
> 
> The miners' struggle: the need for autonomous organization against the unions
> Wildcats In The Appalachian Coal Fields
> ...




As much as you know I would like to say i love that piece, I found it faintly ridiculous. Not cos of it's criticisms but in the completely unaware pseudo intellectual way it goes about it.


----------



## jimmer (Jan 24, 2006)

Libcom Jack said:
			
		

> Stuff on miners -
> 
> The miners' struggle: the need for autonomous organization against the unions
> Wildcats In The Appalachian Coal Fields


That's not all see.


----------



## catch (Jan 24, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> The article about what happened is stasbourg is a direct lift from the bbc website.



there are three articles, and only one is a direct lift from the BBC afaik.


> Steely silence then. You have no opinion on what actually happened with the dockers in strasbourg?


You've not even offered yours, and you started the thread.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2006)

Just don't talk to the cunt. You can't do anything right no matter what.


----------



## montevideo (Jan 24, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Just don't talk to the cunt. You can't do anything right no matter what.



you clueless fuck


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2006)

Hey liar, how was bristol poly that you didn't go to?


----------



## catch (Jan 24, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> The newswire is simply media echo; transfering info from other sites (which are more informed, more informative & generally provide a better service).



http://libcom.org/news/article.php?story=tube-strike-interview-080106&query=tube
http://libcom.org/news/article.php?story=broadway-market-occupation-11-12-05&query=broadway+market
http://www.libcom.org/gallery/v/broadwaymarketoccupation/

That's two big original features in the space of a month, along with lots of shorter articles that were done from scratch (although not first hand information but what do you expect?). Or perhaps you think they're media echo because they both ended up on different sites later on? Where articles _are_ lifted entirely from other sources, they're always attributed.



> Simply linking to these sites would i think be more ingenuous & honest of you.


you mean like having an rss feed from them? or the links to newswires on the front page of the main site? http://www.libcom.org/news/feeds/
 

Will you be making the same criticisms about infoshop news, anarkismo.net, indymedia or in fact any other non-mainstream news source (and all mainstream ones who use AP or Reuters)?



> If convenience is useful then you have a point, but to suggest it is 'massive' is strectching it a bit, by a long shot.


around 2000 articles, pamphlets and full-length books, added to on a daily basis. We've been concentrating up to now on restoring an archive that was taken off-line about three weeks after the library started (endpage.com) which has taken the second half of last year to put in. That's being finished off and tidied up, and we're slowly trying to diversify the content beyond that core content - including stuff that's not currently on-line elsewhere.


----------



## blamblam (Jan 24, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> you clueless fuck


  

Ah bollocks I'll take the bait now too. Only to say it wasn't worth taking that bait.


----------



## montevideo (Jan 24, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Hey kings college boy, how was bristol poly that you didn't go to?



aye first name's are always fucking good here aren't they.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2006)

I left skool at 5 years old.

(as he quotes a name)


----------



## montevideo (Jan 24, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Hey liar, how was bristol poly that you didn't go to?



like i say fucking clueless.

Appreciate the edit though.


----------



## catch (Jan 24, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> Appreciate the edit though.


you may want to edit your quote of his post as well.


----------



## montevideo (Jan 25, 2006)

catch said:
			
		

> http://libcom.org/news/article.php?story=tube-strike-interview-080106&query=tube
> http://libcom.org/news/article.php?story=broadway-market-occupation-11-12-05&query=broadway+market
> http://www.libcom.org/gallery/v/broadwaymarketoccupation/
> 
> ...




you're missing the point. If i want to find out about what happened to, say for example, the dockers in stasbourg, do i go to libcom? Possibly but then i would go to the linked original material that are better informed, more informative & generally a better service (be it the bbc website, guardian or labournet etc). What then is the purpose of the newswire. As a primary source then libcom is next to useless. What does it add, if nothing, why not simply link to the original source material?

Again, if your library contains 2000 articles texts etc, then larc contains 200,000 of a greater variety, & political more diverse articles, pamphlets & books. What your library provides then is a convenience, the convenience of not going to a better resource. 

The two questions i would ask is what are you adding & to whom is the resource useful to? (This is without the issue of how an anarchist resource organises itself).

As i have said the only thing that could have been useful (a focal point & networking possibilities for various groups & organisations) was fucked from the start. 


Ps the only two anarchists actively involved in the broadway market occupation happen to be from the wombles. Go figure.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2006)

You are truly off your post 1999 posh rocker.

The past is a different country as they say.


----------



## montevideo (Jan 25, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> You are truly off your post 1999 posh rocker.
> 
> The past is a different country as they say.



says weird obessional stalker boy.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2006)

You could almost invent a past couldn't you?


----------



## montevideo (Jan 25, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> You could almost invent a past couldn't you?



you clueless fuck


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2006)

...yes you could...


----------



## montevideo (Jan 25, 2006)

nar, you still got a pair of fives & nothing up your sleeve.

You love your gossip though dontcha


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2006)

tick tock tick tock


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2006)

Fishponds is nice.


----------



## revol68 (Jan 25, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> you're missing the point. If i want to find out about what happened to, say for example, the dockers in stasbourg, do i go to libcom? Possibly but then i would go to the linked original material that are better informed, more informative & generally a better service (be it the bbc website, guardian or labournet etc). What then is the purpose of the newswire. As a primary source then libcom is next to useless. What does it add, if nothing, why not simply link to the original source material?
> 
> *Again, if your library contains 2000 articles texts etc, then larc contains 200,000 of a greater variety, & political more diverse articles, pamphlets & books. What your library provides then is a convenience, the convenience of not going to a better resource. *
> 
> ...




so what if libcom had 200,000 texts, would LARC have 20 Million tsxts?

or are you seriously claiming LARC have 200,000 texts?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 25, 2006)

Which no one reads, except for monty's old poly chums.


----------



## revol68 (Jan 25, 2006)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Which no one reads, except for monty's old poly chums.



oh do please tell us all what this Polytechnic story is all about, and why would someone lie about going to Poly?


----------



## catch (Jan 25, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> you're missing the point. If i want to find out about what happened to, say for example, the dockers in stasbourg, do i go to libcom? Possibly but then i would go to the linked original material that are better informed, more informative & generally a better service (be it the bbc website, guardian or labournet etc).


So you expect libertarian news sources to be as well resourced as the BBC or Guardian, both of which are heavily reliant on news agencies for some stories anyway?

Labournet (and labourstart), both of those sites are primarily links or reposts of articles elsewhere - union press releases or articles in mainstream sources about unions, and they're great for that. I look at labourstart just about every day (I find labournet a bit more hard work to navigate), and get a lot of information from them for libcom.org/news, but they also increasingly use our news on their newswire as well - it's a complementary process. However, both labourstart and labournet are both focused primarily on the trade union movement, and rarely cover community issues, or anti-fascism etc. and nor do they plan to.



> why not simply link to the original source material?


Did you read my post? We have rss syndication of the main news sources we take articles from (and which take articles from us sometimes as well). This may expand as the news service does.



> The two questions i would ask is what are you adding & to whom is the resource useful to?


Again, you ignore completely the original content on there, including primary sources, that's posted to the news, and the stuff in the library that can't be found elsewhere on the internet (although lots can, not always in an easily searchable or readable format though even when it is). I'm not aware of any major news sites which rely only on 100% original content by their own reporters, so why expect that of a service run by a handful of people?

As jimmer pointed out, the site gets around half a million page views a month, so it's clearly useful to a lot of people, around 80% of that is outside the forums (which I'd be the first to admit could be a lot better).

As to the library, what is LARC doing to make these '200000' texts available to people. I've been there once, and didn't see the library, nor any indication that it existed. If LARC is simply hoarding texts and not making any effort available to people "The two questions i would ask is what are you adding & to whom is the resource useful to?".



> Ps the only two anarchists actively involved in the broadway market occupation happen to be from the wombles. Go figure.


*I'm not an anarchist.
*The best thing about that occupation is it's not entirely reliant on politicos to keep going, and that it's managed to maintain strong links with the community.
*I can think of one anarchist who's been very involved but isn't from your group (not sure if he'd describe himself as such).
*Some of the politicos (not anarchists) there nearly 24 hours a day are from HI. Not me, I've been down once or twice a week since it started, and I've tried to help with publicity where possible (both door-to-door and on the net) which I wouldn't call "actively involved",  but nor am I using it to score cheap political points.
*The guy from your group who is involved a lot is very personable and not involved in these bunfights as far as I know.


----------



## montevideo (Jan 25, 2006)

catch said:
			
		

> *I'm not an anarchist.
> *The best thing about that occupation is it's not entirely reliant on politicos to keep going, and that it's managed to maintain strong links with the community.
> *I can think of one anarchist who's been very involved but isn't from your group (not sure if he'd describe himself as such).
> *Some of the politicos (not anarchists) there nearly 24 hours a day are from HI. Not me, I've been down once or twice a week since it started, and I've tried to help with publicity where possible (both door-to-door and on the net) which I wouldn't call "actively involved",  but nor am I using it to score cheap political points.
> *The guy from your group who is involved a lot is very personable and not involved in these bunfights as far as I know.



*at least you've given up that illusion. I said you weren't ages ago. Now just need the rest of the runt litter to follow.
*the best thing about the occupation is that it is about self-organisation. The politicos are very much less militant that the locals.
*said i was an anarchist when i went down there, no-one had a problem with it. Another misconception shattered by 'ordinary people'.
*much respect for those from hackney independent. Always good to see people putting their politics into action. 
*probably doesn't know what kind of bullshit you come out with here & elsewhere.


----------



## catch (Jan 25, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> *at least you've given up that illusion. I said you weren't ages ago. Now just need the rest of the runt litter to follow.


You've become the arbiter of who is and isn't an anarchist now? I thought you were against that sort of thing?


> *the best thing about the occupation is that it is about self-organisation. The politicos are very much less militant that the locals.


 The locals are very militant I'll give you that.


> *said i was an anarchist when i went down there, no-one had a problem with it. Another misconception shattered by 'ordinary people'.


I've been honest about my politics down there as well.I didn't turn up and say "I'm catch, I'm a libertarian communist" 'cos that would be silly, but if people ask I'll tell them.


> *probably doesn't know what kind of bullshit you come out with here & elsewhere.


----------



## catch (Jan 26, 2006)

Attica said:
			
		

> Also no Class War? It looks like the partiality/prejudices you accuse others of are your own. Perhaps you attempt too much, e.g. the section on crime and punishment is extremely small etc...



Attica, if Class War would like to be represented in the library (is unfinished business online anywhere?) we'd be happy to host it.

We'd also be very happy to receive material on the miners strike as well. The library now accepts registrations - so people can post articles up themselves (although it's moderated and there's no guarantees of inclusion for everything).


----------



## montevideo (Jan 26, 2006)

catch said:
			
		

> You've become the arbiter of who is and isn't an anarchist now? I thought you were against that sort of thing?
> The locals are very militant I'll give you that.
> 
> I've been honest about my politics down there as well.I didn't turn up and say "I'm catch, I'm a libertarian communist" 'cos that would be silly, but if people ask I'll tell them.



as i said before i think you'd be a lot happier in you politics if you recognised yourself simply as a a marxist. The 'self-hating anarchist' persona was doing you no favours. 

I think you (& the rest of libcom) are constantly troubled by the way anarchists are perceived (or rather by the way you imagine they are perceived) & as such reflects badly on your politics & lifestyle, hence the need to constantly distance yourself from other self-defined anarchists & affirm the correct position.

The truth is the people down at tony's cafe think the anarchists are the people who got stuck in to help rebuild the roof, who brought down the gas burners to cook on, who organised the cafe night, who helped with the electrics & reinforcing the cafe, who stayed overnight almost constantly during the 'eviction scare' period. Who like a drink & a laugh & work their bollocks off to get things done.

That's how anarchists are perceived by the people down at tony's cafe. It is you & your bunch who are in the minority in terms of perception & in terms of worrying how 'ordinary people' will perceive you & their preconception of anarchists.

I think these things will become more self evident when you stop being an anti-social group & begin expressing your politics directly to those people you claim to be demystifying.


----------



## catch (Jan 26, 2006)

thanks for the advice, I'll pass it on.

not a marxist either though.


----------



## montevideo (Jan 26, 2006)

catch said:
			
		

> thanks for the advice.
> 
> not a marxist either though.



self-hating anarchist to self-denying marxist, you must have some sleepless nights.


----------



## catch (Jan 26, 2006)

In your rush to give me advice and help with my self-hating, self-denying sleepless nights (I sleep quite well at the moment, but won't be in a couple of weeks when mini-catch arrives ), you appear to have forgotten to respond to the rest of my post above . Here it is again.




			
				montevideo said:
			
		

> you're missing the point. If i want to find out about what happened to, say for example, the dockers in stasbourg, do i go to libcom? Possibly but then i would go to the linked original material that are better informed, more informative & generally a better service (be it the bbc website, guardian or labournet etc).


So you expect libertarian news sources to be as well resourced as the BBC or Guardian, both of which are heavily reliant on news agencies for some stories anyway?

Labournet (and labourstart), both of those sites are primarily links or reposts of articles elsewhere - union press releases or articles in mainstream sources about unions, and they're great for that. I look at labourstart just about every day (I find labournet a bit more hard work to navigate), and get a lot of information from them for libcom.org/news, but they also increasingly use our news on their newswire as well - it's a complementary process. However, both labourstart and labournet are both focused primarily on the trade union movement, and rarely cover community issues, or anti-fascism etc. and nor do they plan to.



> why not simply link to the original source material?


Did you read my post? We have rss syndication of the main news sources we take articles from (and which take articles from us sometimes as well). This may expand as the news service does.



> The two questions i would ask is what are you adding & to whom is the resource useful to?


Again, you ignore completely the original content on there, including primary sources, that's posted to the news, and the stuff in the library that can't be found elsewhere on the internet (although lots can, not always in an easily searchable or readable format though even when it is). I'm not aware of any major news sites which rely only on 100% original content by their own reporters, so why expect that of a service run by a handful of people?

As jimmer pointed out, the site gets around half a million page views a month, so it's clearly useful to a lot of people, around 80% of that is outside the forums (which I'd be the first to admit could be a lot better).

As to the library, what is LARC doing to make these '200000' texts available to people. I've been there once, and didn't see the library, nor any indication that it existed. If LARC is simply hoarding texts and not making any effort available to people "The two questions i would ask is what are you adding & to whom is the resource useful to?".


----------



## Top Dog (Jan 26, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> That's how anarchists are perceived by the people down at tony's cafe. It is you & your bunch who are in the minority in terms of perception & in terms of worrying how 'ordinary people' will perceive you & their preconception of anarchists.


So they dont perceive the anarchists as sectarian, insular, squabbling, point scorers... the public (ie. non urban75) face of anarchism being somewhat different. I hope.


----------



## Top Dog (Jan 26, 2006)

catch said:
			
		

> As to the library, what is LARC doing to make these '200000' texts available to people.


As you'll know catch, there's nothing like 200,000 texts available at Larc. Thats like a Swappie march estimate


----------



## catch (Jan 26, 2006)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> As you'll know catch, there's nothing like 200,000 texts available at Larc. Thats like a Swappie march estimate


Well, I've not been there apart from one meeting in the basement, which put me off the place frankly. To have 200,000 texts it'd probably need to be filled top to bottom with bookshelves or filing cabinets, which weren't in evidence, but I was prepared to give Monte the benefit of the doubt if he was prepared to answer my questions.

Swappie march estimate you say? So if I replaced 'texts' with 'word's would we be closer to the figure?


----------



## Emma Herself (Jan 26, 2006)

Maybe the 200,000 texts also include boxes of old undistributed leaflets and stickers. Counted individually?


----------



## Top Dog (Jan 26, 2006)

*my dad's bigger than your dad*




			
				catch said:
			
		

> Well, I've not been there apart from one meeting in the basement, which put me off the place frankly. To have 200,000 texts it'd probably need to be filled top to bottom with bookshelves or filing cabinets, which weren't in evidence, but I was prepared to give Monte the benefit of the doubt if he was prepared to answer my questions.
> 
> Swappie march estimate you say? So if I replaced 'texts' with 'word's would we be closer to the figure?


What i find a bit patheitc is the idea that a physical library and an online resource are posed here in competition with eachother...  

There is scant enough public access to publications, history and informaiton on communist/anarchist/radical working class history without a cock measuring contest.

Both should be utilised as valuable resources... and both should grow


----------



## Emma Herself (Jan 26, 2006)

I agree. they both fill different roles and have their pros and cons in the same way. It's kinda strange way to go about things, it's not like the libcom library was set up in competition with anything, just as another resource peole could access easily, search through easily etc. Personally I can't get into reading large texts off a screen, I prefer to have a book but it can always be printed out. Just depends what you're after I guess.


----------



## knopf (Jan 26, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> I think you (& the rest of libcom) are constantly troubled by the way anarchists are perceived (or rather by the way you imagine they are perceived) & as such reflects badly on your politics & lifestyle, hence the need to constantly distance yourself from other self-defined anarchists & affirm the correct position.



Sweet suffering Christ, I agree with monte about something.


----------



## montevideo (Jan 26, 2006)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> As you'll know catch, there's nothing like 200,000 texts available at Larc. Thats like a Swappie march estimate



At lot of texts on libcom seem to be one chapter from a book. Roots of rebellion, for example, has 25 texts, but just one book. Or an article from a pamphlet, where in larc you get the whole pamphlet. 



> What i find a bit patheitc is the idea that a physical library and an online resource are posed here in competition with eachother...
> 
> There is scant enough public access to publications, history and informaiton on communist/anarchist/radical working class history without a cock measuring contest.
> 
> Both should be utilised as valuable resources... and both should grow



the point is libcom library is said to useful because it has lots of texts. By that criteria the larc library is more useful because it has more texts. Absurd yes? So what make it useful? Convenience? The range, variety & intellectual depth of the texts of offer? Something other than amount? 

And who are they useful to? Students, office boys & the idle curious? 

Reminds me of the fact that ucl library has the complete works of marx in 32 volumes. None of them had ever been taken out. 



> So they dont perceive the anarchists as sectarian, insular, squabbling, point scorers... the public (ie. non urban75) face of anarchism being somewhat different. I hope.



i suspect it's just students, office boys & the idle curious who do that.


----------



## montevideo (Jan 26, 2006)

catch said:
			
		

> In your rush to give me advice and help with my self-hating, self-denying sleepless nights (I sleep quite well at the moment, but won't be in a couple of weeks when mini-catch arrives ), you appear to have forgotten to respond to the rest of my post above . Here it is again.
> 
> 
> So you expect libertarian news sources to be as well resourced as the BBC or Guardian, both of which are heavily reliant on news agencies for some stories anyway?
> ...



what makes what you do a libertarian news resource?


----------



## Top Dog (Jan 26, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> So what make it useful? Convenience? The range, variety & intellectual depth of the texts of offer? Something other than amount?


And what if you dont live in east london? How useful is Larc if you live in Manchester, for instance?



			
				montevideo said:
			
		

> And who are they useful to? Students, office boys & the idle curious?


I imagine the very same people are likely to use both resources actually.

Unless youre telling me that the place has now been turned into a public lending library since i was last at Larc? I havent seen it listed on tower hamlets council website yet


----------



## montevideo (Jan 26, 2006)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> And what if you dont live in east london? How useful is Larc if you live in Manchester, for instance?
> I imagine the very same people are likely to use both resources actually.
> 
> Unless youre telling me that the place has now been turned into a public lending library since i was last at Larc? I havent seen it listed on tower hamlets council website yet



you seem to think i'm somehow advocating larc libabry as an example of a good resource. I am not. It too has many problems organisationally & structurally. As it stands now it is not what i would call a useful resource. It does though have an incredible amount of political literature, freely available, even to those in manchester.

Now your point about saturation (& by that i'm assuming _contamination_ as well) is a valid one, until you realise the interweb itself is the biggest online library there is. Comparing a physical library to the interweb is a little disingenuous.


----------



## In Bloom (Jan 26, 2006)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> And what if you dont live in east london? How useful is Larc if you live in Manchester, for instance?


Don't be silly, everybody knows that London is the centre of the universe.  If anarchists from Manchester want books not available in Manchester, they can bloody well travel!


----------



## In Bloom (Jan 26, 2006)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> What i find a bit patheitc is the idea that a physical library and an online resource are posed here in competition with eachother...
> 
> There is scant enough public access to publications, history and informaiton on communist/anarchist/radical working class history without a cock measuring contest.
> 
> Both should be utilised as valuable resources... and both should grow


^^


----------



## montevideo (Jan 26, 2006)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Don't be silly, everybody knows that London is the centre of the universe.  If anarchists from Manchester want books not available in Manchester, they can bloody well travel!



or it could be sent through the post.


----------



## In Bloom (Jan 26, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> or it could be sent through the post.


Or somebody could put the books online


----------



## Top Dog (Jan 26, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> you seem to think i'm somehow advocating larc libabry as an example of a good resource. I am not. It too has many problems organisationally & structurally...
> 
> Now your point about saturation (& by that i'm assuming _contamination_ as well) is a valid one, until you realise the interweb itself is the biggest online library there is. Comparing a physical library to the interweb is a little disingenuous.


But *you're* the one that compared the one with the other! Look back over your posts... 

You began this (personal) spat by contrasting larc with libcom. And generally to contrast something you identify the differences between the two things. Now you've changed your tune saying they both have the same problems - its just that larc has a bigger collection of texts

Im assuming youve conceded the point that the users of both larc and libcom are likely to be from exactly the same constituency.... 

Anyway, this is a non-argument or at least one im not interested in getting mired in... what exactly was the point of the thread in the first place? you seem quite happy to keep it derailed as you're laying into one of your pet topics


----------



## montevideo (Jan 26, 2006)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> But *you're* the one that compared the one with the other! Look back over your posts...
> 
> You began this (personal) spat by contrasting larc with libcom. And generally to contrast something you identify the differences between the two things. Now you've changed your tune saying they both have the same problems - its just that larc has a bigger collection of texts
> 
> ...



no i was making the distinction about the criteria of a good resource: that if the criteria of a good resource is amounts then larc library is better because it has more texts. Which is an absurdity isn't it. Which was the point.

The point about the dockers in strasbourg is what people thought of their activities. Genuinely. It does go against the received wisdom of a particular viewpoint, also does highlight certain behaviours are not the exclusive claim of 'anarchist' fraternity on demonstrations. Some of us already knew this i grant you...

To be perfectly fair i was asked directly if i thought libcom was a useful resource. I replied directly. It wasn't an argument it was an opinion offered. No big deal. But i do think some people are more comfortable talking about interweb resources than the dockers in strasbourg...

But like you say, a non-argument.


----------



## revol68 (Jan 26, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> no i was making the distinction about the criteria of a good resource: that if the criteria of a good resource is amounts then larc library is better because it has more texts. Which is an absurdity isn't it. Which was the point.
> 
> The point about the dockers in strasbourg is what people thought of their activities. Genuinely. It does go against the received wisdom of a particular viewpoint, also does highlight certain behaviours are not the exclusive claim of 'anarchist' fraternity on demonstrations. Some of us already knew this i grant you...
> 
> ...



strange that having recognised what a complete twat you have made of yourself it becomes a non argument.

and sorry people from Libcom were quite happy to discuss the dockers, they just recognise a cheap point attempt a point scoring when they see one.


----------



## montevideo (Jan 26, 2006)

revol68 said:
			
		

> strange that having recognised what a complete twat you have made of yourself it becomes a non argument.
> 
> and sorry people from Libcom were quite happy to discuss the dockers, they just recognise a cheap point attempt a point scoring when they see one.



another clueless fuck. Nobody wanted to discuss the dockers at strasbourg. Your teen rant was as ever full of the charms of a cartoon character trapped in the bubble of her own hormonal fear. 

You need a boyfriend love, or a gun.


----------



## In Bloom (Jan 26, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> no i was making the distinction about the criteria of a good resource: that if the criteria of a good resource is amounts then larc library is better because it has more texts. Which is an absurdity isn't it. Which was the point.


They're not the same thing though.  The point is that the libcom library is a good resource because it makes texts that aren't always available in hard copy available on the net, which is accessible to most people.  Surely that can only be a good thing? 



> The point about the dockers in strasbourg is what people thought of their activities. Genuinely. It does go against the received wisdom of a particular viewpoint, also does highlight certain behaviours are not the exclusive claim of 'anarchist' fraternity on demonstrations. Some of us already knew this i grant you...


Maybe it's just me, but you appear to be attacking a position nobody holds.  AFAIK, no anarchist has argued that riots or violence are bad in and of themselves or that they are exclusive to anarchists.  It's a matter of when a tactic is useful and who it is used against (and by, for that matter).


----------



## montevideo (Jan 26, 2006)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> They're not the same thing though.  The point is that the libcom library is a good resource because it makes texts that aren't always available in hard copy available on the net, which is accessible to most people.  Surely that can only be a good thing?
> 
> 
> Maybe it's just me, but you appear to be attacking a position nobody holds.  AFAIK, no anarchist has argued that riots or violence are bad in and of themselves or that they are exclusive to anarchists.  It's a matter of when a tactic is useful and who it is used against (and by, for that matter).



but that's the interweb as a whole. It is one big huge library.

The one useful thing libcom could have contributed  (a focal point & networking possibilities for various groups & organisations) would've required organisation, hard work & collective responsibility of all the goups involved (all assets to any libertarian movement wouldn't you say?). Of course libcom is a private website run by & for those individuals concerned, so it is entirely up to them how they play with it. Do i think it's useful, practically & politically, no.

What is your opinion of the dockers in strasbourg? It is a question. People may see it as an attack because people may feel uncomfortable, not with what the dockers did (the strategy & tactics have a long & familiar history) but with their established opinions on such tactics. Indeed i imagine those activist who do feel uncomfortable with what the dockers did are wrestling with their political consciences.

So let's put it another way: they went to eu parliment (seat of power) they attacked the police, they smashed windows, they engaged in property damage  - now all these are valid tactics for the dockers in strasbourg because...

How were their tactics useful?


----------



## Top Dog (Jan 26, 2006)

Has anyone condemned what the dockers did?  On here or elsewhere? 

What lies _behind_ your question, coz its so obviously a feed for you to launch into something else?

You either have a strawman here or you're not asking the real question you want to ask. So which is it?


----------



## montevideo (Jan 26, 2006)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> Has anyone condemned what the dockers did?  On here or elsewhere?
> 
> What lies _behind_ your question, coz its so obviously a feed for you to launch into something else?
> 
> You either have a strawman here or you're not asking the real question you want to ask. So which is it?



_"Condmned" "launch into" _ that's quite defensive langauage.

what did people think? The same way what did people think of the riots in paris, the same way what did people think of the riots at the g8? It's all familiar territory & there's no scary strawman to worry about.

There has been much talk, much discussion & much debate about all of these things, & much strong opinion expressed about all manner of protest behaviour & tactics. Again the unease seems to be there is something i have up my sleeve ready to "launch into" which again i think in itself is revealing.

I haven't demanded answers form anyone.  Heaven forbid.


----------



## revol68 (Jan 26, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> _"Condmned" "launch into" _ that's quite defensive langauage.
> 
> what did people think? The same way what did people think of the riots in paris, the same way what did people think of the riots at the g8? It's all familiar territory & there's no scary strawman to worry about.
> 
> ...



fuck your a cretin, how can you compare a junket like the G8 being protested by a bunch of twats with no concrete demands to Dockers attacking an actual legislative body that was holding a vote that very day on something that would deeply affect them?

It's like saying that people from Libcom and the rest of that "tendency" would oppose people attacking parliament during the anti war demos, student fees or hospital privitisation votes.

The G8 is completely fucking different, it is a junket where all the decisions have been made before hand and will be implemented no matter what.

Plus i'm not entirely opposed to spectacular protest just people who continue trying to recreate them with no concern for reality. I mean as much as I have criticisms of Seattle, Genoa and Prague, atleast there were of their time, they made international headlines and helped to open up a small rupture in the end of ideology narrative. The events since then have been less and less sucessful and have only served to stifle any progress beyond such protests.


----------



## In Bloom (Jan 26, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> but that's the interweb as a whole. It is one big huge library.
> 
> The one useful thing libcom could have contributed  (a focal point & networking possibilities for various groups & organisations) would've required organisation, hard work & collective responsibility of all the goups involved (all assets to any libertarian movement wouldn't you say?). Of course libcom is a private website run by & for those individuals concerned, so it is entirely up to them how they play with it. Do i think it's useful, practically & politically, no.


Fair enough, I happen to disagree, though 

It's fairly obvious that this is about the whole enrager-->libcom thing, which to be perfectly honest, I didn't agree with 100%, there are plenty of groups with decent politics and sound people involved (e.g. the Wombles) who you couldn't describe as "libertarian communist" in the strictest sense.  But, as you say yourself, it's up to the people who run the site, nuh?



> What is your opinion of the dockers in strasbourg? It is a question. People may see it as an attack because people may feel uncomfortable, not with what the dockers did (the strategy & tactics have a long & familiar history) but with their established opinions on such tactics. Indeed i imagine those activist who do feel uncomfortable with what the dockers did are wrestling with their political consciences.
> 
> So let's put it another way: they went to eu parliment (seat of power) they attacked the police, they smashed windows, they engaged in property damage  - now all these are valid tactics for the dockers in strasbourg because...
> 
> How were their tactics useful?


Oh bollocks, would it be too cliche of me to use that old quote from "As We See It" Solidarity? 

I don't feel the least bit uncomfortable with what the dockers did, personally, they were fighting for improvements in their own lives against those who exploit and oppress them.

The French riots aren't even comparable, IMO, the targets involved were often completely different (police or some guy taking his bins out, the EU Parliament or a local daycare centre).  That's not to say I totally condemn everything the French rioters did, but some nasty shit went on during the course of those riots partly because people didn't chose to direct their anger entirely at the people responsible, but also against innocent bystanders.


----------



## montevideo (Jan 26, 2006)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Oh bollocks, would it be too cliche of me to use that old quote from "As We See It" Solidarity?
> 
> I don't feel the least bit uncomfortable with what the dockers did, personally, they were fighting for improvements in their own lives against those who exploit and oppress them.
> 
> The French riots aren't even comparable, IMO, the targets involved were often completely different (police or some guy taking his bins out, the EU Parliament or a local daycare centre). That's not to say I totally condemn everything the French rioters did, but some nasty shit went on during the course of those riots partly because people didn't chose to direct their anger entirely at the people responsible, but also against innocent bystanders.



okay, but the dockers did march through the city & did set fire to cars (don't know if they belonged to workers or not). Attacking the eu building was a symbolic act, as were smashing windows & property damage. A lot of them were masked up too. It does mirror with exceeding clarity a summit protest (in europe anyhow) down to foreigners going over there & getting nicked. 

Now this is all good. And more power to them for doing what they did. 

Why they chose the tactic of the summit protest (for want of a better description) as well as european-wide strike is interesting. The dockers obviously saw it as useful.


----------



## In Bloom (Jan 26, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> okay, but the dockers did march through the city & did set fire to cars (don't know if they belonged to workers or not). Attacking the eu building was a symbolic act, as were smashing windows & property damage. A lot of them were masked up too. It does mirror with exceeding clarity a summit protest (in europe anyhow) down to foreigners going over there & getting nicked.
> 
> Now this is all good. And more power to them for doing what they did.
> 
> Why they chose the tactic of the summit protest (for want of a better description) as well as european-wide strike is interesting. The dockers obviously saw it as useful.


Indeed and, as you say, all power to 'em.  It's not the tactics of summit protests I think are useless in and of themselves, it's the act of protesting at summits.  What would shutting down the G8 achieve?


----------



## Top Dog (Jan 27, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> _"Condmned" "launch into" _ that's quite defensive langauage.


 is it? OK then, *what* am i defensive about? Really, i'd love to know... and dont throw back another question at me to deflect from an adequate answer. Tell me *now* otherwise all you're doing is pulling words out of a hat, rather than answer the substance of whats put to you



			
				montevideo said:
			
		

> what did people think? The same way what did people think of the riots in paris, the same way what did people think of the riots at the g8? It's all familiar territory & there's no scary strawman to worry about.


As you started the thread, and we're now 5 pages into it, it would seem a fair question to ask you what *you* think of it. You seem to have side stepped the the point of your thread in favour of a journey into randomness



			
				montevideo said:
			
		

> There has been much talk, much discussion & much debate about all of these things, & much strong opinion expressed about all manner of protest behaviour & tactics. Again the unease seems to be there is something i have up my sleeve ready to "launch into" which again i think in itself is revealing.


Again... revealing of what? *What* does my language reveal? Please explain...


----------



## Top Dog (Jan 27, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> okay, but the dockers did march through the city & did set fire to cars (don't know if they belonged to workers or not). Attacking the eu building was a symbolic act, as were smashing windows & property damage. A lot of them were masked up too. It does mirror with exceeding clarity a summit protest (in europe anyhow) down to foreigners going over there & getting nicked.


you will find that there is whole history of class violence that erupts frequently. And funnily enough class violence against perceived pillars of authority have taken place ever since... <gulp>  there has been a working class.

Or were you suggesting that 8 years worth of summit protests have taught something new and 'radical' to dockers that they'd never have discovered for themselves?


----------



## soulman (Jan 27, 2006)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Do you really consider this complicated?
> 
> Beating up police and trying to trash parliament - good.
> Beating up old men and burning down nurseries - bad.
> ...



beating up old men who sanction the oppression and torching their families nurseries

good/bad ?


----------



## In Bloom (Jan 27, 2006)

soulman said:
			
		

> beating up old men who sanction the oppression and torching their families nurseries
> 
> good/bad ?


Defining "sanction" would be a good start.

But I can't think of _any_ situation where it is remotely acceptable to burn down nurseries, ffs


----------



## soulman (Jan 27, 2006)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Defining "sanction" would be a good start.
> 
> But I can't think of _any_ situation where it is remotely acceptable to burn down nurseries, ffs



Okay quick definition of "sanction" - 'Authoritative permission or approval that makes a course of action valid. To encourage or tolerate by indicating approval.'

You were talking about the recent riots in France and condemning the actions of the rioters, or at least some of their actions. I was trying to point out that it's more shades of grey than the black and white you indicated. If people are being oppressed within their community then it's likely that's where the flashpoint will be. That can result in some unfortunate incidents within that community as the anger spills over on to the streets. Condemning people for not immediately taking that anger to parliament or to the streets and buildings of their oppressors is extremely judgmental. With time the rioters did move out of their immediate communities and into more central areas.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 27, 2006)

soulman said:
			
		

> beating up old men who sanction the oppression and torching their families nurseries
> 
> good/bad ?






What oppression did the old man who died in Paris 'sanction?'

Was he in the government, or was he the head of the French equivalent of the CBI?

Secret service maybe?

Or just some old bloke in the wrong place at the wrong time?


----------



## soulman (Jan 27, 2006)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> What oppression did the old man who died in Paris 'sanction?'
> 
> Was he in the government, or was he the head of the French equivalent of the CBI?
> 
> ...



Old bloke in the wrong place at the wrong time obviously.


----------



## cats hammers (Jan 27, 2006)

soulman said:
			
		

> You were talking about the recent riots in France and condemning the actions of the rioters, or at least some of their actions.



Define condemning?

I mean, if someone said, say, something the NUM did during the strike was wrong, are they 'condemning' the miners?


----------



## montevideo (Jan 27, 2006)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> is it? OK then, *what* am i defensive about? Really, i'd love to know... and dont throw back another question at me to deflect from an adequate answer. Tell me *now* otherwise all you're doing is pulling words out of a hat, rather than answer the substance of whats put to you
> 
> As you started the thread, and we're now 5 pages into it, it would seem a fair question to ask you what *you* think of it. You seem to have side stepped the the point of your thread in favour of a journey into randomness
> 
> Again... revealing of what? *What* does my language reveal? Please explain...



We go from defensive to near hysterical...

you are defensive about a simple question simply asked. There is no ambush, no strawman, no trap, but you are expecting me to launch into something. (The fact that you think i have something to launch is revealing. What do you think i have that i can launch?) Others were happy to answer the question, & i haven't 'attacked' them for that (except of course the little irish girl who bottom feeds through a mesh of tourettes).

You don't have to answer, it's not a test.

Now the facts as reported to us are facts we can interpret as: mass spectacular, demonstration not in our communities or our workplace, symbolic action, property damage & attacking police by masked up protestors. These events have happened before & been discussed debated & argued about before. (If people are disputing the above interpretation then fine, maybe that's is a different discussion for a different day).

Given the familiarity of events & the different scenarios they have occurred recently (2 examples being summit protests & the riots in paris) the question is a relevant one is it not?. 

I support the actions taken by the dockers in strasbourg. Anyone who has the confidence & wherewithall to take on state agencies deserves recognition. If greater autonomy, participation & solidarity has been achieved through their actions then even better.


----------



## soulman (Jan 27, 2006)

Just to add as my reply to In Bloom was rushed. Judgemental is probably the wrong word but you do seem to have certain expectations about how situations should or shouldn't play out. It would be interesting to know the crime stats for the areas involved and be able to compare injuries and fatalities during a normal week or so.


----------



## montevideo (Jan 27, 2006)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> you will find that there is whole history of class violence that erupts frequently. And funnily enough class violence against perceived pillars of authority have taken place ever since... <gulp>  there has been a working class.
> 
> Or were you suggesting that 8 years worth of summit protests have taught something new and 'radical' to dockers that they'd never have discovered for themselves?



Well of course we're talking european workers here who have a much more assiduous disposition to rioting at summit protests, but i don't dispute a word of your first paragraph.

As for you second paragraph regardless of what you think the dockers protest was tactically identical to summit protest tactics. I applaud the dockers for their ingenuity in using such a tactic.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jan 27, 2006)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> What would shutting down the G8 achieve?



Well, firstly they _didn't _ shut down the G8. While, at the same time, it was announced that London had won the Olympics. If those, especially those that came from London, hadn't spent so much time organising for the G8 and more time on exposing and organising against the Olympics, then perhaps there might have been a better response to the problems that the games will bring. Most importantly, after G8, where next? At least with campaigning against the Olympics there would have been the potential to carry on the political work, whether we would have won the bid or not. If this is a strategy for social change, then its a very shortsighted one.


----------



## soulman (Jan 27, 2006)

Libcom Jack said:
			
		

> Define condemning?
> 
> I mean, if someone said, say, something the NUM did during the strike was wrong, are they 'condemning' the miners?



You're playing with words Jack. This is condemnation - 

"Beating up police and trying to trash parliament - good.
Beating up old men and burning down nurseries - bad."

There's no attempt to place those unfortunate incidents within the context of the overall situation.


----------



## cats hammers (Jan 27, 2006)

soulman said:
			
		

> You're playing with words Jack. This is condemnation -
> 
> "Beating up police and trying to trash parliament - good.
> Beating up old men and burning down nurseries - bad."
> ...



Totally unlike with the comment he was replying to?


----------



## Top Dog (Jan 27, 2006)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> and dont throw back another question at me to deflect from an adequate answer. Tell me now otherwise all you're doing is pulling words out of a hat, rather than answer the substance of whats put to you






			
				montevideo said:
			
		

> We go from defensive to near hysterical...
> 
> you are defensive about a simple question simply asked. There is no ambush, no strawman, no trap, but you are expecting me to launch into something. (The fact that you think i have something to launch is revealing. What do you think i have that i can launch?)


  




			
				montevideo said:
			
		

> I support the actions taken by the dockers in strasbourg. Anyone who has the confidence & wherewithall to take on state agencies deserves recognition. If greater autonomy, participation & solidarity has been achieved through their actions then even better.


Fine. You could have said that in your OP instead of waiting 5 pages to make a substantial point. But i ask again what the point of this non-argument is: 






			
				Top Dog said:
			
		

> Has anyone condemned what the dockers did? On here or elsewhere?


----------



## In Bloom (Jan 27, 2006)

soulman said:
			
		

> You're playing with words Jack. This is condemnation -
> 
> "Beating up police and trying to trash parliament - good.
> Beating up old men and burning down nurseries - bad."
> ...


That was meant to be an off the cuff, tongue in cheek type thingymabob.  I don't suppose you read any of the stuff I posted later in the thread?


----------



## In Bloom (Jan 27, 2006)

soulman said:
			
		

> Okay quick definition of "sanction" - 'Authoritative permission or approval that makes a course of action valid. To encourage or tolerate by indicating approval.'
> 
> You were talking about the recent riots in France and condemning the actions of the rioters, or at least some of their actions. I was trying to point out that it's more shades of grey than the black and white you indicated. If people are being oppressed within their community then it's likely that's where the flashpoint will be. That can result in some unfortunate incidents within that community as the anger spills over on to the streets. Condemning people for not immediately taking that anger to parliament or to the streets and buildings of their oppressors is extremely judgmental. With time the rioters did move out of their immediate communities and into more central areas.


All I'm saying is that I can't in good conscience say I support certain things that happened during the riots.  Yes, I'm aware of the context and I'm aware that it's not entirely black and white and before anybody says it I'm entirely aware that the rioters in France wouldn't give a shit what I thought either way.


----------



## sovietpop (Jan 27, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> (except of course the little irish girl who bottom feeds through a mesh of tourettes).



don't want to derail your thread, but taking the piss out of Revol68 by staying he is a 'little irish girl' is kind of insulting to 'little irish girls', don't you think?


----------



## catch (Jan 27, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> what makes what you do a libertarian news resource?


What makes you think you can answer about ten different straightforward questions with one stupid one?


----------



## montevideo (Jan 27, 2006)

sovietpop said:
			
		

> don't want to derail your thread, but taking the piss out of Revol68 by staying he is a 'little irish girl' is kind of insulting to 'little irish girls', don't you think?



er...


----------



## sovietpop (Jan 27, 2006)

hmmm....
anyway, answer your emails will you?


----------



## Emma Herself (Jan 28, 2006)

sovietpop said:
			
		

> don't want to derail your thread, but taking the piss out of Revol68 by staying he is a 'little irish girl' is kind of insulting to 'little irish girls', don't you think?



Don't be silly, it's a great insult, cos everyone knows girls are thick and irrational. It's cos they're motivated by their emotions so they can't really debate with the big guns, and "girl" as opposed to woman gives that little extra patronising kick. Reducing your enemies to "little girls" is a fantastic tactic.


----------



## montevideo (Jan 28, 2006)

Zoë Herself said:
			
		

> Don't be silly, it's a great insult, cos everyone knows girls are thick and irrational. It's cos they're motivated by their emotions so they can't really debate with the big guns, and "girl" as opposed to woman gives that little extra patronising kick. Reducing your enemies to "little girls" is a fantastic tactic.



as a woman do you have an opinion on the dockers in strasbourg?


----------



## Emma Herself (Jan 28, 2006)

Why, does being a woman give me some special view point?

For what it's worth, I fully support what the dockers did, and their cause.


----------



## montevideo (Jan 28, 2006)

we all seem to be pretty much in agreement then. Dockers behaviour at strasbourg was a good thing. Going to foreign countries to symbolically attack seats of power authority & control, property damage & attacking the police as a means of expressing dissent, all good. 

We haven't touched upon whether the dockers behaviour was anti-social or whether their behaviour would give all dockers a bad name. Doesn't really seem worth it now. 

We're in the process of setting up a solidarity campaign for the 13 dockers convicted of the riots. Support is welcome.


----------



## catch (Jan 28, 2006)

It's been pointed out to you already, but here it is again.

The EU parliament was about to pass legislation that directly, materially, affected the dockers. Unlike the G8 this was an actual legislative decision, not a rubber stamp, not a press call. There were clear aims in attacking the parliament, and those aims were achievable.

The people who criticised summit protests were equally critical of MPH/G8 alternatives and all the rest. It's the abstraction of the issues outside of daily life that's the problem, not whether the protests are 'fluffy or spikey'.

You've got the precedents for this sort of action arse backwards. The storming of the Bastille is a pretty fucking obvious one, not summit protests more than 200 years later, and even that was largely symbolic. However it was part of something considerably wider. As was the protest in Strasbourg - considering several ports were shut down by strikes on the day and leading up to it.

And again you're deflecting from the questions I asked you earlier, because you can't answer them honestly can you?


----------



## Emma Herself (Jan 28, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> We haven't touched upon whether the dockers behaviour was anti-social or whether their behaviour would give all dockers a bad name. Doesn't really seem worth it now.



Right, as if it ever was. 

I'm interested to hear about the solidarity campaign for the dockers.


----------



## montevideo (Jan 28, 2006)

Zoë Herself said:
			
		

> Right, as if it ever was.
> 
> I'm interested to hear about the solidarity campaign for the dockers.



You'd be surprised how many people slag off 'anti-social' behaviour on demonstrations. Clarity is always useful in these cicrumstances.

Emailed the etf asking what, if any, support they want for the dockers concerned. I imagine financial doesn't really apply. Beyond awareness raising & writing to those in prison we'll see what we can do, if the solidarity collective are interested in taking it on as a group.

- just been told the etf have issued a press statement condeming the actions of dockers at strasbourg, so have to go another route. Will let people know.


----------



## montevideo (Jan 28, 2006)

catch said:
			
		

> It's been pointed out to you already, but here it is again.
> 
> The EU parliament was about to pass legislation that directly, materially, affected the dockers. Unlike the G8 this was an actual legislative decision, not a rubber stamp, not a press call. There were clear aims in attacking the parliament, and those aims were achievable.
> 
> ...




schoolboy tosh, little english boy.


----------



## catch (Jan 28, 2006)

RASCIST!!!!!11!


----------



## Top Dog (Jan 28, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> we all seem to be pretty much in agreement then. Dockers behaviour at strasbourg was a good thing. Going to foreign countries to symbolically attack seats of power authority & control, property damage & attacking the police as a means of expressing dissent, all good.
> 
> We haven't touched upon whether the dockers behaviour was anti-social or whether their behaviour would give all dockers a bad name. Doesn't really seem worth it now.


Well their predessors have set them a terrible example having already 'given them a bad name' with no end of 'symbolic' and 'anti-social' behaviour in the past. _Workers Dreadnought_ reported that London dockers went on strike on Peace Day in 1919 in solidarity with their French and Italian counterparts to "protest against the shameful war on the workers' republics" of Hungary and Russia. 

Meanwhile thousands of soldiers commandeered lorries which they painted with slogans, joined by dockers and other workers which went to Whitehall to protest at the War office and other 'seats of power authority & control'. A few months later and three weeks before Armistice Day and the unveiling of the cenotaph, (which was originally planned as a temporary memorial) hungry ex-soldiers 'symbolically' rioted in whitehall, 'attacking the police'.


----------



## Emma Herself (Jan 28, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> schoolboy tosh, little english boy.



 Quality.


Little english boy, little Irish girl, so what are you then Monte? An ageless, rootless cosmopolitan, or just a Great Big Grown-Up?


----------



## montevideo (Jan 28, 2006)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> Well their predessors have set them a terrible example having already 'given them a bad name' with no end of 'symbolic' and 'anti-social' behaviour in the past. _Workers Dreadnought_ reported that London dockers went on strike on Peace Day in 1919 in solidarity with their French and Italian counterparts to "protest against the shameful war on the workers' republics" of Hungary and Russia.
> 
> Meanwhile thousands of soldiers commandeered lorries which they painted with slogans, joined by dockers and other workers which went to Whitehall to protest at the War office and other 'seats of power authority & control'. A few months later and three weeks before Armistice Day and the unveiling of the cenotaph, (which was originally planned as a temporary memorial) hungry ex-soldiers 'symbolically' rioted in whitehall, 'attacking the police'.



what great traditions us protestors have.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jan 30, 2006)

How's the TGWU job Monty?


----------



## montevideo (Jan 30, 2006)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> How's the TGWU job Monty?



old news matey. Those of us who didn't get our union organisers job are now part of the solidarity collective - group of misfits, losers & timewasters who are going to hang around pretending we're union organisers with the t & g. 

Conscience got the better of me i'm afraid.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Jan 30, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> old news matey. Those of us who didn't get our union organisers job are now part of the solidarity collective - group of misfits, losers & timewasters who are going to hang around pretending we're union organisers with the t & g.
> 
> Conscience got the better of me i'm afraid.



Never mind , I am sure you can brush up on your interviewing skills.

What do you think of this new mass party of the working class that cockers and nigel are building jointly? Could you get the T and G to pretend to affiliate?


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 30, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> schoolboy tosh, little english boy.




I'm very rarely one to engage in summit protester name calling, but I think the distinction made by Catch is a pretty obvious one. 

The point of the combined dockers action, both in terms of the walkouts and the Strasbourg demo (including the clashes with the police) was to send a message to the EU parliament that this legislation was more trouble than it was worth. That dockers were prepared to fight its implementation with whatever means at their disposal.

It also worked in exactly the manner outlined, as a borderline vote became a resounding rejection. 

That's direct action not symbolic action. 

Not to comment on the rights/wrongs of the two types of action, but it's a fair enough distinction to make.


----------



## montevideo (Jan 30, 2006)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> I'm very rarely one to engage in summit protester name calling, but I think the distinction made by Catch is a pretty obvious one.
> 
> The point of the combined dockers action, both in terms of the walkouts and the Strasbourg demo (including the clashes with the police) was to send a message to the EU parliament that this legislation was more trouble than it was worth. That dockers were prepared to fight its implementation with whatever means at their disposal.
> 
> ...




but what he said was factually wrong. The demonstration was called by the etf to show support to those meps in strasbourg who would be voting against the proposal. Let us not forget the eu had already voted against the first proposal, let us also not forget that this vote would be held 2 days after the demonstration.

Just as smashing parliament windows & burning cars wouldn't stop the vote in strasbourg so rattling fences & smashing windows wouldn't stop the g8, just as burning cars in parisain suburbs is sending a message. 

I think sending a message is an excellent way of showing dissent against institutions of power.

I also think the phrase 'whatever means at their disposal' is a good one.


----------



## Sorry. (Jan 30, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> but what he said was factually wrong. The demonstration was called by the etf to show support to those meps in strasbourg who would be voting against the proposal. Let us not forget the eu had already voted against the first proposal, let us also not forget that this vote would be held 2 days after the demonstration.
> 
> Just as smashing parliament windows & burning cars wouldn't stop the vote in strasbourg so rattling fences & smashing windows wouldn't stop the g8, just as burning cars in parisain suburbs is sending a message.
> 
> ...



The intention wasn't to stop the vote, it was to change the outcome. 

The message sent in this instance was about the repercussions if the MEPs tried to implement PP2. Clear message delivered in an unambiguous fashion making immediate demands.  

What message were the G8 protesters sending?


----------



## montevideo (Jan 30, 2006)

Sorry. said:
			
		

> The intention wasn't to stop the vote, it was to change the outcome.
> 
> The message sent in this instance was about the repercussions if the MEPs tried to implement PP2. Clear message delivered in an unambiguous fashion making immediate demands.
> 
> What message were the G8 protesters sending?



precisely.  But then we must ask why is burning cars in the centre of strasbourg going to help change that outcome? (Don't you think the european wide stoppages would've been enough of a message sent to convince those mep's of their serious intention). Wouldn't, as the etf themselves have intimated in their press release comdemning the dockers actions, the smashing of windows & attacking police jeopardise that support? If not why not? Can we safely say then that the tactic of attacking 'violently' seats of power is a useful one if it delivers a clear message in an uambiguous fashion? I'd like to think we can.

I actually agree with your description of direct action - people prepared to fight by whatever means at their disposal againt the implementation of conditons that affect them.




> We have no desire to lobby those in power; we do not want a seat at their table. We stand in opposition to their very existence. In a world where eight men can affect the lives of millions - causing untold destruction and suffering - the freedom, autonomy and self-organisation we are struggling for can never exist. The G8 was created to allow capitalism to show a unified face against great opposition, to gloss over the cracks caused by popular resistance. It is the system behind this mask that we aim to destroy - capitalism.
> 
> During the G8 summit, we can collectively focus our struggles, allowing us to share our power of resistance and realise aspects of the new world we hold in our hearts. Around the planet these struggles take many forms - from opposing international institutions, corporations, the nation state, or government from the highest level to oppression in our schools, workplaces and in our communities. They come from diverse places and experiences, but they are unified in resistance.


http://www.wombles.org.uk/news/article_2005_06_30_3838.php


----------



## Top Dog (Jan 30, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> Wouldn't, as the etf themselves have intimated in their press release comdemning the dockers actions, the smashing of windows & attacking police jeopardise that support? If not why not? Can we safely say then that the tactic of attacking 'violently' seats of power is a useful one if it delivers a clear message in an uambiguous fashion? I'd like to think we can.


form and content monty, as has already been pointed out to you. You're dazzled by one so much so that you cannot see the other. Lets take a couple of well known examples...

The Poll Tax wasnt immediately abolished by the massive campaign of non-payment (tho it did indicate the scale and problem of revenue collection). It _was_ however, pretty quickly withdrawn following the events of 31st March 1990. This is about as good an example as you can get of "attacking 'violently' seats of power" to "deliver a clear message". It worked.

The unabomber also apparently employed a "tactic of attacking 'violently' seats of power" _His_ clear message was even printed verbatim by the _New York Times_.

So did both of these campaigns possess the same qualities in your view?


----------



## The Black Hand (Jan 30, 2006)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> form and content monty, as has already been pointed out to you. You're dazzled by one so much so that you cannot see the other. Lets take a couple of well known examples...
> 
> The Poll Tax wasnt immediately abolished by the massive campaign of non-payment (tho it did indicate the scale and problem of revenue collection). It _was_ however, pretty quickly withdrawn following the events of 31st March 1990. This is about as good an example as you can get of "attacking 'violently' seats of power" to "deliver a clear message". It worked.
> 
> ...



Don't you think that's a rather silly question Top Dog? I would think you could answer that one yourself using the terms of Montys argument.


----------



## Top Dog (Jan 30, 2006)

Attica said:
			
		

> Don't you think that's a rather silly question Top Dog? I would think you could answer that one yourself using the terms of Montys argument.


Silly? No. 

Exaggerated (to tease out the essence of the argument)... Yes.


I was wondering when you were going to show up on one of monty's threads. Taken your time


----------



## The Black Hand (Jan 30, 2006)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> Silly? No.
> 
> Exaggerated (to tease out the essence of the argument)... Yes.
> 
> ...



I don't come here often at the minute - I have more time/opportunity/enthusiasm for it at varying levels...


----------



## The Black Hand (Jan 30, 2006)

jimmer said:
			
		

> I wouldn't have a problem with Class War stuff going in the library, I think it's important for people to see what Class War was/are about and what they thought/think.



I think the best thing you could do would be to put "Class War: A Decade of Disorder" online (edited by Ian Bone, Alan Pullen and TIm Scargill, printed by Verso in 1991. That book covers _Class Wars best participation/interventions_, carries most of *Class Wars' theoretical innovations*, and is a good _class struggle history of the 1980s and the Poll tax._


----------



## blamblam (Jan 30, 2006)

Attica said:
			
		

> I think the best thing you could do would be to put "Class War: A Decade of Disorder" online (edited by Ian Bone, Alan Pullen and TIm Scargill, printed by Verso in 1991. That book covers _Class Wars best participation/interventions_, carries most of *Class Wars' theoretical innovations*, and is a good _class struggle history of the 1980s and the Poll tax._


Think something's missing? Just register and post it.


----------



## The Black Hand (Jan 30, 2006)

jimmer said:
			
		

> Attica - we're aware of the gaps, they're something we're working on, as I've said above the site is constantly expanding. I'm not trying to say the site is a totally comprehensive resource for anyone interested in class struggle, but it's a start and probably the closest to a comprehensive resource than anything else I've seen.



Hi again Darlings - a few suggestions;

Put Dave DOuglass pamphlets "Come and Wet this truncheon" (police and the miners strike), and "Tell us lies about the miners" (media and the miners).

Also Daves' speech at the start of the strike to a mass emergency branch meeting is one of the best class war participations ever - pages 92 to 100 in "The Enemy Within: Pit villages and the Miners' Strike of 1984-85, Edited by R. Samuel, B. Bloomfield and G. Boanas, printed by Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986.

You could also try bits of "All power to the imagination" by Dave and Published by Class War, and some of "State of Siege - Miners strike 1984, Politics and Policing in the coalfields", eds J. Coulter, S. Miller and M. Walker,  published by Canary Press, 1984. Further detail can be found in "Striking Back", Welsh Council for Civil and Political liberties, 1985 -isbn --947740-02-3, published by Welsh campaign for civil and political liberties and the South Wales area NUM.

There are more books on miners but this will do you for a start on the strike (Daves book on the Doncaster miners during the strike, and 'A Year of Our lives' is good too) - I wrote 5000 words-ish on the policing of the miners strike as well, involving other sources, but i have not got a file on computer (it was written in the days before I could use a computer).


----------



## montevideo (Jan 31, 2006)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> form and content monty, as has already been pointed out to you. You're dazzled by one so much so that you cannot see the other. Lets take a couple of well known examples...
> 
> The Poll Tax wasnt immediately abolished by the massive campaign of non-payment (tho it did indicate the scale and problem of revenue collection). It _was_ however, pretty quickly withdrawn following the events of 31st March 1990. This is about as good an example as you can get of "attacking 'violently' seats of power" to "deliver a clear message". It worked.
> 
> ...



Well let's start by recognising all riots are symbolic gestures, how can they  be anything else. Let's also recognise there are 2 forms of riot, political (be they at summits, during mayday, those provoked on demonstrations etc) & social ones (you recognise this yourself given you copied verbatim from an article defending the riots on mayday 2000 a few posts earlier. You wrote that article?)

Now we can argue the affects these riots have, but how do we judge whether certain activities on the day are acceptable or not. This was reflected in the discussion about the paris riots. (We could argue whether the paris riots were political or social & we could argue who gets to decide that - amateur anthropologists, part time interweb sociologists, anarcho-hobbyists with a book full of good intentions & the correct line in their own sense of purpose?)

The troubling aspect about the paris riots discussion was the assertion that it was a not a political riot _because_ people were burning [workers] cars (& committing other acts of anti-social behaviour) reinforcing the idea of acceptable modes of behaviour & how they reflect against wider society. Such concerns & criticisms don't seem to have surfaced here.

What we are still left with though is the strasbourg riot having all the ingredients of a summit protest. Is this coincidental? More impoprtantly must we dig around, often deperately, for the one thing that seperates it from a summit protest riot in order to differentiate them, thus making one acceptable, the other not?

The unabomber was an individual who targeted individuals in a campaign of 'terror'. Where he comes into all of this i don't know beyond a red herring. (Or is this what you people call a straw man?)


----------



## Random (Jan 31, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> What we are still left with though is the strasbourg riot having all the ingredients of a summit protest. Is this coincidental? More impoprtantly must we dig around, often deperately, for the one thing that seperates it from a summit protest riot in order to differentiate them, thus making one acceptable, the other not?



It clearly doesn't have 'all the ingredients of a summit protest'.  So we don't need to dig, and so the differences are staring us in the face.  I could, as easily say, that you are 'digging' for similarities.

Anarchists, socialists, fascists, etc all call demonstrations, some of which turn into confrontations.  Does that mean that all the ingredients are the same?


----------



## montevideo (Jan 31, 2006)

Random said:
			
		

> It clearly doesn't have 'all the ingredients of a summit protest'.  So we don't need to dig, and so the differences are staring us in the face.  I could, as easily say, that you are 'digging' for similarities.
> 
> Anarchists, socialists, fascists, etc all call demonstrations, some of which turn into confrontations.  Does that mean that all the ingredients are the same?



clearly it does.


----------



## Random (Jan 31, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> clearly it does.



Clearly it doesn't


----------



## In Bloom (Jan 31, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> What we are still left with though is the strasbourg riot having all the ingredients of a summit protest.


The Strassbourg riots might have many things in common with a summit protest, but one thing that summit protests lack that the Strassbourg riots did have is that the Strassbourg riots were part of an existing struggle with concrete demands, as opposed to being something entirely artificial.  Summit protests are created by people looking for something to protest about, grief seekers, to borrow from another poster here


----------



## montevideo (Jan 31, 2006)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> The Strassbourg riots might have many things in common with a summit protest, but one thing that summit protests lack that the Strassbourg riots did have is that the Strassbourg riots were part of an existing struggle with concrete demands, as opposed to being something entirely artificial.  Summit protests are created by people looking for something to protest about, grief seekers, to borrow from another poster here



just so we're clear i meant summit protest riot (as made clear from the sentences that followed). Of course the riot in strasbourg started off as a regular a to b march, the organisers weren't expecting a riot & roundly condemned those who did riot. 

Summit protests, in europe anyhow (when it comes to the english doin' summat we all know where we stand), are always made up of trade unions, workers & the like. If cobas heard you describe them as grief seekers (nice phrase) they'd probably have something to say about it.


----------



## catch (Jan 31, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> precisely.


well not really


> We have no desire to lobby those in power; we do not want a seat at their table. We stand in opposition to their very existence. In a world where eight men can affect the lives of millions - causing untold destruction and suffering - the freedom, autonomy and self-organisation we are struggling for can never exist. The G8 was created to allow capitalism to show a unified face against great opposition, to gloss over the cracks caused by popular resistance. It is the system behind this mask that we aim to destroy - capitalism.
> 
> During the G8 summit, we can collectively focus our struggles, allowing us to share our power of resistance and realise aspects of the new world we hold in our hearts. Around the planet these struggles take many forms - from opposing international institutions, corporations, the nation state, or government from the highest level to oppression in our schools, workplaces and in our communities. They come from diverse places and experiences, but they are unified in resistance.]


clear message and immediate demands not present unfortunately.


----------



## montevideo (Feb 1, 2006)

catch said:
			
		

> well not really
> 
> clear message and immediate demands not present unfortunately.



Workers rioting to ask mep's to vote their way - you mini-me marxists are some mixed up kids.


----------



## soulman (Feb 2, 2006)

catch said:
			
		

> well not really
> 
> clear message and immediate demands not present unfortunately.



What makes you think a riot or any other form of direct, unmediated resistance has to have a message or demands that are clear to our rulers?


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 3, 2006)

soulman said:
			
		

> What makes you think a riot or any other form of direct, unmediated resistance has to have a message or demands that are clear to our rulers?


Well it is kind of useful if you want to achieve something.


----------



## Random (Feb 3, 2006)

<rises to the bait>




			
				soulman said:
			
		

> What makes you think a riot or any other form of direct, unmediated resistance has to have a message or demands that are clear to our rulers?



Directly resisting what?  If you riot and stop a place getting evicted, that's direct resistance.  If you riot and stop a law, etc, that's direct resistance.  If you riot against _capitalism_, then what are you directly resisting?

[if you're a real situ, then you've got to answer 'boredom' at this point, btw  ]


----------



## montevideo (Feb 4, 2006)

Random said:
			
		

> <rises to the bait>
> 
> 
> 
> ...




riots are physically contested territorial space. What riots symbolically constitute, political ones at least, are collective expressions of the de-legitimacy of those who retain power, & how they seek to wield that power. What riots seek to create then is a moment of rupture that destroys the facade of that legitimacy. Which is why i suspect anarchists & working class people know the value of a good riot, whereas others simply bemoan its afterthought.


----------



## dennisr (Feb 4, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> riots are physically contested territorial space ... working class people know the value ...



are you doing some sort of academic thesis on this?

from my limited experience the vast majority of working class people concously avoid the sort of idiot who would come out with such absolute tosh. I don't think the dockers would thank you for your 'support'

working class people - or whoever - riot when all other avenues of protest are cut off - out of desperation and anger. They are also the ones who have to clean up the mess afterwards and tend to be the ones who have thier 'contested territorial spaces' destroyed. Riot fantasists like you tend to come along afterwards and act the arse in the wake of real events. I don't have a morale for or against position on 'rioting' as a method of improving ones lot. its perfectly understandable in some situations - but i am very, very wary of (usually very comfortable ...) folk who would come out with such purile crap ...


----------



## montevideo (Feb 4, 2006)

dennisr said:
			
		

> are you doing some sort of academic thesis on this?
> 
> from my limited experience the vast majority of working class people concously avoid the sort of idiot who would come out with such absolute tosh. I don't think the dockers would thank you for your 'support'
> 
> working class people - or whoever - riot when all other avenues of protest are cut off - out of desperation and anger. They are also the ones who have to clean up the mess afterwards and tend to be the ones who have thier 'contested territorial spaces' destroyed. Riot fantasists like you tend to come along afterwards and act the arse in the wake of real events. I don't have a morale for or against position on 'rioting' as a method of improving ones lot. its perfectly understandable in some situations - but i am very, very wary of (usually very comfortable ...) folk who would come out with such purile crap ...



i agree riots are acts of desperation, neither are they solutions, but then i'm not saying they are. 

Doing an academic thesis? With these hands?


----------



## Random (Feb 4, 2006)

montevideo said:
			
		

> i agree riots are acts of desperation, neither are they solutions, but then i'm not saying they are.



Oh come on!  If you're going with the 'riot as carnival' thing at least do it with conviction! 

And you had a blatand opportunity to slip the knife between dennisr's ribs over APTU and Traf Sq.

Now get back in there -- and KILL KILL KILL!


----------



## montevideo (Feb 4, 2006)

Random said:
			
		

> Oh come on!  If you're going with the 'riot as carnival' thing at least do it with conviction!
> 
> And you had a blatand opportunity to slip the knife between dennisr's ribs over APTU and Traf Sq.
> 
> Now get back in there -- and KILL KILL KILL!



i've no idea what any of that means. Am i clint easterwood, or the other one?


----------



## sovietpop (Feb 4, 2006)

with those hands? the other one, obviously.


----------



## soulman (Feb 5, 2006)

Random said:
			
		

> <rises to the bait>
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm too poor to be a real situ, and the answer's 'alienation' 

Serious point tho, as people find more and more avenues of 'democratic' protest cut off - not just the redundant parliamentary avenue, but also extra parliamentary avenues - and the increasing alienation in everyday life, not just in the workplace becomes more acute the more the likelihood of these explosions of unmediated rage. It's all very well for professionals - politicians, community leaders, the police and so on to try to attach demands to rioters actions but what do the rioters themselves want? Nothing, everything, an end to feeling shit about an everyday life that is shit. If I was a situ I could probably insert a nice snappy slogan here. Something like "DOWN WITH A WORLD WHERE THE GUARANTEE THAT WE WON'T DIE OF STARVATION HAS BEEN PURCHASED WITH THE GUARANTEE THAT WE WILL DIE OF BOREDOM"


----------



## Random (Feb 5, 2006)

Euro-situs say 'alienation' because they're all stuffed full of Marx.  Anglo-Situs say 'boredom' because we're from a philistine, utilitarian culture 

I agree with you about demanding everything and nothing, btw.  I'm too situationaist to be a situationaist.


----------

