# The most working-class anarchist group is...



## ernestolynch (Feb 20, 2005)

Following on from the 'Can Tarquins be Anarchists?' thread, the question begs - which of the various anarchist groups in England/Yookay have the most working-class people amongst their members, numerically or proportionally?

I'd be inclined to suggest, based upon minutes of research, this ranking:


Class War
Solidarity Federation
Anarchist Federation
The Wombles
Reclaim the Streets

I'm sure there are other groups, but I've forgotten them. WARNING: Poll to follow!


----------



## montevideo (Feb 20, 2005)

hmmm...


----------



## neilh (Feb 20, 2005)

i've not met many from any of those groups, but have met quite a few working class folk who were into reclaim the streets type things/free parties/raves, or even crass type punk stuff going back further(not that  i was around then); whether they'd have considered themselves a being part of the group Reclaim the Streets i dont know though


----------



## oisleep (Feb 20, 2005)

polls taking a while though

must have got distracted and went out to tend to his bush


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 20, 2005)

Or inflate DDR-made 'Mrs. Ern'.


----------



## rednblack (Feb 20, 2005)

i would guess - based on london

1.classwar
2.solfed
3.afed
4.wombles
5.-RTS doesnt exist anymore but i've met working and middle class people who were involved

edit-so er ern is probably right


----------



## pilchardman (Feb 20, 2005)

How could you ignore the Total Liberty Group, Ern.  They're even Oop North.

  <sniggers>


----------



## mk12 (Feb 20, 2005)

People's Front of Judea...  

Are Sol-Fed the only syndicalist group in the UK?


----------



## pilchardman (Feb 20, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> WARNING: Poll to follow!


When?

Where?

About what?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 20, 2005)

There's an IWW group as well. Also part of Organise! in Northern Ireland is syndicalist.


----------



## ernestolynch (Feb 20, 2005)

IWW is a union which many people join, not solely an 'Anarchist group' - so discounting Reclaim the Streets who we know no don't exist anymore, are there only 4 for the poll then?


----------



## ernestolynch (Feb 20, 2005)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> There's an IWW group as well. Also part of Organise! in Northern Ireland is syndicalist.



I think you mean the north of Ireland and that would be in 'World Politics'.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 20, 2005)

If they're syndicalists it wouldn't matter...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 20, 2005)

He asked about "the UK", which currently includes Northern Ireland. Not something I'm in favour of, but a fact nonetheless. And the IWW is a syndicalist organisation. The whole point of syndicalism is that it organises workers in a union.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 20, 2005)

<anticipates subject matter of next 500 postings>


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 20, 2005)

Syndicalism?


----------



## ernestolynch (Feb 20, 2005)

Anyway I couldn't find any more Anarchist Groups so here's the poll - or should I include regional branches?


----------



## blamblam (Feb 20, 2005)

I don't know any in any of them who don't have to sell their labour power (or sign on) to get by. So I'd say they're probably all around even on the 100% mark. Except RTS which doesn't really exist any more, though there was one owner of means of production in it I believe.

The original question is about as useful as asking how many goths are townies being in them (as they're purely cultural definitions, and thus largely irellevant to class struggle).


IMVHO


----------



## ernestolynch (Feb 20, 2005)

icepick said:
			
		

> I don't know any in any of them who don't have to sell their labour power (or sign on) to get by.



So they may even have dibble members?


----------



## Belushi (Feb 20, 2005)

Which group has the least number of dreadlock/juggling/scholarship-to-Harrow members?


----------



## ernestolynch (Feb 20, 2005)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Which group has the least number of dreadlock/juggling/scholarship-to-Harrow members?




That's what I want - ratios!

Is the Anarchist Youth Network Jihad-thing still going? Kea? Phototropic? Nosos?


----------



## blamblam (Feb 20, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> > Which group has the least number of dreadlock/juggling/scholarship-to-Harrow members?
> 
> 
> That's what I want - ratios!


Right if you want ratios

dreads ratios (NB for the purpose of these figures, Wombles has no membership, it has an activist core + random people who hang around their events, so I'll include the randoms. I'll also add Earth First! cos though it's not anarchist it is the national group RTS was part of), starting with the most to least

1 EF! ~ 100%
2 The Wombles ~ 10%
3 Class War ~ 5%
4= (with none in either AFAIK) Solidarity Federation + Anarchist Federation

Jugglers:

1 EF! ~ 100%
2 The Wombles ~ 50%
3= (with none in any AFAIK) Solidarity Federation + Anarchist Federation + Class War (well if you don't count Black Hand/Gangster )

Public schoolies

1 EF! ~30%
2 The Wombles ~15%
3 Anarchist Federation ~3% (kropotkin + 888 )
4= (with none in any AFAIK) Solidarity Federation + Class War


----------



## blamblam (Feb 20, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> That's what I want - ratios!
> 
> Is the Anarchist Youth Network Jihad-thing still going? Kea? Phototropic? Nosos?


Nah it's not, but the ratios'd probably be, respectively:

10%
99% (everyone except gawkroger)
100% (all Assisted Places, natch )


----------



## rednblack (Feb 20, 2005)

er - there's one ex public schooly in classwar


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 20, 2005)

Anyone come across a working class anarchist group in Morecambe ?


----------



## joshjosh (Feb 20, 2005)

and there's an AF member in Bradford with dreadlocks (this is a good game) i also heard (so it might not be true although it was from someone that knew him) that he went to public school


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 20, 2005)

icepick said:
			
		

> Nah it's not, but the ratios'd probably be, respectively:
> 
> 10%
> 99% (everyone except gawkroger)
> 100% (all Assisted Places, natch )



surely those are percentages, not ratios?


----------



## joshjosh (Feb 20, 2005)

a percentage is a kind of ratio isn't it?

(99% is 99:100)

god that was a pedantic post


----------



## pilchardman (Feb 20, 2005)

joshjosh said:
			
		

> a percentage is a kind of ratio isn't it?
> 
> (99% is 99:100)
> 
> god that was a pedantic post


That, in a really boring way, is sort of true.

 

it is a good game, though.

I'm not in any of those groups, although I considered joining SolFed so I could get Direct Action (their zine).  And I went to a state comp.  And I can't juggle.  And I have no dreadlocks.

I _do_, however, have a goatee beard.  I'd like to know beard ratios (or percentages).  Icer, any figures?

I want to hear about the big beared Italian kropotkin knows, too.


----------



## oisleep (Feb 20, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Anyone come across a working class anarchist group in Morecambe ?



<sniggers>


----------



## 888 (Feb 20, 2005)

AF did have an Italian member with dreadlocks (but no beard, sorry) in London. Don't know if he's still around.

Green Anarchist must win on the beard stakes, though.


----------



## General Ludd (Feb 20, 2005)

AF has a dreaded member in Bradford I think. Don't know any dreaded London AF members though. 

And pilchardman the Italian with the enormous beard was amazing, one of the coolest people I've ever met.


----------



## easy g (Feb 20, 2005)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> AF has a *dreaded* member in Bradford I think. Don't know any *dreaded* London AF members though.



are they really that bad?


----------



## Thora_v1 (Feb 20, 2005)

easy g said:
			
		

> are they really that bad?


I dread AF.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 20, 2005)

888 said:
			
		

> Green Anarchist must win on the beard stakes, though.


Didn't he nearly go down in some frame-up a few years ago? This was just when I was leaving Oxford (where he was a familiar figure) so I missed the detail.


----------



## Ryazan (Feb 21, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Anyone come across a working class anarchist group in Morecambe ?



Haven't noticed a middle cass group in Morecambe either.  If they are there, then it is probably because they don't even show up on the radar of working class people's conciousness.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 21, 2005)

Justin said:
			
		

> Didn't he nearly go down in some frame-up a few years ago? This was just when I was leaving Oxford (where he was a familiar figure) so I missed the detail.


 That was the Gandalf trial:
http://website.lineone.net/~grandlaf/Gandalf.htm

The judge who conspired with the OB was sent down for child porn offences last year as well....


----------



## catch (Feb 21, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> I dread AF.



Why, Thora, why?


----------



## rednblack (Feb 21, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> Why, Thora, why?



she means - she is their hairdresser


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 21, 2005)

Business is not so good then.


----------



## gawkrodger (Feb 21, 2005)

i think you'll find the AF is now dreadlock free


----------



## gawkrodger (Feb 21, 2005)

icepick said:
			
		

> Nah it's not, but the ratios'd probably be, respectively:
> 
> 10%
> 99% (everyone except gawkroger)
> 100% (all Assisted Places, natch )




???


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 21, 2005)

gawkrodger said:
			
		

> i think you'll find the AF is now dreadlock free


Indeed, the Bradford bod is now CW anyway isn't he?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 21, 2005)

gawkrodger said:
			
		

> ???


 i.e you didn't go to public school.


----------



## rednblack (Feb 21, 2005)

i thought the bradford lot all had dual membership? (CW/AF)


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 21, 2005)

Leeds AF is the most working class anarchist group  

I got a certificate from my gran to prove it


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 21, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> i thought the bradford lot all had dual membership? (CW/AF)


 I know some did..not sure what the situation is now tbh.


----------



## montevideo (Feb 21, 2005)

no jugglers involved in the wombles. No one with with dreadlocks involved with the wombles. Meetings vary between 6 & 30. Class composition 50-50, gender composition 60 - 40 male - female. 

Antifa, london (surely the most working class of working class groups) has one person with dreads in their number. Ginger ones at that.


----------



## gawkrodger (Feb 21, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Indeed, the Bradford bod is now CW anyway isn't he?



nope, he's just shaved his head


----------



## catch (Feb 21, 2005)

> Class composition 50-50



50:50 of which classes Monte? And how do you define them?


----------



## rednblack (Feb 21, 2005)

allright then

HSG - i would say 
50/50 male/female
60/40 working class/middle class
1 public schoolie (afaik)
1 with dreads
1 juggler


----------



## rednblack (Feb 21, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> 50:50 of which classes Monte? And how do you define them?



ruling class/middle class


----------



## montevideo (Feb 21, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> 50:50 of which classes Monte? And how do you define them?



working/middle. 

Those who sell their labour power & don't own the means of production/those who sell their labour power & don't own the means of production but are a bit posher.


----------



## Thora_v1 (Feb 21, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> Why, Thora, why?


If there are no dreadlocked jugglers then its not my revolution.  And I like clowns and samba bands too.


----------



## blamblam (Feb 21, 2005)

gawkrodger said:
			
		

> > Nah it's not, but the ratios'd probably be, respectively:
> >
> > Dreads: 10%
> > Jugglers: 99% (everyone except gawkroger)
> ...


Quote edited to clarify


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 21, 2005)

icepick you shit- I am not an ex-public schoolie.

I went to a shit private school that my mum worked at- cost £3K a year. I ain't proud of it, but it wasn't public. Was full of twats though, not the least of which was me.

Can't choose you background though, can ye?

and you actually did go to public school- assisted place or not. Don't try and smear me you guilty capo!


----------



## catch (Feb 21, 2005)

> a bit posher



Thanks for that Monte, although frankly I was hoping for something a little more in depth.

Thora, my little brother can juggle and has some 'circus skills' including unicycling and tumbling, although no dreadlocks, he does not however attach the prefix "revolutionary" or "insurrectionary" to those skills, nor does he use them as a qualification to lead workshops on the art of protest.

I've helped out with samba workshops at the school I teach at, and used to play in a band with Senegalese master drummer Ibrahima Camara, I haven't described this activity as essential to revolution at any point, however. Similarly, when stoned at college, me and a mate spent 12 hours (8pm to 10am) putting another mate's (ginger) hair into dreadlocks - dreadlocks so good that people would slow down cars in downtown Boston to shout "Sideshow Bob!" at him for days afterwards, until he had to shave them off after not washing them for three weeks. Again, no revolutionary potential in that activity.

Hold on, Monte again:


> Those who sell their labour power & don't own the means of production/those who sell their labour power & don't own the means of production



I was under the impression that quite a large number of people in the WOMBLES don't have jobs - so how do they fit into your two identical categories?


----------



## blamblam (Feb 21, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> icepick you shit- I am not an ex-public schoolie.
> 
> I went to a shit private school that my mum worked at- cost £3K a year. I ain't proud of it, but it wasn't public. Was full of twats though, not the least of which was me.


What's the difference between public n private? I thought they were basically synonyms (hmmm although i was told mine was private not public. I dunno)


> Can't choose you background though, can ye?


Well I know so who gives a shit? No one in real life, only comedy stalinists and miscellaneous "anarchist" muppets who also went to private school and feel guilty about it


----------



## blamblam (Feb 21, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> I was under the impression that quite a large number of people in the WOMBLES don't have jobs - so how do they fit into your two identical categories?


I think the second category appeared to be ironic - pointing out the lack of important difference between working and middle class. Which is ironic still considering attempts or monte to smear other anarchists by calling them middle class.

But come on catch, people on the dole still have the only "property" they have to make money off is their labour power. Unemplyed workers are still workers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> er - there's one ex public schooly in classwar


birch 'im!


----------



## Thora_v1 (Feb 21, 2005)

Ok catch, I wasn't _actually_ suggesting juggling was revolutionary   




			
				catch said:
			
		

> I was under the impression that quite a large number of people in the WOMBLES don't have jobs - so how do they fit into your two identical categories?


Do we really have to get into another dull discussion about the Wombles class composition?


----------



## blamblam (Feb 21, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> Ok catch, I wasn't _actually_ suggesting juggling was revolutionary


Hee-hee!


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2005)

Thora said:
			
		

> Do we really have to get into another dull discussion about the Wombles class composition?


not if you don't want to, dear.


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 21, 2005)

my middle-class guilt will be my undoing...


----------



## blamblam (Feb 21, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> my middle-class guilt will be my undoing...


*shakes head*



*takes kropotkin's feta away*


----------



## JoeBlack (Feb 21, 2005)

I'm not sure if this thread is very shir or very clever but its given me a chance to ask something I've been wondering as I'm sure other people outside of Britain have




			
				kropotkin said:
			
		

> I went to a shit private school that my mum worked at- cost £3K a year. I ain't proud of it, but it wasn't public.



What exactly is a 'public' school.  It's obviously not what the name implies but I didn't know there were also a category of  'private' schools.  I presumed public meant private but obviously its more complex than that.


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 21, 2005)

ha!

No-one really knows mate.

The division between public and private is basically historical, and seems to be to do with the schools historically used by the aristocracy. The new kids on the block were "private" in the same way that "red-brick" ui's referred to newer unis as Polytechnics or "ex-polys".


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 21, 2005)

JoeBlack said:
			
		

> What exactly is a 'public' school.  It's obviously not what the name implies but I didn't know there were also a category of  'private' schools.  I presumed public meant private but obviously its more complex than that.



Originally Public Schools were just that schools for the general public set up to educate them - but they were gradually stolen from us by various means - see here 

"Let us begin with the story of what the historian Brian Simon once described as "probably the biggest hijack of public resources in history". This was plotted 131 years ago when the government's schools inquiry commission declared that there was no reason to encourage "indiscriminate gratuituous instruction", an idea that they compared in its mischief to the indiscriminate donation of alms to beggars. They proposed an ingenious reform, which was rapidly adopted by parliament. 

They would seize the schools that then provided a free education for the poor in many towns and (ignoring the statutes that had established them) they would abolish them, and then (defying the lawful wishes of their benefactors), they would take over the endowments that had been left over the years to fund them and use the money to set up schools not for the poor but " for the extension of middle-class education". This was a bold idea, for which the commissioners received much credit, but, in truth, it was not an original one."

Private ones were just ones that were set up privately from the get go.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 21, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Anyone come across a working class anarchist group in Morecambe ?


 Aren’t there quite a few anarchists (of the hippyish lets be really radical and not wash and grow are own vegetables variety) in Lancaster? Not particularly working class though I would imagine.


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 21, 2005)

Cheers, butchers, I didn't know that...


----------



## blamblam (Feb 21, 2005)

Interesting stuff butchers!




			
				emanymton said:
			
		

> Aren’t there quite a few anarchists (of the hippyish lets be really radical and not wash and grow are own vegetables variety) in Lancaster? Not particularly working class though I would imagine.


I think there are SolFed people (anarchosyndicalists) in lancaster. They're a very sensible, down-to-earth bunch


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 21, 2005)

ema:
You are thinking of the Cunningham Ammendment I think. They are nice people, and make lovely looking comic/prop things, but are firmly on the liberal wing of anarchism- a wing that is now dying out. Well, as it's a wing maybe it is shrivelling


----------



## emanymton (Feb 21, 2005)

icepick said:
			
		

> Interesting stuff butchers!
> 
> 
> I think there are SolFed people (anarchosyndicalists) in lancaster. They're a very sensible, down-to-earth bunch


Must be a different group I think. Apparently one of them (not solfed one of the other lot) once stood up in a meeting and claimed that growing you own vegetables is the most subversive thing you can do.


----------



## emanymton (Feb 21, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> ema:
> You are thinking of the Cunningham Ammendment I think. They are nice people, and make lovely looking comic/prop things, but are firmly on the liberal wing of anarchism- a wing that is now dying out. Well, as it's a wing maybe it is shrivelling


 Yea that sounds like them, didn’t they cycle all the way to Genoa or was that someone else?


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 21, 2005)

emanymton said:
			
		

> Aren’t there quite a few anarchists (of the hippyish lets be really radical and not wash and grow are own vegetables variety) in Lancaster? Not particularly working class though I would imagine.




Years ago I went to a One-Tree-Island ( Manchester sound sytem ) do in Morecambe and it was full of crusties. Most of them were from Hulme though.

The England First party stood in Morecambe last year or the year before I think but perhaps they weren't after the votes of unwashed veg growers.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 21, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> Haven't noticed a middle cass group in Morecambe either.  If they are there, then it is probably because they don't even show up on the radar of working class people's conciousness.





Actually I agree with this - and it applies everywhere, not just in Morecambe.  

I'm not just sniping at anarchists either.  The fact is that for all but a negligible number of working class people -and middle class people for that matter-anarchism is unheard of.  

The only group that the odd one or two working class people have ever heard of is, maybe, Class War and that's mostly for juvenile graffiti making a mess of the occasional wall somewhere. They probably don't associate them with anything called anarchism either. 

This fact has a bearing on the subjects of several other threads on this forum, not least the one about Nick Griffin standing in Keighley.  There are anarchists who claim that they do all kinds of things to make a difference but they remain completely invisible to the population at large-and seem content to remain so.  No working class person will ever know about what they do because they don't publicise it.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 21, 2005)

And the IWCA is known to...how many working class people ( outside one or two localities)?


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 21, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> This fact has a bearing on the subjects of several other threads on this forum, not least the one about Nick Griffin standing in Keighley.  There are anarchists who claim that they do all kinds of things to make a difference but they remain completely invisible to the population at large-and seem content to remain so.  No working class person will ever know about what they do because they don't publicise it.



You are pathetic and you do what excatly to justify your venting of shite. That goes not only for anarchism but socailism. Most working class people laugh at socialist groups and think they are worthless.

I have spent years publicisng events and doing community based projects and i dont shout at everyone that im an anarchist because that is childish and pathetic. Its insulting that you have such limited intellect that you make such broad worthless statements.


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 21, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> And the IWCA is known to...how many working class people ( outside one or two localities)?



dont even bother mate LLETSA gives any organisation a bad name this wanker puts me off the IWCA but i do know decent ones so i wont stoop to his level and make broad assumptions based on arse flakes.

Using ignore is always a possibility.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 21, 2005)

*Anarchists for Mathematical Rigour Mortis*




			
				joshjosh said:
			
		

> a percentage is a kind of ratio isn't it?
> 
> (99% is 99:100)
> 
> god that was a pedantic post



To your pedantic post let me add my own:

No, as a ratio its 99:1

[I'll get me coat of many colours..]


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 21, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> And the IWCA is known to...how many working class people ( outside one or two localities)?





Irrelevant to the point I was making.

The fact is that the IWCA, where it is functioning, doesn't hide the organisation from the rest of the working class. Presumably this would apply nationwide were they ever to get that far.


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 21, 2005)

And anarchists do


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 21, 2005)

And anarchists do


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 21, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> You are pathetic and you do what excatly to justify your venting of shite. That goes not only for anarchism but socailism. Most working class people laugh at socialist groups and think they are worthless.
> 
> I have spent years publicisng events and doing community based projects and i dont shout at everyone that im an anarchist because that is childish and pathetic. Its insulting that you have the such limited intellect that you make such broad worthless statements.





You are even more defensive than the Leninists on here. 

Like Charlie Mowbray's, your point is irrelevant to the one I was making.  

If you don't tell people that you are an anarchist, how do you expect to win them to your ideas?  That's a perfectly valid question, isn't it? I made it clear that I wasn't sniping at anybody when I made it.  I thought that one of the purposes of a board like this was to question those who claim to have the answers. 

The point about Keighley-or anywhere else where the BNP stands- is that there is a danger that the people who are considering voting for the BNP will conclude that there is no alternative apart from the mainstream parties when the opposition remains either invisible or largely counter-productive like UAF etc.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 21, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> dont even bother mate LLETSA gives any organisation a bad name this wanker puts me off the IWCA but i do know decent ones so i wont stoop to his level and make broad assumptions based on arse flakes.
> 
> Using ignore is always a possibility.





Go on punk, make my day.


(Although it will make you seem like you've conceded the arguments.)


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 21, 2005)

Just for example LLETSA why dont you check out this

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/leedsbradford/

and see what we have being doing in leeds before you start drivilling excess arse fluid.

Yes we also flyer in communities, trade unions and local groups as well as talking to people of all classes.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 21, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> And anarchists do





Well you are the one who just said it.  (See post 78.)


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 21, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Go on punk, make my day.
> 
> 
> (Although it will make you seem like you've conceded the arguments.)



Its a  possibility LLETSA but i will keep hounding you and your ignorance, check out what we do in leeds before making your self look like 'my way or the high way' self taught i 'know best' fool.

I concede nothing to you absolute nothing!


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 21, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Well you are the one who just said it.  (See post 78.)



School yard tactics just about your level

' i know you are i said you are but what am i'


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 21, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> And anarchists do





In any case the IWCA has received more attention in just a few short years, in the areas where it is organised, than any anarchist group during my lifetime.


----------



## ernestolynch (Feb 21, 2005)

As a neutral I would be inclined to say that what type of 'attention' is as important as the amount...


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 21, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> Just for example LLETSA why dont you check out this
> 
> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/leedsbradford/
> 
> ...





I know about this kind of stuff.  It doesn't alter the fact that nobody but nobody has ever heard of any anarchist organisation.  Try asking around next time you're on the bus or in the pub.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 21, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> If you don't tell people that you are an anarchist, how do you expect to win them to your ideas?  That's a perfectly valid question, isn't it? I made it clear that I wasn't sniping at anybody when I made it.  I thought that one of the purposes of a board like this was to question those who claim to have the answers.


Surely its not about 'declaring your anarchism' to people in communities - as some kind of ideal type to which they must aspire.  Its actually about getting involved and trying to put ideas into practice - prefigurative politcs.  

In fact its not even about necessarily trying to get people involved in struggles working in ways you would like.  Its the idea that involvement in working class struggle tends to (or at least has the potential to) develop libertarian and anti-capitalist thinking.  Sometimes it doesn't happen - and sometimes the benefits only take effect much later.  However thats so much better than trying to impose a model of struggle on people.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 21, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> Its a  possibility LLETSA but i will keep hounding you and your ignorance, check out what we do in leeds before making your self look like 'my way or the high way' self taught i 'know best' fool.
> 
> I concede nothing to you absolute nothing!





Shaking like a shitting dog here....


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 21, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> In any case the IWCA has received more attention in just a few short years, in the areas where it is organised, than any anarchist group during my lifetime.



I never even heard of it till chuck mentioned it and i have being active for years. The point is its not a competition that my groups bigger more well known than your group.Anarchist groups differ as we do net get involved with elections so exposure can be different.

I am involved with consistent progressive anarchist politics on my patch and the IWCA had vnever being herd of. Admit it LLETSA in my area we are involved consistent community projects or will just revert to substitute penis measuring.

Are you to small minded to apologise and bite the big one.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 21, 2005)

You're right, Herbie, LLETSA comes over as a patronising prat looking down his nose at us. What a contrast to some other IWCA posters


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 21, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> I know about this kind of stuff.  It doesn't alter the fact that nobody but nobody has ever heard of any anarchist organisation.  Try asking around next time you're on the bus or in the pub.



I went down mi local the other night and it was IWCA this and LLETSA that. Get real  

We are doing stuff but we dont shout about anarchism in peoples face all the time.

Just admit it that we are doing things.


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 21, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> You're right, Herbie, LLETSA comes over as a patronising prat looking down his nose at us. What a contrast to some other IWCA posters



Most of the other guys are sound and i have much respect for them the scary thing is LLETSA style reminds me off my uncle (SHUDDERS)

Who was a my way or the high way self taught socialist who would mock any thing and never admit when hes wrong.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 21, 2005)

And yes my original comment is relevant. If your original criticism can be aopplied to British anarchism, it can just as easily be applied to the IWCA. How many people in Britain have ever heard of it. As I said, precious few outside 1 or 2 localities.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 21, 2005)

*Apologise?  Just call me Ken....*




			
				Herbert Read said:
			
		

> I never even heard of it till chuck mentioned it and i have being active for years. The point is its not a competition that my groups bigger more well known than your group.Anarchist groups differ as we do net get involved with elections so exposure can be different.
> 
> I am involved with consistent progressive anarchist politics on my patch and the IWCA had vnever being herd of. Admit it LLETSA in my area we are involved consistent community projects or will just revert to substitute penis measuring.
> 
> Are you to small minded to apologise and bite the big one.





What are you on about laddie?

Where do I say it's a competition?  What I said was that the public at large has never heard of anarchism, and that anarchists would seem to prefer it to stay that way. Which would seem to present a few problems for the spreading of anarchist ideas, would it not?


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 21, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Shaking like a shitting dog here....



So you resort to school yard tactics again instead of swallowing your inflated ego and saying that you are wrong about anarchists in leeds.


----------



## General Ludd (Feb 21, 2005)

Class War during the 1980's and around the time of the Poll Tax recieved far more attention than the IWCA - most people over 30 in the UK have heard of Class War, very very few have ever heard of IWCA.


----------



## ernestolynch (Feb 21, 2005)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> Class War during the 1980's and around the time of the Poll Tax recieved far more attention than the IWCA - *most people over 30 in the UK have heard of Class War*, very very few have ever heard of IWCA.



Bollocks.


----------



## General Ludd (Feb 21, 2005)

> anarchists would seem to prefer it to stay that way


God you're full of shit.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 21, 2005)

Wrong. I want to spread anarchism on a mass level, and every other anarchist I know does too. And less of the patronising "laddie"- don't use it with me or I might be tempted to call you "sonny".


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 21, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> You're right, Herbie, LLETSA comes over as a patronising prat looking down his nose at us. What a contrast to some other IWCA posters





I'm not 'an IWCA poster' - I'm not even a member (no branch where I live), although I have been sending them regular donations for some time. 

In what way does asking perfectly valid questions constitute 'looking down my nose at you?'


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 21, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> What are you on about laddie?
> 
> Where do I say it's a competition?  What I said was that the public at large has never heard of anarchism, and that anarchists would seem to prefer it to stay that way. Which would seem to present a few problems for the spreading of anarchist ideas, would it not?



You generalised like a fool. I presented to you waht i was doing in my local area, which is all i can do.

Then you start prattling on about the IWCA, which the public at large do not know about either.

You made broad assumptions that anarchists do nothing in their communities or with working class people, then when provided with the evidence on my patch, stated rambling about people in pubs not nowing owt.

Point being you have being consistently proved wrong.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 21, 2005)

Your general tone, and your crass distortions of what people think and want.


----------



## General Ludd (Feb 21, 2005)

> In what way does asking perfectly valid questions constitute 'looking down my nose at you?'


Cause your 'perfectly valid questions' are about as patronising as they come.


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 21, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> Wrong. I want to spread anarchism on a mass level, and every other anarchist I know does too. And less of the patronising "laddie"- don't use it with me or I might be tempted to call you "sonny".



Makes me laugh laddie sounds like a right C*%t


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 21, 2005)

*The apolitical anarchos strike back!*




			
				General Ludd said:
			
		

> Class War during the 1980's and around the time of the Poll Tax recieved far more attention than the IWCA - most people over 30 in the UK have heard of Class War, very very few have ever heard of IWCA.





Jesus Christ, talk about missing the point!

What are you all so defensive about?  Try answering the questions instead of retreating to the bunkers.  

The fascists over on RA were better at arguing their corner than a lot of the anarchists and Trots on this board.  

Could it be a matter of confidence.  Why does yours come over as so fragile?


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 21, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Jesus Christ, talk about missing the point!
> 
> What are you all so defensive about?  Try answering the questions instead of retreating to the bunkers.
> 
> ...



Still dodging your disgrace by rambling on at ludd, go on admit we do things up on my patch, swallow your ego


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 21, 2005)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> Cause your 'perfectly valid questions' are about as patronising as they come.





Well it is in my atavar (or whatever you call it.)


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 21, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Well it is in my atavar (or whatever you call it.)



Sad lonely man who cant admit when he wrong!


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 21, 2005)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> Class War during the 1980's and around the time of the Poll Tax recieved far more attention than the IWCA - most people over 30 in the UK have heard of Class War, very very few have ever heard of IWCA.





You must mix with a vastly different kind of over-thirty than I do.  

The hard fact is that even the tiny numbers who have heard of CW have only a negative impression of it (not entirely the fault of CW I admit but contributed to by its fundamental misunderstanding of what the average working class person is like.)

And when did this turn into an IWCA v anarchism issue?  I never even mentioned the IWCA in my original post.  But as you're determined to keep on about them then it's worth repeating that should the IWCA expand into more places then more people will begin to hear of it - for the precise reason that it publicises itself and what it does.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 21, 2005)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> God you're full of shit.





Jesus, your powers of political persuasion are overwhelming! 

Why don't you answer the points raised?  I wasn't even being hostile. 

I dread to think how you must approach the average member of the public if this is how you respond to even the mildest criticism on a forum like this.


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 21, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Actually I agree with this - and it applies everywhere, not just in Morecambe.
> 
> I'm not just sniping at anarchists either.  The fact is that for all but a negligible number of working class people -and middle class people for that matter-anarchism is unheard of.
> 
> ...



You generalised that anarchists do nothing are invisible and want to remain that way. I have pointed out to you my activities and those of my comrades in leeds you have ignored it and persisted in pushing arse fluid out of your mouth


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 21, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Well it is in my atavar (or whatever you call it.)


 My problem with your posts on the last page or so is that you would have attacked if anarchists did the opposite- you would have said "shouty anarchists getting involved in community politics purely to recruit to their groups" or something similar.

It rather cheapens your point when it is obvious that the attacks come first, the evidence for them second. You don't actually care, and to be honest you behave more like a Lenninist than you know (as does your "IWCA or nothing" comrade Joe Reilly).


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 21, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Jesus, your powers of political persuasion are overwhelming!
> 
> Why don't you answer the points raised?  I wasn't even being hostile.
> 
> I dread to think how you must approach the average member of the public if this is how you respond to even the mildest criticism on a forum like this.



I bet the public love you flat cap string vest and i know best crap


----------



## hibee (Feb 21, 2005)

Sounds like a fair enough point. I've lived in seval UK cities over the past 10 years - not Leeds, I grant you - and I've never been aware of anarchist groups unless I hung around lefty bookshops or joined campaigns and found a few working "deep cover" like Herbert.

This isn't a criticism of anarchs (and I'm not sure why everyone is so defensive about what Lletsa says, it's a statement of fact). If you go to Scotland everyone's heard of the SSP. In Oxford they all know about the IWCA. And the SWP, for better or worse, do have a profile. But there is not one anarchist group (again, Leeds may be an exception) in any part of the country I have lived in is on the working class's radar. Why is this?


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 21, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> Wrong. I want to spread anarchism on a mass level, and every other anarchist I know does too. And less of the patronising "laddie"- don't use it with me or I might be tempted to call you "sonny".





I think that if you read back up the thread you'll find that 'laddie' pales into insignificance in comparison to what I've received.  The insults have only come one way. But don't worry about it -I can take whatever is thrown at me on an Internet forum.  We're made of stern stuff where I come from.

If what you're saying is the case, how does this square with the fact that the average working class - or none-working class - person has never heard of any anarchist group nor has even the slightest understanding of what anarchism is supposed to stand for?


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 21, 2005)

hibee said:
			
		

> Sounds like a fair enough point. I've lived in seval UK cities over the past 10 years - not Leeds, I grant you - and I've never been aware of anarchist groups unless I hung around lefty bookshops or joined campaigns and found a few working "deep cover" like Herbert.
> 
> This isn't a criticism of anarchs (and I'm not sure why everyone is so defensive about what Lletsa says, it's a statement of fact). If you go to Scotland everyone's heard of the SSP. In Oxford they all know about the IWCA. And the SWP, for better or worse, do have a profile. But there is not one anarchist group (again, Leeds may be an exception) in any part of the country I have lived in is on the working class's radar. Why is this?



Im not deep cover all though it sounds kind of mysterious. The thing is anarchists work differently but we dont sell papers or shout at people the evangelical aspect of trots is horrifying. Numbers are small and its difficult to reach a mass audience. LLETSA is making a statemet that anarchists dont do anything in communities the point is we do. Often we are not the best at publicsing it.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 21, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> Sad lonely man who cant admit when he wrong!





Is that a crystal ball or a computer screen you're staring at?  How would you know who is or isn't sad or lonely?  Not that any of it has any bearing on the argument that you're seemingly unable to cope with.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 21, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> I think that if you read back up the thread you'll find that 'laddie' pales into insignificance in comparison to what I've received.  The insults have only come one way. But don't worry about it -I can take whatever is thrown at me on an Internet forum.  We're made of stern stuff where I come from.
> 
> If what you're saying is the case, how does this square with the fact that the average working class - or none-working class - person has never heard of any anarchist group nor has even the slightest understanding of what anarchism is supposed to stand for?


Because there's only a few of us.This does not mean that we don't do work. Again, I find your logic questionable. As again I ask how many people have heard of the IWCA


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Feb 21, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> What are you on about laddie?
> 
> Where do I say it's a competition?  What I said was that the public at large has never heard of anarchism, and that anarchists would seem to prefer it to stay that way. Which would seem to present a few problems for the spreading of anarchist ideas, would it not?



Quite. A case being the Anarchist Federation (formerly Anarchist Communist Federation). When I was involved in the DAM we used to look at this group with puzzlement - they had simply existed for ages but without doing any political work. They had never made contact with the working class, let alone the rest of the left. Miners Strike, AFA... they just stood back and sneered.
Still, keep it ideologically pure, er? They are no better then the Leninists or Trotskyites.
Prediction: Further attacks on the IWCA... attack on DAM.... anything but the self-criticism that is so obviously needed.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 21, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> Still dodging your disgrace by rambling on at ludd, go on admit we do things up on my patch, swallow your ego





Nowhere did I say that you do nothing.  Stick to what I said if you want to argue.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 21, 2005)

And you're getting to be as annoying as Justin!!


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 21, 2005)

hibee said:
			
		

> Sounds like a fair enough point. I've lived in seval UK cities over the past 10 years - not Leeds, I grant you - and I've never been aware of anarchist groups unless I hung around lefty bookshops or joined campaigns and found a few working "deep cover" like Herbert.
> 
> This isn't a criticism of anarchs (and I'm not sure why everyone is so defensive about what Lletsa says, it's a statement of fact). If you go to Scotland everyone's heard of the SSP. In Oxford they all know about the IWCA. And the SWP, for better or worse, do have a profile. But there is not one anarchist group (again, Leeds may be an exception) in any part of the country I have lived in is on the working class's radar. Why is this?


 I'm sorry, but contrary to the presence on here of IWCA politicos the people of Oxford have *not* heard of the IWCA. I have quite a few mates there, and when I talked to them about the IWCA none of them had heard of it (and I was trying to convince them to vote for them, as they wouldn't countenance not voting at all). 

Anarchists are interested in facilitating and helping build working class self-organisation, helping to create a more militant and confident working class- not recruiting. There are some of us in organisations who are happy to see them grow, but that is not the purpose of the work we do. I for one want the principles of anarchist organisation to become part of mainstream discourse- and it may well be that simply organising along those lines with felow workers or people in your community is the best way to do that. 

We are nowhere near a situation where libertarian communism is a possibility, so there is no need to shout it from the rooftops. I'm not ashamed of my anarchism in any way (apart from it's association with twats and eejits), but i'd like to organise as a worker first, "anarchist" second. If that makes sense.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 21, 2005)

*How can I live with myself?*




			
				charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> And you're getting to be as annoying as Justin!!





Really?  That's my sleep ruined for tonight then.


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 21, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Is that a crystal ball or a computer screen you're staring at?  How would you know who is or isn't sad or lonely?  Not that any of it has any bearing on the argument that you're seemingly unable to cope with.



I cant cope, its you who went off and made your self look stupid, i gave you evidence that we are visible and have a profile on my patch. You ignored it and carried on regardless. You are the type of know it all who just will never admit hes wrong.

I dont know who is sad or lonely im making an eduacted and skilled guest from the way you deal with things on these boards.
I dont need a crystal ball i have worked in mental health services for years


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 21, 2005)

THE AF ( ANd before it ACF) did not exist during the Miners Strike. And we've done plenty of anti-fascist work and were heavily involved in Poll Tax work. So get it right!


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Feb 21, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> THE AF ( ANd before it ACF) did not exist during the Miners Strike. And we've done plenty of anti-fascist work and were heavily involved in Poll Tax work. So get it right!



Yeah, right...
A revision of history
Keep on producing your theoretical magazine...
Which nobody reads... other than yourselves...


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 21, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> You generalised like a fool. I presented to you waht i was doing in my local area, which is all i can do.
> 
> Then you start prattling on about the IWCA, which the public at large do not know about either.
> 
> ...





For the second or third time - I never even mentioned the IWCA until others did.  

Could it be an inferiority complex on the part of some of you that the IWCA is so close to the surface of your consciousness? 

I neither said what you claim about anarchists - read the thread again - nor am I proved wrong about anything by semi-coherent gibbering on an internet forum.


----------



## General Ludd (Feb 21, 2005)

> Miners Strike, AFA... they just stood back and sneered.


The AF didn't exist during the miner's strike.  And AF members definetly have done lots of anti-fascist work.


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 21, 2005)

Any Guesses whic urban character this is


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 21, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> The only group that the odd one or two working class people have ever heard of is, maybe, Class War and that's mostly for juvenile graffiti making a mess of the occasional wall somewhere. They probably don't associate them with anything called anarchism either.
> 
> This fact has a bearing on the subjects of several other threads on this forum, not least the one about Nick Griffin standing in Keighley.  There are anarchists who claim that they do all kinds of things to make a difference but they remain completely invisible to the population at large-and seem content to remain so.  No working class person will ever know about what they do because they don't publicise it.



OK so you never said anarchists lie about doing things. That they are ignored and are happy to be ignored by people.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Feb 21, 2005)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> The AF didn't exist during the miner's strike.  And AF members definetly have done lots of anti-fascist work.



A simple google search reveals...

 'Anarchist Communist Federation have been around since the early-1980s and claim
to be the bearers of a British anarchist-communist tradition dating back to '


----------



## hibee (Feb 21, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but contrary to the presence on here of IWCA politicos the people of Oxford have *not* heard of the IWCA. I have quite a few mates there, and when I talked to them about the IWCA none of them had heard of it (and I was trying to convince them to vote for them, as they wouldn't countenance not voting at all).
> 
> Anarchists are interested in facilitating and helping build working class self-organisation, helping to create a more militant and confident working class- not recruiting. There are some of us in organisations who are happy to see them grow, but that is not the purpose of the work we do. I for one want the principles of anarchist organisation to become part of mainstream discourse- and it may well be that simply organising along those lines with felow workers or people in your community is the best way to do that.
> 
> We are nowhere near a situation where libertarian communism is a possibility, so there is no need to shout it from the rooftops. I'm not ashamed of my anarchism in any way (apart from it's association with twats and eejits), but i'd like to organise as a worker first, "anarchist" second. If that makes sense.



I can only take your word for it, but my understanding is that in the Oxford estates the IWCA are based in - ie Blackbird Leys and surrounding - they do have a decent profile, at least enough to get them three councillors.

I'm not suggesting you stage Trot-style paper sales but both yourself and Mr Read seem quite reluctant to go out there, as anarchists, and sell anarchism to the people whose support you claim to solicit. I know you reject Leninism (as do I) but I don't see how it is possible to achieve the kind of society you want without making people at least aware of it. because whether you like it or not, most w/c people will associate anarchos, if they'v ever heard of them, with a bunch of crusties smashing up McDonald's on Oxford St. Don't you want to challenge that?


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 21, 2005)

hibee said:
			
		

> I can only take your word for it, but my understanding is that in the Oxford estates the IWCA are based in - ie Blackbird Leys and surrounding - they do have a decent profile, at least enough to get them three councillors.
> 
> I'm not suggesting you stage Trot-style paper sales but both yourself and Mr Read seem quite reluctant to go out there, as anarchists, and sell anarchism to the people whose support you claim to solicit. I know you reject Leninism (as do I) but I don't see how it is possible to achieve the kind of society you want without making people at least aware of it. because whether you like it or not, most w/c people will associate anarchos, if they'v ever heard of them, with a bunch of crusties smashing up McDonald's on Oxford St. Don't you want to challenge that?



I like The Mr Read bit. I do give anarchist bulletins out in my union and at work. Point is it can get you pretty marginalised thanks to the tainted view of anarchists and lies spread by socialists such as LLETSA


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 21, 2005)

Divisive Cotton said:
			
		

> Yeah, right...
> A revision of history
> Keep on producing your theoretical magazine...
> Which nobody reads... other than yourselves...


As the ACF was founded in 1986 , it couldn't have existed during the Miners Strike, could it ( as an individual I worked with the Kent Miners Support Committe and did a lot of solidarity work around the strike) So no revision of history. You're just making yourself look like an idiot, by the way.


----------



## ernestolynch (Feb 21, 2005)

I'd bet that more people in London have heard of the IWCA and are aware of its aims than the Anarchist Federation or Class War.


----------



## ernestolynch (Feb 21, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> . Point is it can get you pretty marginalised thanks to the tainted view of anarchists and lies spread by socialists such as LLETSA




You're sounding like some old Stalinist banging on about CIA lies and propaganda now!


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 21, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> I'd bet that more people in London have heard of the IWCA and are aware of its aims than the Anarchist Federation or Class War.



Not the point ERN LLETSA was claiming that we do nothing and are content with doing nothing.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/leedsbradford/

I pointed this out to him not to mention my union work and he still persisted in lying.

Well they did stand in elections


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 21, 2005)

Divisive Cotton said:
			
		

> A simple google search reveals...
> 
> 'Anarchist Communist Federation have been around since the early-1980s and claim
> to be the bearers of a British anarchist-communist tradition dating back to '


Please get youtr facts straight. I repeat, the ACF was founded in 1986. I should know, I was one of its founders.


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 21, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> You're sounding like some old Stalinist banging on about CIA lies and propaganda now!



Im talking from experience within my branch numb nuts  

Any way wasnt youre dad Mccarthy


----------



## hibee (Feb 21, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> I like The Mr Read bit. I do give anarchist bulletins out in my union and at work. Point is it can get you pretty marginalised thanks to the tainted view of anarchists and lies spread by socialists such as LLETSA



Good for you, but I've never seen that elsewhere from anarchos and your pal Kropotkin says he's not interested in recruiting. Maybe rather than slagging off someone who came on here and made a perfectly reasonable you can explain why the socialists you detest have a far higher profile than you? Maybe it's not just their "lies" that are to blame, but the political strategy of your comrades?


----------



## General Ludd (Feb 21, 2005)

divisive cotton has gone all quite suddenly. what a suprise.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 21, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> My problem with your posts on the last page or so is that you would have attacked if anarchists did the opposite- you would have said "shouty anarchists getting involved in community politics purely to recruit to their groups" or something similar.
> 
> It rather cheapens your point when it is obvious that the attacks come first, the evidence for them second. You don't actually care, and to be honest you behave more like a Lenninist than you know (as does your "IWCA or nothing" comrade Joe Reilly).





You're just making assumptions about what I'd say "if..." (the fash on RA used to do this with their 'you probably think....')

My original point was something you can't really provide evidence for.  But you don't need evidence posting up here - try asking around and then decide if what I said is true or not: 




			
				LLETSA said:
			
		

> I'm not just sniping at anarchists....The fact is that for all but a negligible number of working class people -and middle class people for that matter-anarchism is unheard of.
> 
> The only group that the odd one or two working class people have ever heard of is, maybe, Class War and that's mostly for juvenile graffiti making a mess of the occasional wall somewhere. They probably don't associate them with anything called anarchism either.
> 
> This fact has a bearing on the subjects of several other threads on this forum, not least the one about Nick Griffin standing in Keighley.  There are anarchists who claim that they do all kinds of things to make a difference but they remain completely invisible to the population at large-and seem content to remain so.  No working class person will ever know about what they do because they don't publicise it.



Perhaps it is because, like lefties and the far right, most anarchists seldom mix with people who don't sympathise with their views (to some extent at least), that they have a distorted picture with regard to their influence?


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 21, 2005)

hibee said:
			
		

> Good for you, but I've never seen that elsewhere from anarchos and your pal Kropotkin says he's not interested in recruiting. Maybe rather than slagging off someone who came on here and made a perfectly reasonable you can explain why the socialists you detest have a far higher profile than you? Maybe it's not just their "lies" that are to blame, but the political strategy of your comrades?



Perhaps we can be our own worst enemy. The point is we do try and for LLETSA to talk shit at me is just annoying


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 21, 2005)

At Divisive Cotton)
As the DAM is now the Solidarity Federation, that can't happen. And we get on fine with Solfed comrades.
10 Get up to date
20 Get your facts right
30 Quit the sectarian ( and inaccurate) sniping


----------



## General Ludd (Feb 21, 2005)

> Perhaps it is because, like lefties and the far right, most anarchists seldom mix with people who don't sympathise with their views (to some extent at least), that they have a distorted picture with regard to their influence?


Given how few anarchists there are in the UK it'd be very difficult for anarchists in the UK to seldom mix with non-anarchists.


----------



## hibee (Feb 21, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> Perhaps we can be our own worst enemy. The point is we do try and for LLETSA to talk shit at me is just annoying



Well, how is saying that anarchism is more or less unheard of in the vast majority of working class areas "talk(ing) shit"? You've all but acknowleged it yourself.


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 21, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Perhaps it is because, like lefties and the far right, most anarchists seldom mix with people who don't sympathise with their views (to some extent at least), that they have a distorted picture with regard to their influence?



Well i have a large circle of friend some right some liberal some i went to school with are BNP supporters (not to much drinking with them these days) I even socialise regulary with SWP/SP/RA people i once went out with a tory.

I recognise that anarchism is not that big, but absolve myself from your generalisation by proving that i am active in the community and work.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 21, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> LLETSA is making a statemet that anarchists dont do anything in communities the point is we do. Often we are not the best at publicsing it.





Your first sentence accuses me of saying something I didn't while you're second only confirms what I was saying in the first place. So was it worth getting all hot under the collar and regressing to the kindergarten mentality?


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 21, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> I'd bet that more people in London have heard of the IWCA and are aware of its aims than the Anarchist Federation or Class War.


Exactly how many more? Outside of parts of Hackney?


----------



## General Ludd (Feb 21, 2005)

> Well, how is saying that anarchism is more or less unheard of in the vast majority of working class areas "talk(ing) shit"?


Noone has said that's shit. What was shit was the claim that anarchists *want* anarchism to be unheard of.


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 21, 2005)

hibee said:
			
		

> Well, how is saying that anarchism is more or less unheard of in the vast majority of working class areas "talk(ing) shit"? You've all but acknowleged it yourself.



The difference is LLETSA states that we are unheard of do nothing and are content with that. I pointed out that some of us dedicate quite a large amount of our time doing things at work and in the community.

Recognising that i dont have super human powers to turn the world to anarchy does not acknowledge that anarchism is unheard of, it is being realistic and highlighting where we acn we are doing things.


----------



## ernestolynch (Feb 21, 2005)

Every household in London received a leaflet containing the prop and aims of all GLA contending groups. I would estimate that a good 1,000,000 read the IWCA page.

Outside of the studenty areas - New Cross, Hackney, Brixton and so on - people's perceptions of 'anarchists' in general are crusties - Swampy and so on - and no-one will have even heard of your two main parties - AFED and ClassWar.


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 21, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Your first sentence accuses me of saying something I didn't while you're second only confirms what I was saying in the first place. So was it worth getting all hot under the collar and regressing to the kindergarten mentality?



Dont make me cut and paste your original point LLETSA for the third time.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 21, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> I cant cope, its you who went off and made your self look stupid, i gave you evidence that we are visible and have a profile on my patch. You ignored it and carried on regardless. You are the type of know it all who just will never admit hes wrong.
> 
> I dont know who is sad or lonely im making an eduacted and skilled guest from the way you deal with things on these boards.
> I dont need a crystal ball i have worked in mental health services for years





Sigh....


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 21, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Sigh....



Your last


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 21, 2005)

*Read my original post*




			
				Herbert Read said:
			
		

> Not the point ERN LLETSA was claiming that we do nothing and are content with doing nothing.
> 
> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/leedsbradford/
> 
> ...





Sigh again....


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 21, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> Every household in London received a leaflet containing the prop and aims of all GLA contending groups. I would estimate that a good 1,000,000 read the IWCA page.
> 
> Outside of the studenty areas - New Cross, Hackney, Brixton and so on - people's perceptions of 'anarchists' in general are crusties - Swampy and so on - and no-one will have even heard of your two main parties - AFED and ClassWar.


How many read it, rather than trash it like they do most political leaflets they get through the letter box and how many remeber its name, and more importantly what it stands for- this is not knocking the IWCA but looking at the facts


----------



## hibee (Feb 21, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> The difference is LLETSA states that we are unheard of do nothing and are content with that. I pointed out that some of us dedicate quite a large amount of our time doing things at work and in the community.
> 
> Recognising that i dont have super human powers to turn the world to anarchy does not acknowledge that anarchism is unheard of, it is being realistic and highlighting where we acn we are doing things.



Well your pal krotopkin said he wasn't interested in selling anarchism. You're the one anarcho in this thread who says he's out telling people about it. Sounds like Lletsa it the nail on the head, an exception like yourself notwithstanding of course


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 21, 2005)

Carry on LLETSA i wish they would re open the Red Action boards


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Feb 21, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> At Divisive Cotton)
> As the DAM is now the Solidarity Federation, that can't happen. And we get on fine with Solfed comrades.
> 10 Get up to date
> 20 Get your facts right
> 30 Quit the sectarian ( and inaccurate) sniping




I left the DAM ten years ago... but I was/still am friendly with many activists involved and who were involved for quite sometime in the anarchist movement... people who had fought at Wapping, who fought with AFA... who fought when when and where necessary.
Now, I was being diplomatic when I used the word 'puzzlement'... actually what I should have written was CONTEMPT.
Now, before somebody quotes me from a current member of SOLFED, I can only comment on ELDAM and others from London that I knew at the time.
Lets face it, your hysterical reactions to LLETSA does yourselves no favours.
In fact, you come across worse than the Trots. Which, actually, you not a million miles away from.... That is, you are not part of the solution, but a part of the problem. You are just as ideologically and dogmatically enslaved as they are.
Really... you were at the founding ACF conference in 1986... haven't fucking achieved much have you in that time....


----------



## ernestolynch (Feb 21, 2005)

What's a 'Social Centre'? By the way I've been to Hebden Bridge and it's a nice village full of hippy-types.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 21, 2005)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> Given how few anarchists there are in the UK it'd be very difficult for anarchists in the UK to seldom mix with non-anarchists.


Do you mean socially, or politically?


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 21, 2005)

hibee said:
			
		

> Well your pal krotopkin said he wasn't interested in selling anarchism. You're the one anarcho in this thread who says he's out telling people about it. Sounds like Lletsa it the nail on the head, an exception like yourself notwithstanding of course



What Kropotkin does is up to him and i respect his integrity . What is pathetic is broad generalisations, to put people down when they are giving their best.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Feb 21, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> How many read it, rather than trash it like they do most political leaflets they get through the letter box and how many remeber its name, and more importantly what it stands for- this is not knocking the IWCA but looking at the facts



50,000 people voted for the IWCA in the mayoral election, iirc.

Now, you may not like standing in elections (and I am by no means gung ho about it) - but when was the last time 50,000 people endorsed anarchism in the UK, let alone in London?


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 21, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> What's a 'Social Centre'? By the way I've been to Hebden Bridge and it's a nice village full of hippy-types.



The leeds one is by the market no hippy types, Hebden is a centre for lesbian bikers.

Socail centre is an autonomous space that is only limited by what you want it to do.


----------



## ernestolynch (Feb 21, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> How many read it, rather than trash it like they do most political leaflets they get through the letter box and how many remeber its name, and more importantly what it stands for- this is not knocking the IWCA but looking at the facts



A lot more people than have ever been into a 'Social Centre' and had some vegan pies, and a lot less people than those who read newspaper reports about cider-fuelled uni drop-outs smashing up McDs on Mayday...


----------



## rednblack (Feb 21, 2005)

right - ignoring all the snipping between sides for a minute (i respect the posters on both sides of this row )

letsa is right - 99.9% of the population has no idea about anarchism, even if they've heard the term it's in the wrong context - far more people know about socialism, either the "stalinist" form or the old labour form - or even the shouty swp form.

99.9% of people have never heard of the iwca - in fact i reckon not even all the regulars in hackney independent's local know what they stand for entirely
i havent seen letsa claim the iwca are well known - and indeed i think his point would still stand.

in haringey - quite a few anarchists are involved in resident's associations, in organising an annual massively successful community festival, in organising networking events for people organising on tottenham estates, in organising social nights, in saving sub post offices, in helping benefits claiments, in opposing loan sharks (brighthouse), in defending the parks, opposing regeneration etc etc
in fact i think i can safely say if it wasnt for anarchists then most of these things wouldnt happen, or if they did they wouldnt have been as big or successful

despite this, and despite the fact that HSG produces a regular newsletter and distributes around 3-4000 copies boroughwide, not to mention countless leaflets - i would still say that 99% of people in haringey havent heard of hsg or if they have arent aware it is principally anarchist - and certainly wouldnt be aware of our involvement in the above issues.

that is a fact - there's no point denying it


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 21, 2005)

hibee said:
			
		

> Well your pal krotopkin said he wasn't interested in selling anarchism. You're the one anarcho in this thread who says he's out telling people about it. Sounds like Lletsa it the nail on the head, an exception like yourself notwithstanding of course


 That's not what I said.

I write for an explicitly anarchist newsletter that I help distribute, and have written for Freedom- an explicitly anarchist paper, so I do "prosletise". What I was trying to say was that the purpose of anarchist groups was not to recruit, as we don't see ourselves "leading the revolution".


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 21, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> Carry on LLETSA i wish they would re open the Red Action boards





So do I Herbie, so do I....


----------



## ernestolynch (Feb 21, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> The leeds one is by the market no hippy types, Hebden is a centre for lesbian bikers.
> 
> Socail centre is an autonomous space that is only limited by what you want it to do.



What the market by the canal full of tie-dye stalls, new-age bollocks and vegan cafes?

How many 'normal people' go into these social centres?


----------



## Top Dog (Feb 21, 2005)

Divisive Cotton said:
			
		

> I left the DAM ten years ago...


[pedantism]wasnt the name change/reorganisation of DAM to solfed in 94 [/pedantism]


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Feb 21, 2005)

Top Dog said:
			
		

> [pedantism]wasnt the name change/reorganisation of DAM to solfed in 94 [/pedantism]



I bailed out when that happened


----------



## General Ludd (Feb 21, 2005)

> Given how few anarchists there are in the UK it'd be very difficult for anarchists in the UK to seldom mix with non-anarchists.


What do you mean? I mix socially with non-anarchists (in face all my close friends are non-anarchists) and most of the people I talk to about politics (of U75) aren't anarchists.


> Now, I was being diplomatic when I used the word 'puzzlement'... actually what I should have written was CONTEMPT.


So when you wrote that you were puzzled by the AF not doing anything during the miner's strike, an event that occurred before the AF existed, you actually meant you held the, at the time non-existent, AF in contempt? This leaves me slightly confused. Generally I find it hard to have any opinion on groups that don't exist, even more so on groups that I have no idea will ever exist, yet you seem to be suggesting that years before it existed you held the AF in contempt.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 21, 2005)

Divisive Cotton said:
			
		

> I left the DAM ten years ago... but I was/still am friendly with many activists involved and who were involved for quite sometime in the anarchist movement... people who had fought at Wapping, who fought with AFA... who fought when when and where necessary.
> Now, I was being diplomatic when I used the word 'puzzlement'... actually what I should have written was CONTEMPT.
> Now, before somebody quotes me from a current member of SOLFED, I can only comment on ELDAM and others from London that I knew at the time.
> Lets face it, your hysterical reactions to LLETSA does yourselves no favours.
> ...


Bitter little man, aren't you? If you could get over the inaccuracies and the sectarianism, you might ask what has DAM/Solfed achieved since its foundation. This is is not knocking the Solfed, just to point out that no group in British anarchism has particularly grown in this period.
Thankfully, people in Solfed are a bit less sectarian in the main than they were in your day.


----------



## oisleep (Feb 21, 2005)

you arguing with yourself now ludd!


----------



## rednblack (Feb 21, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> How many read it, rather than trash it like they do most political leaflets they get through the letter box and how many remeber its name, and more importantly what it stands for- this is not knocking the IWCA but looking at the facts



well i can't speak for the iwca - but having done surveys door to door with hackney independent - i can say that most people i have spoken to when asked if they get and read the newsletter - say yes and yes - obviously some are just saying so out of politeness but plenty seem to be aware of the issues on which HI campaigns


----------



## ernestolynch (Feb 21, 2005)

oisleep said:
			
		

> you arguing with yourself now ludd![/QUOTE
> 
> Splitter!


----------



## oisleep (Feb 21, 2005)

no swallower!

editops misread


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Feb 21, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> Bitter little man, aren't you? If you could get over the inaccuracies and the sectarianism, you might ask what has DAM/Solfed achieved since its foundation. This is is not knocking the Solfed, just to point out that no group in British anarchism has particularly grown in this period.
> Thankfully, people in Solfed are a bit less sectarian in the main than they were in your day.



So why's that then? Have you ever asked yourself that? Have you ever really sat down and and answered the question - 'What are we doing wrong?'


----------



## hibee (Feb 21, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> That's not what I said.
> 
> I write for an explicitly anarchist newsletter that I help distribute, and have written for Freedom- an explicitly anarchist paper, so I do "prosletise". What I was trying to say was that the purpose of anarchist groups was not to recruit, as we don't see ourselves "leading the revolution".



You prosletise but don't recruit? In other words, you're not interested in winning the public over to active anarchism? Sounds like a leadership role being taken by your lot...


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 21, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> well i can't speak for the iwca - but having done surveys door to door with hackney independent - i can say that most people i have spoken to when asked if they get and read the newsletter - say yes and yes - obviously some are just saying so out of politeness but plenty seem to be aware of the issues on which HI campaigns


Yes, in Hackney. I granted that, I was talkingg about London as a whole


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 21, 2005)

Yes, it is hibee, that is exactly what my position, and the position of the AF is. Well done. Well done.


----------



## rednblack (Feb 21, 2005)

hibee said:
			
		

> You prosletise but don't recruit? In other words, you're not interested in winning the public over to active anarchism? Sounds like a leadership role being taken by your lot...



no - he means that we want to see working class people won to the methods of anarchism - but we don't care if they join "our" particular organisation


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 21, 2005)

Divisive Cotton said:
			
		

> So why's that then? Have you ever asked yourself that? Have you ever really sat down and and answered the question - 'What are we doing wrong?'


Yes, I have and there's no quick or simple solution. It's a matter of hard, dogged work


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Feb 21, 2005)

hibee said:
			
		

> In other words, you're not interested in winning the public over to active anarchism? Sounds like a leadership role being taken by your lot...


I have to say I don't see how the first sentence relates to the second.


----------



## rednblack (Feb 21, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> Yes, in Hackney. I granted that, I was talkingg about London as a whole



yes - i suspect you are right then


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Feb 21, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> 99.9% of people have never heard of the iwca - in fact i reckon not even all the regulars in hackney independent's local know what they stand for entirely



They might not know what Hackney Independent is about entirely but I would say that most of them would have heard of us (or know the people involved) at the very least.

Certainly when we've done surveys and asked people if they read the newsletter - a surprising number of people do. I was talking to someone about ASBOs the other day and he misheard me and went into this great rant about ALMOs - because he'd been reading our stuff.    That's just one example of many.




			
				rednblack said:
			
		

> i havent seen letsa claim the iwca are well known - and indeed i think his point would still stand.



I agree. Perhaps there is some general point to be made about how to spread political ideas without being shouty-trot OR reacting against that so much that you shy away from telling people about your beliefs. (And before anybody jumps in, I'm not pretending that Hackney Independent, or anybody has got it exactly right at the moment.)


----------



## hibee (Feb 21, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> no - he means that we want to see working class people won to the methods of anarchism - but we don't care if they join "our" particular organisation



Cheers - that's one of the first straight answers I've had on these boards.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Feb 21, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> Yes, I have and there's no quick or simple solution. It's a matter of hard, dogged work



Indeed it is. Don't think I'm having a go (I'm not!) but how do you evaluate whether or not your approach is working? 

Like I say, I don't think running in elections is 100% wonderful, but it does mean that you get some sort of feedback on what you're doing every few years.


----------



## rednblack (Feb 21, 2005)

Fozzie Bear said:
			
		

> They might not know what Hackney Independent is about entirely but I would say that most of them would have heard of us (or know the people involved) at the very least.
> 
> Certainly when we've done surveys and asked people if they read the newsletter - a surprising number of people do. I was talking to someone about ASBOs the other day and he misheard me and went into this great rant about ALMOs - because he'd been reading our stuff.    That's just one example of many.



as i said in a later post - i have no doubt of any of that

anyway this thread is funny - all the trots will be gloating over it and going on about iwca/hi vs anarchos without realising that one AF member has actually gone out leafleting with HI - and that various anarchos are involved with HI as well


----------



## General Ludd (Feb 21, 2005)

> Like I say, I don't think running in elections is 100% wonderful, but it does mean that you get some sort of feedback on what you're doing every few years


But if anarchists ran in elections the more votes they got the worse they'd have done because it'd be clear that those voting for them didn't agree with the anarchist principle of not voting (if it may be described as such) so getting no votes would be perfect outcome.  

(not a serious answer if you hadn't noticed)


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Feb 21, 2005)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> (not a serious answer if you hadn't noticed)



 

Very good, but I would like a serious answer if anyone has one!


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 21, 2005)

Fozzie Bear said:
			
		

> Indeed it is. Don't think I'm having a go (I'm not!) but how do you evaluate whether or not your approach is working?
> 
> Like I say, I don't think running in elections is 100% wonderful, but it does mean that you get some sort of feedback on what you're doing every few years.


 Well we (the AF) are geographically sparse- there are less than 100 people in our org, with the maximum being about 20 (?) in any one place (London). Consequently we, as a group, are unable to do proper community activism under our banner like you are doing. The upshot is involvement in local groups, or getting enough AF people in one place to set up a local AF group (there have been quite  afew of these now, some of which have maintained a presence and still do good stuff). 

So we function mainly as a propaganda group, with members doing lots of different activity in their locals- from antifascist work, trade union work, campaigning etc.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Feb 21, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Well we (the AF) are geographically sparse- there are less than 100 people in our org, with the maximum being about 20 (?) in any one place (London). Consequently we, as a group, are unable to do proper community activism under our banner like you are doing. The upshot is involvement in local groups, or getting enough AF people in one place to set up a local AF group (there have been quite  afew of these now, some of which have maintained a presence and still do good stuff).
> 
> So we function mainly as a propaganda group, with members doing lots of different activity in their locals- from antifascist work, trade union work, campaigning etc.



Yeah, ok, but how do you evaluate whether or not your approach is working?


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 21, 2005)

The approach of getting enough people together to start local groups?
Well, I suppose whether you have local groups starting! We do, but it is a very slow process. Those  local groups- much like WAG and HSG- must deal with important issues in order to continue.

But at the end of the day, there is little anyone can do to compensate for the low level of social struggle in a wider context.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Feb 21, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> The approach of getting enough people together to start local groups?
> Well, I suppose whether you have local groups starting! We do, but it is a very slow process. Those  local groups- like WAG and HSG- must deal with important issues in order to continue



No what I mean is the aims and objectives of the AF.

How do you know if the tactics you are currently using are bringing you closer to your objectives?


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 21, 2005)

Well, I wrote a bit above on what I see as the objectives of the anarchist movement as a whole, not just my group. If you are a revolutionary, you have to be involved in activity that helps bring a revolutionary change of society about.

The only way that that is goign to happen is if the self-confidence and self-organising tendencies of the working class are bolstered. Local community groups and workplace organisation are the best ways of fostering these traits, so an organisation must be involved in them. This we do, although as I pointed out above, necessarily as individuals rather than as an organisation as a whole.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Feb 21, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Well, I wrote a bit above on what I see as the objectives of the anarchist movement as a whole, not just my group. If you are a revolutionary, you have to be involved in activity that helps bring a revolutionary change of society about.
> 
> The only way that that is goign to happen is if the self-confidence and self-organising tendencies of the working class are bolstered. Local community groups and workplace organisation are the best ways of fostering these traits, so an organisation must be involved in them. This we do, although as I pointed out above, necessarily as individuals rather than as an organisation as a whole.



I'm probably not very good at expressing myself or something, but it seems to me that you keep telling me _what you do_, and I keep asking you _how do you know if it's working_?


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 21, 2005)

Sorry, I'm sure you're expressing yourself perfectly and I'm just not responding properly. I'm not sure whether it is possible when our organisation is so small to be able to see direct links between our activity and results, beyond new branches setting up and getting involved in community campaigns in their areas.


----------



## ernestolynch (Feb 21, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Sorry, I'm sure you're expressing yourself perfectly and I'm just not responding properly. I'm not sure whether it is possible when our organisation is so small to be able to see direct links between our activity and results, *beyond new branches setting up* and getting involved in community campaigns in their areas.




Recruitment kinda thing?


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 21, 2005)

The AF is a membership organisation, and yes we do welcome new members. But we are not obsessed with recruiting like many Trot groups, although growth is to a certain extent sign of success. We are primarily interested in developing the self-activity of the class, both in the workplace and the neighbourhood.Obviously at the moment that seems like an unrewarding task, but when was it that easy for revolutionaries, except in times of heightened class struggle?


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 21, 2005)

I'm going to go out on a limb and take you seriously (for one post, and one post only) 

I was asked how the AF, as an organisation, can assess it's impact- and as the impact is supposed to be helping make anarchist ideas more commonplace and less weird- it is very difficult to isolate increases in working class struggle and trace them back to the efforts of our organisation. A proxy for the growth of people calling themselves class struggler anarchists might be the size of our organisation- as long as we weren't doing things too badly you would expect the size of the AF to ebb and flow roughly with the interest in anarchist ideas- thus my comment above.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Feb 21, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Sorry, I'm sure you're expressing yourself perfectly and I'm just not responding properly. I'm not sure whether it is possible when our organisation is so small to be able to see direct links between our activity and results, beyond new branches setting up and getting involved in community campaigns in their areas.



OK, fair enough!   

I think that might worry me, tho.


----------



## ernestolynch (Feb 21, 2005)

charles said:
			
		

> The AF is a membership organisation, and yes we do welcome new members. But we are not obsessed with recruiting like many Trot groups, although growth is to a certain extent sign of success. We are primarily interested in developing the self-activity of the class, both in the workplace and the neighbourhood.Obviously at the moment that seems like an unrewarding task, but when was it that easy for revolutionaries, except in times of heightened class struggle?




Sounds pretty exclusive and dare I say it - vanguardist. Don't call us, we'll call you, if we reckon you've read enough books about dead Ukrainians.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 21, 2005)

"I'm going to go out on a limb and take you seriously (for one post, and one post only)"
And one post would be enough, Kroppie, as you can see.


----------



## hibee (Feb 21, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> Sounds pretty exclusive and dare I say it - vanguardist. Don't call us, we'll call you, if we reckon you've read enough books about dead Ukrainians.



that was my concern earlier


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 21, 2005)

concerned from Tumbridge Wells.


Fozzie: given that when local groups are set up, mostly as non-AF groups (independent and directly democratic, but set up by people with similar ideas), they operate by campaigning with local people on issues that effect them, why would this worry you?


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 21, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> Sounds pretty exclusive and dare I say it - vanguardist. Don't call us, we'll call you, if we reckon you've read enough books about dead Ukrainians.



That's not the way it sounds to me. Just cos they aren't readily inclusive (by this I mean not actively recruiting) doesn't make them exclusive. Self activity within the class were the key words, self activity not jumping on someone else's bandwagon.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Feb 21, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> concerned from Tumbridge Wells.
> 
> 
> Fozzie: given that when local groups are set up, mostly as non-AF groups (independent and directly democratic, but set up by people with similar ideas), they operate by campaigning with local people on issues that effect them, why would this worry you?



I've no problem with that (obviously there is _some_ commonality between WAG and HSG and HI!  ), more that you would get involved with a project like the AF which presumably takes up quite a lot of time, energy and resources, but that had no obvious connection between its activity and any results.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 21, 2005)

So, how do you measure that?- activity and results? Serious question.


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 21, 2005)

answer: surveys


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Feb 21, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> So, how do you measure that?- activity and results? Serious question.



Well, this is my point, I suppose. I'm involved with a project which I know has a good resonance with working class people in an area of Hackney. I know that because they give us the time of day when we do surveys, that they show up to advice surgeries and kids cinema events, they give us information, they read our stuff... and that they vote for us.

I've nothing against trying to generate working class self-activity, indeed I would see that as one aim of Hackney Independent as well. I don't know how you would measure it, perhaps you can't.

I would worry that in the absence of some sort of "result" evaluation that I was fooling myself, or that I'd end up being really insular, like those ultra-leftists who show up to the entrance of the anarchist bookfair. You can always blame your lack of success/influence on the low level of class struggle...


----------



## In Bloom (Feb 21, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> Sounds pretty exclusive and dare I say it - vanguardist. Don't call us, we'll call you, if we reckon you've read enough books about dead Ukrainians.


Actually, its more a case of call us if you're interested.  But then, you knew that really


----------



## ernestolynch (Feb 21, 2005)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Actually, its more a case of call us if you're interested.  But then, you knew that really



I'd never call on anyone who uses    in their posts.


----------



## Epicurus (Feb 21, 2005)

@ernestolynch: I see you do this all the time, you are a master at this kind of thread

Brilliant thread 

I can think of one or two people who will save this and wheel it out now and again  Classic


----------



## catch (Feb 21, 2005)

Divisive Cotton said:
			
		

> Quite. A case being the Anarchist Federation (formerly Anarchist Communist Federation). When I was involved in the DAM we used to look at this group with puzzlement - they had simply existed for ages but without doing any political work. They had never made contact with the working class, let alone the rest of the left. Miners Strike, AFA... they just stood back and sneered.
> Still, keep it ideologically pure, er? They are no better then the Leninists or Trotskyites.
> Prediction: Further attacks on the IWCA... attack on DAM.... anything but the self-criticism that is so obviously needed.



Either you've forgotten I've been out with Hackney Independent a couple of times now, or you've forgotten I'm an AF member, but either way this is innacurate sectarian bollocks. I may be new to both groups and not all that active in either, but that seems like a particularly convenient slip of memory, although at least rednblack has his facts straight. I originally contacted Hackney Independent when they were still part of the IWCA as well, although after reading posts by some of those still in the IWCA proper I was very glad they split.

Local activity, propaganda/discussion and federalism are all very important. I wouldn't have found out about HI were it not for the (national, anarchist) Enrager site, in fact probably it was probably AF members or other anarchist communists on Enrager discussing the IWCA last Autumn - despite my living near Haggerston for a year and half  - off the Tower Hamlets side of Hackney Road where HI don't leaflet and now Clapton for the same period where they also don't leaflet (plus I don't live on an estate, so wouldn't be a target for ALMO-related leafletting anyway). I know how much hard work it is just covering bits of Queensbridge/Haggerston/Hoxton, so that's not a criticism, but it's a simple fact that the only reason I know about HI is because of national anarchist networking, including meeting them at the bookfair community organising meeting (introduced by an ex-AF member ffs).

I wouldn't be interested working only in a local group though, because I think wider theoretical literature needs to be produced (it was a couple of books in a library that got me interested in anarchism and political activity in general in the first place, in an area with no activists, and before any of these groups would have had websites), and that's best done with publications like Freedom, Resistance and Organise - all of which address pretty different things. The AF with 100 members may be more of a federation of individuals than it is a federation of local anarchist groups, but without a point of contact for people who might otherwise be isolated, it'd be considerably harder to set those groups up. Even with HI, I have to travel past a few hundred thousand people and about four distinct neighbourhoods before getting to my 'local' group, although again that's unavoidable as things stand both in London and nationally.

I've been very picky about what I've got involved with politically (more afraid of subsitutionism than inactivity as a mate put it), which has led me to both HI and the AF, plus I've just started occasional writing for Freedom. Despite HI not having a clearly defined theoretical position as an organisation, I think the disagreements between individuals within both organisations would be significantly less than they would be between the AF and some anarchist groups, including the elections issue.

Icepick (and Monte, sorry to discuss you in the third person):

a few pages back now, but Monte said 50/50 and I asked for a clarification - if he thinks "a bit posher" is enough not to say "100% working class" then I wonder exactly what he means. It was also his own definition of working class that said "sell their labour power" - implying active working, rather than the condition of "having to sell their labour power", or "labour power being their only exchangeable commodity" - not mine.

I'm very uninterested in groups' (or individuals') class composition, but I'm interested in how people define and understand class, it's just a shame it always reverts to prolier than thou bollocks. So my question to Montevideo wasn't really about the class composition of the wombles, it was more about his understanding of class relationships. Since this thread started out with prolier than thou bollocks, maybe I should have let it go in that context.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 21, 2005)

good post. Funnily enough I had the same experience (back in 1966  ) when I got out 2 books in the local public library on anarchism. Only discovered there was any sort of movement about 6-7 months later!


----------



## catch (Feb 21, 2005)

Make that 6 or 7 years and yeah that's almost identical to my experience - never counted Earth First or any of those groups as anarchist and didn't find anything about London Anarchist Forum or the AF until I got my first 'net access  about five years later, when I was out of the country anyway.


----------



## Ryazan (Feb 21, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> What's a 'Social Centre'? By the way I've been to Hebden Bridge and it's a nice village full of hippy-types.


----------



## Ryazan (Feb 21, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> I think that if you read back up the thread you'll find that 'laddie' pales into insignificance in comparison to what I've received.  The insults have only come one way. But don't worry about it -I can take whatever is thrown at me on an Internet forum.  We're made of stern stuff where I come from.
> 
> If what you're saying is the case, how does this square with the fact that the average working class - or none-working class - person has never heard of any anarchist group nor has even the slightest understanding of what anarchism is supposed to stand for?



How do middle class anarchists like yourself persuade average working class people differently?


----------



## Ryazan (Feb 21, 2005)

icepick said:
			
		

> Interesting stuff butchers!
> 
> 
> I think there are SolFed people (anarchosyndicalists) in lancaster. They're a very sensible, down-to-earth bunch



They aint working class though.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 21, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> How do middle class anarchists like yourself persuade average working class people differently?



LLETSA isn't an anarchist Ryazan. Any comments on the left and anarchists where you live?


----------



## Ryazan (Feb 21, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> LLETSA isn't an anarchist Ryazan. Any comments on the left and anarchists where you live?



Ok, wires crossed, though it was someone I had met.  Nevermind.

Ok, the left & anarchists where I live......Where?


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 21, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> Ok, wires crossed, though it was someone I had met.  Nevermind.
> 
> Ok, the left & anarchists where I live......Where?



You might have met him, I wasn't clear whether you were directing your remark to him or another poster.

I thought you were living in Morecambe? You kept inviting people round to your gaff so I hope you haven't moved?


----------



## montevideo (Feb 21, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> a few pages back now, but Monte said 50/50 and I asked for a clarification - if he thinks "a bit posher" is enough not to say "100% working class" then I wonder exactly what he means. It was also his own definition of working class that said "sell their labour power" - implying active working, rather than the condition of "having to sell their labour power", or "labour power being their only exchangeable commodity" - not mine.
> 
> I'm very uninterested in groups' (or individuals') class composition, but I'm interested in how people define and understand class, it's just a shame it always reverts to prolier than thou bollocks. So my question to Montevideo wasn't really about the class composition of the wombles, it was more about his understanding of class relationships. Since this thread started out with prolier than thou bollocks, maybe I should have let it go in that context.



okay my remark was directed at the class fetishist, the class sentimentalist who "suppose class as a thing. It, the working class, is assumed to have a real existence, which can be defined almost mathematically - so many men who stand in a certain relation to the means of production". 

My problem with some class strugglists (by that i mean those anarchists who have a marxian class perspective) is they consider it enough to use the relationship to the means of production as a class 'analysis', which is enough to define themselves 'class struggle anarchists', which is enough for them to believe they have the correct view on anarchism, & as such the authentic voice, when in fact a group who says they are 'class struggle' & leaves it at that, they approach anarchism with just as much lifestyle intent as anybody else.

Again, i do not see anarchism as an end, a goal, the ultimate solution, but a method in which we work.


If we are to recognise class as one of relationship, not only one we have towards the means of production but with every other person who exists, so class articulates itself through a commonality of experience, by means in which common interest is sought & identified, both between ourselves but also towards those whose interests are antagonistic & in opposition to ours. This happens through experience, awareness, realisation & ultimately self-acknowledgement. I am working class not because i choose it as a category but because of the sum total accumulation of my experiences. People experience class culturally, politically, socially & intellectually, but it is experienced as a relationship. Class then is not a position we hold, but one we live through.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Feb 21, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> Either you've forgotten I've been out with Hackney Independent a couple of times now, or you've forgotten I'm an AF member, but either way this is innacurate sectarian bollocks. I may be new to both groups and not all that active in either, but that seems like a particularly convenient slip of memory, although at least rednblack has his facts straight. I originally contacted Hackney Independent when they were still part of the IWCA as well, although after reading posts by some of those still in the IWCA proper I was very glad they split.



With the honourable exception of N who helps out with the Hackney Independent....


----------



## Ryazan (Feb 21, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> You might have met him, I wasn't clear whether you were directing your remark to him or another poster.
> 
> I thought you were living in Morecambe? You kept inviting people round to your gaff so I hope you haven't moved?



I was asking where the left and anarchists were around where I live.  Not asking where _I _ live.


----------



## Ryazan (Feb 21, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> If we are to recognise class as one of relationship, not only one we have towards the means of production but with every other person who exists, so class articulates itself through a commonality of experience, by means in which common interest is sought & identified, both between ourselves but also towards those whose interests are antagonistic & in opposition to ours. This happens through experience, awareness, realisation & ultimately self-acknowledgement. I am working class not because i choose it as a category but because of the sum total accumulation of my experiences. People experience class culturally, politically, socially & intellectually, but it is experienced as a relationship. Class then is not a position we hold, but one we live through.



Yes, sounds sensible.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 21, 2005)

But goes against the grain of everything that you've ever posted on here.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 21, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> Ok, wires crossed, though it was someone I had met.  Nevermind.
> 
> Ok, the left & anarchists where I live......Where?





Met me?  Where?

I think I might remember you if that was the case.  But I don't.


----------



## The Black Hand (Feb 21, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> okay my remark was directed at the class fetishist, the class sentimentalist who "suppose class as a thing. It, the working class, is assumed to have a real existence, which can be defined almost mathematically - so many men who stand in a certain relation to the means of production".
> 
> My problem with some class strugglists (by that i mean those anarchists who have a marxian class perspective) is they consider it enough to use the relationship to the means of production as a class 'analysis', which is enough to define themselves 'class struggle anarchists', which is enough for them to believe they have the correct view on anarchism, & as such the authentic voice, when in fact a group who says they are 'class struggle' & leaves it at that, they approach anarchism with just as much lifestyle intent as anybody else.
> 
> ...




Very good M - I really liked and appreciated that post.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 21, 2005)

With thanks to E.P Thompson.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 21, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> I was asking where the left and anarchists were around where I live.  Not asking where _I _ live.



Sorry, thought for a moment you had had another crisis and become homeless again. You're in luck, I found this :



> Lancaster Anarchist Group
> Address 	c/o The Basement,78a Penny Street, Lancaster
> Phone 	07932 694615
> Fax
> ...


----------



## montevideo (Feb 21, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> With thanks to E.P Thompson.



indeed. And as i have said before, on more than one occasion, thompson's definition of class is one i am happy to subscribe to. Consistency ain't what it used to be is it.


----------



## The Black Hand (Feb 21, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> You must mix with a vastly different kind of over-thirty than I do.
> 
> The hard fact is that even the tiny numbers who have heard of CW have only a negative impression of it (not entirely the fault of CW I admit but contributed to by its fundamental misunderstanding of what the average working class person is like.)
> 
> And when did this turn into an IWCA v anarchism issue?  I never even mentioned the IWCA in my original post.  But as you're determined to keep on about them then it's worth repeating that should the IWCA expand into more places then more people will begin to hear of it - for the precise reason that it publicises itself and what it does.




Yawn. Wot a waste of time arguing with Letsa...  You're not really interested in debate, you have a record that I have heard so many boring times before... As for saying 'Class War are not well known' thats a laugh, there have been many many Tv appearances, including news, documentary and current affairs... 

Class War was never a unified whole, and this grates ex-Leninists and ultra platformist anarchists. The fact is many tendencies mentioned in the autumn issue of Organise '04 (see, somebody reads it) was a strength rather than a weakness... Plus, Class War were and are authentically 'popular', and this grates many too. Over the years Class War material spread itself cos it was that good. People wanted to spread it around rather than saw it as a duty, and to those lay people who got hold of it too, they spread it with gusto in many an instance. 

Another example of this was about 2 weeks ago when I woz on a birthday drink with approx a dozen people, I whipped out a deck of stickers and they were read and spread around... Everybody liked them, 95% were Class War latest ones, and the rest were the 'Starbucks Fuck off' ones... Now, i can hear the cries about that is not 'authentic political activity and class struggle', but class consciousness is a cultural process far larger and no group has a copyright on it. Class propaganda Class War. 

Also, if you want evidence of Class War activity try www.minersadvice.co.uk


----------



## pilchardman (Feb 21, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> Yawn.


You shouldn't yawn; you should sigh, Attica.


----------



## catch (Feb 21, 2005)

Monte, the second half of that post was the most sensible thing I've seen of yours, but as has already been pointed out it doesn't square well with much else you've written on here. And the first bit, well I'll just leave that as it is, for another thread I think.




			
				Divisive Cotton said:
			
		

> With the honourable exception of N who helps out with the Hackney Independent....



That's a bit better.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 21, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> Yawn. Wot a waste of time arguing with Letsa...  You're not really interested in debate, you have a record that I have heard so many boring times before... As for saying 'Class War are not well known' thats a laugh, there have been many many Tv appearances, including news, documentary and current affairs...
> 
> Class War was never a unified whole, and this grates ex-Leninists and ultra platformist anarchists. The fact is many tendencies mentioned in the autumn issue of Organise '04 (see, somebody reads it) was a strength rather than a weakness... Plus, Class War were and are authentically 'popular', and this grates many too. Over the years Class War material spread itself cos it was that good. People wanted to spread it around rather than saw it as a duty, and to those lay people who got hold of it too, they spread it with gusto in many an instance.
> 
> ...




To be fair I think there was a fifteen minute period time when the 'label' Class War was well known but that was around being blamed for the Poll Tax riot.That fifteen minutes is up now .

By the way , I can sympathise with those who might cry that giving out some stickers at someones birthday party is not 'authentic political activity and class struggle'.


----------



## scumbalina (Feb 21, 2005)

I don't even need to read this thread to know that Norwich Anarchists have no competition as the group with the highest percentage of working class toe rags. We're street.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 22, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> Yawn. Wot a waste of time arguing with Letsa...  You're not really interested in debate, you have a record that I have heard so many boring times before... As for saying 'Class War are not well known' thats a laugh, there have been many many Tv appearances, including news, documentary and current affairs...
> 
> Class War was never a unified whole, and this grates ex-Leninists and ultra platformist anarchists. The fact is many tendencies mentioned in the autumn issue of Organise '04 (see, somebody reads it) was a strength rather than a weakness... Plus, Class War were and are authentically 'popular', and this grates many too. Over the years Class War material spread itself cos it was that good. People wanted to spread it around rather than saw it as a duty, and to those lay people who got hold of it too, they spread it with gusto in many an instance.
> 
> ...





Many TV appearances? And so? The same could be said for Les Dennis. I think you'd find that those TV appearances confirmed you in the eyes of the audience as what you were already perceived as (through your own efforts) by the tiny numbers who already knew of you - a novelty act.

In my experience the small number of people who ever came across it (to them Class War was merely stickers on a lamp post or graffiti on a wall) thought that Class War material was sometimes funny, and compared to the po-faced left it probably was. Nobody outside your own circle ever took it seriously as any kind of guide to action, however.  

The whole approach Class War used to take towards the working class was fundamentally patronising (this was to some extent true of most anarchist groups I used to come across).  To assume that most working people share your carefully cultivated 'rebel' poses and took seriously the juvenile 'fuck this, fuck that, fuck the other' tone of your propaganda can be described as nothing else.  

'Starbucks Fuck Off'?  Is that the sound of empires tumbling?  Oh no, it's just next door putting the bin out.  

Do you think working people are fucking daft or what?


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 22, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> I like The Mr Read bit. I do give anarchist bulletins out in my union and at work. Point is it can get you pretty marginalised thanks to the tainted view of anarchists and lies spread by socialists such as LLETSA




Far from lying about you I can't remember a single time I have discussed anarchism with anybody I know for the last ten or fifteen years.  

Funnily enough, the subject never seems to come up.


----------



## 888 (Feb 22, 2005)

Divisive Cotton said:
			
		

> They had never made contact with the working class, let alone the rest of the left. Miners Strike, AFA... they just stood back and sneered.



The ACF didn't exist during the miner's strike and many members were involved with AFA so you're talking total shite.


----------



## haggy (Feb 22, 2005)

i've just read thru this thread and I'm lost about what is being discussed.   

what is important to me and lletsa, rnb, fozzie, div cotton, catch, etc (sorry if i've missed you out) is not just _activity_ in w/c areas, but building sustainable networks and assessing just how well we are doing.  HI and IWCA are not just 'propaganda' orgs.  chucking your seed on the ground and then walking away w/out knowing what sort of impact you have had is pointless, imo.  

in HI and IWCA, newsletters are followed up wiv surveys, followed up wiv sustainable contact - thru social activity, campaigning on local issues like ALMO, stock transfer, anti-social behaviour, keeping in touch with interested tenant activists/leaders, just being known as local activists when we're in the street/pubs...  this does not involve 'recruitment' or an expectation that people will get involved on a full-time level (trots have lost morale on this issue, partly cos their politics are shite but also cos they jump all over the place and assume that everyone they meet who's against 'the war', or whatever, is also gonna be keen on all the other stuff they push).  

Let's face it - and not kid ourselves - entrenching 'politics' of any kind in w/c communities involves long-term work and being able to adapt to local conditions.  this, in turn, means thinking about how best to engage.  ideological baggage, of the dogmatic kind - if you ain't prepared to listen and reconsider - is the utmost sectarianism.  it does not mean kowtowing to the lowest common denominator, but thinking hard and arguing amongst your selves and wiv your closest sympathisers about how to address certain issues, whether it be ASB, stock transfer or race issues or whatever.  preconceived moral positions may comfort you if you get the elbow from people, but they won't advance you one iota.  

i don't know enuff about the @ groups that have been criticised (and fwiw i guess class war is still better known, for all the 'wrong' reasons, than any other @ group), but from my own pov, if i wasn't anally interested in the minutae of 'left' politics, i wouldn't know any of them.  At least, Hi and IWCA can claim that in the areas it has worked for the last few years - and it ain't all rosy, of course, - we have built up a profile thru sheer determination and hard work.  this may be true of @ groups elsewhere (someone mentioned Leeds), and good on 'em, but have they accomplished this thru a puritan '@' politics or by just getting stuck in as local activists who could have done as well w/out the @ label?


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 22, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Far from lying about you I can't remember a single time I have discussed anarchism with anybody I know for the last ten or fifteen years.
> 
> Funnily enough, the subject never seems to come up.



You must have a small circle of friends politically. Then again that is not suprising


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 22, 2005)

Divisive Cotton said:
			
		

> Yeah, right...
> A revision of history
> Keep on producing your theoretical magazine...
> Which nobody reads... other than yourselves...


I've figured out that you were 9-10 years old during Miners Strike of 84-85 and that you left DAM at the ripe old age of 19 ( if your birthyear given in your profile is correct)So all in all you probably spent 3 years at the most in DAM and have no real knowledge of what happened in the Miners Strike and its aftermath.
Sure we produce a theoretical and it's widely respected and articles from it are translated and reproduced right round the world. Solfed themselves launched a theoetical -Direct Action- with a remarkable similarity to Organise! in format and content. Are you one of those British activists totally against the development of theory, always a chronic weakness?
And anyway we produce and distribute a monthly (without fail) free newsheet that has a wide circulation.
When you were in DAM did you actually meet any members of ACF/AF or were you relying on second-hand impressions from other DAM members. Like I said, relations between the Solfed and AF are far more cordial than in your day. What is your problem? You're the one that seems ideologically enslaved with your inaccurate prejudices formed over ten years ago.
And yes mate, I was down at Wapping. I was there regularly, OK?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Feb 22, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> I've figured out that you were 9-10 years old during Miners Strike of 84-85 and that you left DAM at the ripe old age of 19 ( if your birthyear given in your profile is correct)So all in all you probably spent 3 years at the most in DAM and have no real knowledge of what happened in the Miners Strike and its aftermath.
> Sure we produce a theoretical and it's widely respected and articles from it are translated and reproduced right round the world. Solfed themselves launched a theoetical -Direct Action- with a remarkable similarity to Organise! in format and content. Are you one of those British activists totally against the development of theory, always a chronic weakness?
> And anyway we produce and distribute a monthly (without fail) free newsheet that has a wide circulation.
> When you were in DAM did you actually meet any members of ACF/AF or were you relying on second-hand impressions from other DAM members. Like I said, relations between the Solfed and AF are far more cordial than in your day. What is your problem? You're the one that seems ideologically enslaved with your inaccurate prejudices formed over ten years ago.
> And yes mate, I was down at Wapping. I was there regularly, OK?



Fucking hell, it's Mrs Marple..


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 22, 2005)

Divisive Cotton said:
			
		

> Fucking hell, it's Mrs Marple..



Is that Miss Marple's mum?  

Cheers - Louis Mac


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 22, 2005)

Divisive Cotton said:
			
		

> Fucking hell, it's Mrs Marple..


 Well, you have quite hysterically attacked him, and every single leg of your argument for it has been kicked away- without an apology issuing from you. Hardly takes Miss Marple, does it?


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 22, 2005)

Yeah, you've been sussed. It was you who killed Colonel Mustard with a poker in the library.
"All right guv, it's a fair cop. But don't tell the missus, it'll kill her. Who was it who grassed? Was it Fingers? So help me, I'll swing for him etc etc etc etc"


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 22, 2005)

Is LLETSA on still talking junk?


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 22, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Far from lying about you I can't remember a single time I have discussed anarchism with anybody I know for the last ten or fifteen years.
> 
> Funnily enough, the subject never seems to come up.



And having been involved with the left since the mid 70s I have only remember discussing anarchism when I first was interested in politics and from then on only when I have met the occassional anarchist involved in a campaign.Whilst I have been involved in the usual arguements at work or in pubs or in the community about whether socialism goes against human nature, or whether socialism would work or about whether Russia was socialist etc I can honestly say I have never participated in the same re anarchism. 

Perhaps it is a question of invisibility but I think it is more to do with the lack of coherency about anarchism and therefore its outcomes. No doubt anarchists might find that lack of coherency liberating, and compared to the dull mechanism of the Trot and Lenninist Left one can see the attraction to escape, but liberated into where or what? 

There are some posters on here who promote forms of anarchist activity that I do think is pro working class and community based but they are often surrounded in a sea of others advocating shoplifting,riots, free and autonomous spaces for parties, building tree houses and juggling.

I think it is a valid question to ask how those that are serious about a fundemental change for the working class can liberate themselves from such unwanted baggage and become not just a topic of conversation but part of a dialogue within working class communities.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 22, 2005)

And exactly how many anarchists on here are if I can put it that way, Jugglists. Sweet Fuck All I should imagine. 
Yeah, anarchism needs to break with all of that bollox but I've been arguing that since the 60s and any other serious anarchist has too. You could as equally apply the same criticismsto socialists. How can revolutionary socialists distinguish themselves from Tankies or New Labour?
Haggy:"but have they accomplished this thru a puritan '@' politics or by just getting stuck in as local activists who could have done as well w/out the @ label?"
So if they can do just as well why drop the anarchist politics? I think it's dishonest to hide your politics, and I'd be a liar if I became a closet anarchist. I'm totally in favour of activity in the neighbourhoods (don't like community too much as a term) but why hide it under a vague populist cloak? That seems to me more symptomatic of the defeats our class has weathered over the last 20 years than anything else.


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 22, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> And having been involved with the left since the mid 70s I have only remember discussing anarchism when I first was interested in politics and from then on only when I have met the occassional anarchist involved in a campaign.Whilst I have been involved in the usual arguements at work or in pubs or in the community about whether socialism goes against human nature, or whether socialism would work or about whether Russia was socialist etc I can honestly say I have never participated in the same re anarchism.
> 
> Perhaps it is a question of invisibility but I think it is more to do with the lack of coherency about anarchism and therefore its outcomes. No doubt anarchists might find that lack of coherency liberating, and compared to the dull mechanism of the Trot and Lenninist Left one can see the attraction to escape, but liberated into where or what?
> 
> ...



Well as i was pointing out yesterday to LLETSA this was something i am involved with doing accross my city with different communities in creating a space where dialogue can be created that is autonomous socail centre. I hope to get my trade union colleagues down to it to use it as a space to discuss foth coming poossibility of action in public sector.

Point being im sick of this style of generalised argument that anarchists do not work in communities and are happy to go unknown. This annoys me as i devote a lot of time to this type of work, you can understand how this gets my goat.

I want people to know anout anarchism but i dont push it on people i use rational debate face to face and try to show by working within larger groups in a constructive manner. I
ts a shame you have not had debates about anarchism and if you ever in leeds you are welcome to come down the socail centre for a pint and im more than happy to have a chat with you!


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 22, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> Well as i was pointing out yesterday to LLETSA this was something i am involved with doing accross my city with different communities in creating a space where dialogue can be created that is autonomous socail centre. I hope to get my trade union colleagues down to it to use it as a space to discuss foth coming poossibility of action in public sector.
> 
> Point being im sick of this style of generalised argument that anarchists do not work in communities and are happy to go unknown. This annoys me as i devote a lot of time to this type of work, you can understand how this gets my goat.
> 
> ...



Thanks Herb and if I am in Leeds I will pm and take you up on this but the point I was trying to make is that despite your efforts discussions about anarchism are confined to anarchist circles and between individual on the left and individual anarchists, like this very valuable board.

Ps I will order some crisps but don't start helping yourself once I nip into the toilets!


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 22, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> And exactly how many anarchists on here are if I can put it that way, Jugglists. Sweet Fuck All I should imagine.
> Yeah, anarchism needs to break with all of that bollox but I've been arguing that since the 60s and any other serious anarchist has too. You could as equally apply the same criticismsto socialists. How can revolutionary socialists distinguish themselves from Tankies or New Labour?
> Haggy:"but have they accomplished this thru a puritan '@' politics or by just getting stuck in as local activists who could have done as well w/out the @ label?"
> So if they can do just as well why drop the anarchist politics? I think it's dishonest to hide your politics, and I'd be a liar if I became a closet anarchist. I'm totally in favour of activity in the neighbourhoods (don't like community too much as a term) but why hide it under a vague populist cloak? That seems to me more symptomatic of the defeats our class has weathered over the last 20 years than anything else.



Charlie you have probably been as embarassed as anyone else with some of contributions on these boards from so called anarchists, they are as cringe worthy as some of the simplistic sloganising that we get from some Trots. I had a remarkable exchange with one anarchist about 'autonomous spaces' which turned out that he wanted to build a tree house den so him and his student mates could play house' And yes I have no illusions in the ever decreasing circle of Trots sects  who whilst trying to portray themselves as the memmory of the class end up as the equivalent of revolutionary train spotters.


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 22, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Thanks Herb and if I am in Leeds I will pm and take you up on this but the point I was trying to make is that despite your efforts discussions about anarchism are confined to anarchist circles and between individual on the left and individual anarchists, like this very valuable board.
> 
> Ps I will order some crisps but don't start helping yourself once I nip into the toilets!



Biscuits chuck thats all i care about unless its walker sensations.

I have had to cut down on libeartion shopping


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Feb 22, 2005)

I’ve calmed down since yesterday, but I was so fucking enraged with the defensive self-righteousness of some of the anarchists posting on here to LLETSA's points, that I reacted to it – Catch, rightly, pointed out another side.

I worked with and known enough anarchists in the past to know that only some are cocks.

Gotta move forward people....


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 22, 2005)

'Spose that's the closest we'll get to an apology from you then


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 22, 2005)

Divisive Cotton said:
			
		

> Gotta move forward people....






			
				Labour Party said:
			
		

> Britain Forward Not Back


are the two related?


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 22, 2005)

Divisive Cotton said:
			
		

> I’ve calmed down since yesterday, but I was so fucking enraged with the defensive self-righteousness of some of the anarchists posting on here to LLETSA's points, that I reacted to it – Catch, rightly, pointed out another side.
> 
> I worked with and known enough anarchists in the past to know that only some are cocks.
> 
> Gotta move forward people....



I may be on the defensive but its kind of natural when you are putting in ground work and people steam roller it!


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 22, 2005)




----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 22, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

>



Same tou with brass knobs on it


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 22, 2005)

Ah- Serge Forward - ex-anarchist, Bolshevik turned oppositionist, unshaven chain-smoking singer song-writer and dirty old man


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 22, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> Same tou with brass knobs on it


it was meant to be to that divisive cotton, but then you leapt in with yr ILL-TIMED post.


----------



## General Ludd (Feb 22, 2005)

Does that mean you admit you were talking bullshit with your comments about the miner's strike? And as for some anarchists being cocks, of course they are, the same is true of any group of people you could possibly name. 


> There are some posters on here who promote forms of anarchist activity that I do think is pro working class and community based but they are often surrounded in a sea of others advocating shoplifting,riots, free and autonomous spaces for parties, building tree houses and juggling.


Ignoring building tree houses and juggling, why do you think that advocating the things you list means that people don't also promote the stuff you do like? I have no problem with shop lifting, I definetly have no problem with people rioting and whilst it's not something I'd ever spend time on I'm not particularly offended by free parties but I still manage to promote and be involved in the kinds of local activity you praise. 


> Whilst I have been involved in the usual arguements at work or in pubs or in the community about whether socialism goes against human nature, or whether socialism would work or about whether Russia was socialist etc I can honestly say I have never participated in the same re anarchism.


Maybe that's because you're not an anarchist, alot of the time when I end up in a political argument with non-anarchists it ends up being an 'is anarchism possible' argument.


----------



## General Ludd (Feb 22, 2005)

> Charlie you have probably been as embarassed as anyone else with some of contributions on these boards from so called anarchists, they are as cringe worthy as some of the simplistic sloganising that we get from some Trots.


Not really. I'd say that almost all the anarchists who post regularly here have pretty decent politics.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 22, 2005)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> Not really. I'd say that almost all the anarchists who post regularly here have pretty decent politics.


_almost_ all?

name names!


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 22, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> Is LLETSA on still talking junk?



The amusing thing about you is that you think you've won the arguments.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 22, 2005)

LLETSA, you might well be a nice bloke in the real world, but you come across as a supercilious prat on this board


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Feb 22, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> LLETSA, you might well be a nice bloke in the real world, but you come across as a supercilious prat on this board



Fucking hell


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 22, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> The amusing thing about you is that you think you've won the arguments.



I dont think i have won i think that i am justified in my work within the community in my area to promote publiscise and nurture anarchism.

That may mean nothing to you but it means a lot to me. I  would extend the same invitation to you that i did Chuck but


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 22, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> I dont think i have won i think that i am justified in my work within the community in my area to promote publiscise and nurture anarchism.





Which I never questioned.  What I did was ask why anarchism is invisible to the working class and to the public in general.  Which would suggest that the 'promoting and publicising methods' of people like yourself are somewhat lacking.  Would it not?


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 22, 2005)

*You can't please 'em all.*




			
				charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> LLETSA, you might well be a nice bloke in the real world, but you come across as a supercilious prat on this board






Maybe I'll consider messageboard counselling.  Or summat.


----------



## General Ludd (Feb 22, 2005)

> Which I never questioned. What I did was ask why anarchism is invisible to the working class and to the public in general. Which would suggest that the 'promoting and publicising methods' of people like yourself are somewhat lacking. Would it not?


It may suggest our methods are ineffective (which to an extent I'd agree with, although I think the tiny number of anarchists in the UK is a far larger factor - however efficient you are if there's one of you in a community of 40,000 you're unlikely to convert them all to anarchism quickly whatever methods you use), you though were suggesting that anarchism is unheard of *because that is what anarchists want*, and given that as far as I know all the people you're arguing against spend a lot of time and effort promoting anarchism it isn't surprising that you pissed people off.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 22, 2005)

Exactly!


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 22, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Which I never questioned.  What I did was ask why anarchism is invisible to the working class and to the public in general.  Which would suggest that the 'promoting and publicising methods' of people like yourself are somewhat lacking.  Would it not?



If you want to think im lacking then fine i cant speak for every anarchist in britain. Socialism may appear on the radar of the WC but is this always positive and do WC people think its a real alternative for them?

I am an excellent practitioner of cognitive behavioural therapy and would like to extend to you the offer of 6 free sessions in which we could work on your negative automatic thought process and challenge some of the underlying schema that affects your day to day life.

Its up to you PM me if your interested

You never got round to mentionong if you did anything in your area or just rest on the laurels of other socailists?


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 22, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> If you want to think im lacking then fine i cant speak for every anarchist in britain. Socialism may appear on the radar of the WC but is this always positive and do WC people think its a real alternative for them?
> 
> I am an excellent practitioner of cognitive behavioural therapy and would like to extend to you the offer of 6 free sessions in which we could work on your negative automatic thought process and challenge some of the underlying schema that affects your day to day life.
> 
> ...





For the nth time- read my original post.  There you will find that I did not hold up any alternative to anarchism but made a simple comment about its failure to register with the general public. I also made it clear that I was not having a go personally at any anarchists.  Judging by the irrational responses of some of the anarchos I would say that there are others in greater need of your six free sessions.  But thanks all the same.  

And this is, I may remind you (without being at all supercilious), a politics board.  Have you nothing with political content to say?


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 22, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> I am an excellent practitioner of cognitive behavioural therapy and would like to extend to you the offer of 6 free sessions in which we could work on your negative automatic thought process and challenge some of the underlying schema that affects your day to day life.





And far from 'underlying schema affecting my day to day life,' I'm more concerned about the underlying schemers.  But that's another story.


----------



## Epicurus (Feb 22, 2005)

@ charlie Mowbray
I bet our paths crossed at wapping, I was just last night looking at pictures taken at wapping that a friend is planning to put up on his site.

We are going to scan them at sometime so I’ll send you them as you may be in one or two (there are loads).

They were taken on 3 different nights all nights of interest, the first lot are from the night the paper rolls were cut off the lorry and rolled down the hill towards the police lines also the night the lorry was turned over right opposite the side road the police kept close off leading to the gates and the last lot were the night the police corralled all of us into that little square of grass behind the railing where the tea van used to be parked.

Anyway the point is if you or anyone else was there on those night I’ll send you the address of the site the pictures will be on once they have been scanned in. (don’t hold your breath as it will take some time)


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 22, 2005)

So talking about what i am dong and politics that are going on around me is not relevant. Or do i have quote history for politics to be relevant?

In the future ill quote lenin and trotsky and kropotkin to you rather than have a debate about what is relevant to me now.


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 22, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> And far from 'underlying schema affecting my day to day life,' I'm more concerned about the underlying schemers.  But that's another story.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 22, 2005)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> It may suggest our methods are ineffective (which to an extent I'd agree with, although I think the tiny number of anarchists in the UK is a far larger factor - however efficient you are if there's one of you in a community of 40,000 you're unlikely to convert them all to anarchism quickly whatever methods you use), you though were suggesting that anarchism is unheard of *because that is what anarchists want*, and given that as far as I know all the people you're arguing against spend a lot of time and effort promoting anarchism it isn't surprising that you pissed people off.





The comments regarding it being what anarchists seem to want was in response to some of those on here who refuse to explain or justify their politics even when asked to do so.  As well as, of course, the inevitable consequences of the anarchist aversion to anything that smacks of showing leadership. 

What is most striking is the lack of politics in the responses from most anarchists. 

Among whom do anarchists 'promote anarchism,' by the way.  I know that people have said that they're involved in community work and that is good.  But what does 'promoting anarchism' mean exactly?


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 22, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> So talking about what i am dong and politics that are going on around me is not relevant. Or do i have quote history for politics to be relevant?
> 
> In the future ill quote lenin and trotsky and kropotkin to you rather than have a debate about what is relevant to me now.





Oh never mind then.  You obviously don't know what I mean.


----------



## montevideo (Feb 22, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> The comments regarding it being what anarchists seem to want was in response to some of those on here who refuse to explain or justify their politics even when asked to do so.  As well as, of course, the inevitable consequences of the anarchist aversion to anything that smacks of showing leadership.
> 
> What is most striking is the lack of politics in the responses from most anarchists.
> 
> Among whom do anarchists 'promote anarchism,' by the way.  I know that people have said that they're involved in community work and that is good.  But what does 'promoting anarchism' mean exactly?



personally speaking 1) methods of working together 2) fighting coppers, innit


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 22, 2005)

LLETSA stop being a tool

Do you want me to quote texts at you or some thing. Promoting anarchism to me in the community/neighbourhood/city is not about having a meeting and ramming kropotkin and Goldman down people throats. Its about working in partnership with people to create empowerment, so that they can do things for themselves without being subject to any outside authority. By allowing people the space to create groups develop ideas (i) seek to inject political argument to attack the status quo. This hopefully will allow people to create a DIY ethos in which they can challange authority/political staus quo within their work place, housing association, and general life. I would not promote electioneering or standing for positions for this but use its as an oppurtunity to attack institutions and create self independence. This would be done to raise political consciousness and create small but important revoloutionary ideas.

How do you define politics?


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 22, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> personally speaking 1) methods of working together 2) fighting coppers, innit


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 22, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> personally speaking 1) methods of working together 2) fighting coppers, innit





Don't understand that reply.

However - fighting coppers!  Cor that's radical - be careful not to stop too quickly when you're walking along the street - you might get crushed by that mass of working class people marching along behind you ready to be led to where the action is.


----------



## General Ludd (Feb 22, 2005)

Not just a patronising anti-leninst but a patronising anti-leninist without a sense of humour.


----------



## ernestolynch (Feb 22, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> personally speaking 1) methods of working together 2) fighting coppers, innit


----------



## montevideo (Feb 22, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Don't understand that reply.
> 
> However - fighting coppers!  Cor that's radical - be careful not to stop too quickly when you're walking along the street - you might get crushed by that mass of working class people marching along behind you ready to be led to where the action is.



working class anarchist humour - an acquired taste.


----------



## ernestolynch (Feb 22, 2005)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> Not just a patronising anti-leninst but a patronising anti-leninist without a sense of humour.



I thought monty was serious!


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Feb 22, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> I thought monty was serious!



So did I


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 22, 2005)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> Not just a patronising anti-leninst but a patronising anti-leninist without a sense of humour.





Maybe when I'm about to log off I miss the point of a one-line answer that doesn't even make it clear which post it's replying to.

But no sense of humour?  That's a bit rich coming from some of you lot (read back through the thread matie.)


----------



## ernestolynch (Feb 22, 2005)

Divisive Cotton said:
			
		

> So did I



A case of 'Your reputation precedes you, Lord Montague...'?


----------



## Ryazan (Feb 22, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> But goes against the grain of everything that you've ever posted on here.



No it isn't.  Culturally in general middle class people (or rather people from priovileged middle class homes, and have had public schooling etc) do not understand what it is like to be born into a poor background.  They may sympathise, and be around it, but they aren't of it.

I am not a Marxist, and therefore don't resort to a small defintion to describe myself as working class, like some here do.  The "average" working class "lad" or "lass" off the street can small a faker a mile off.


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 22, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Maybe when I'm about to log off I miss the point of a one-line answer that doesn't even make it clear which post it's replying to.
> 
> But no sense of humour?  That's a bit rich coming from some of you lot (read back through the thread matie.)



Sense of humour you are the one who demands serious politics at all time are you going to resond to my post 291!

Still no reply well that sums you up !


----------



## Ryazan (Feb 22, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Sorry, thought for a moment you had had another crisis and become homeless again. You're in luck, I found this :



Thanks for the info, but not interested.

Blag-   

Middle class anarchists using working class slang for their propaganda.

Smells like shit "tabloid" tactics similar to Class War.

I wonder how many workers read Blag.  Maybe a handful of middle class students at the nearby university.


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 22, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Don't understand that reply.
> 
> However - fighting coppers!  Cor that's radical - be careful not to stop too quickly when you're walking along the street - you might get crushed by that mass of working class people marching along behind you ready to be led to where the action is.



Not doing youself any favours today huh?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 22, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> No it isn't.  Culturally in general middle class people (or rather people from priovileged middle class homes, and have had public schooling etc) do not understand what it is like to be born into a poor background.  They may sympathise, and be around it, but they aren't of it.
> 
> I am not a Marxist, and therefore don't resort to a small defintion to describe myself as working class, like some here do.  The "average" working class "lad" or "lass" off the street can small a faker a mile off.


 Which bears what relation to the point you were posting in agreement with? Other than practically flatly contradiciting it? Or my reply?

edit: there's a thread in the suburban forum you might be able to help some people with btw:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=105769


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 22, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> Sense of humour you are the one who demands serious politics at all time are you going to resond to my post 291!
> 
> Still no reply well that sums you up !





You might have a job where you can arse around on here all day, others  don't.  I have to come on when I can.  

What I meant about the lack of politics in your post was that you never really have any kind of analysis of either the political current of which you are a part or other ones, nor how they fit into the contemporary political situation, whether they have stood the test of time, where they have been found wanting and so on. Granted there is plenty of enthusiasm in your posts but all they ever seem to amount to is a defensive, apolitical 'I do this  this and this me, so shut it!'


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 22, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> Not doing youself any favours today huh?





Don't know what's up with you - it isn't that far removed from the juvenile crap that gets posted on here by some of the 'anarchists.' 

I notice you have nothing to say to any of the criticisms of anarchism that have been put forward. As 'outraged' and defensive as most of the others?


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 22, 2005)

You ARE as tedious as Justin


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 22, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> You ARE as tedious as Justin




I do me best.


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 22, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Don't know what's up with you - it isn't that far removed from the juvenile crap that gets posted on here by some of the 'anarchists.'
> 
> I notice you have nothing to say to any of the criticisms of anarchism that have been put forward. As 'outraged' and defensive as most of the others?



I used to come on here banging on about how invisible the UK Anarchist scene was, truth is, it was there all along, it was just I personally was a million miles away from it. I realised my mistake.

I have nothing to say on this thread cos I can't add much to what posters have already written.

I did find it funny tho, that you thought Monte was serious about fighting cops and I know where that humour comes from but you further illustrated your distance from real anarchism by responding in a serious manner.

That alone was worthy of note.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 22, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> I did find it funny tho, that you thought Monte was serious about fighting cops and I know where that humour comes from but you further illustrated your distance from real anarchism by responding in a serious manner.
> 
> That alone was worthy of note.



Have you never heard an anarchist enthusing about rucking with the police? Or does such a enthusiasm debar them from being 'real anarchists'?

All the best - Louis Mac


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 22, 2005)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> Have you never heard an anarchist enthusing about rucking with the police? Or does such a enthusiasm debar them from being 'real anarchists'?
> 
> All the best - Louis Mac



I too enthuse about rucking with cops, and graffitti and shoplifting and all sorts of 'anti-social' behaviour, its part of what being an Anarchist is about, innit, in the here and now, in capitalist society, I am motivated to act, to attack capital. I don't see it as juevenille, unless to have a laugh and to get one up, albeit for brief periods, on authority, is purely a juevenille activity.

But I also acknowledge that in the here and now, in capitalist society, these actions will be used against me and that in this light these juevenille activities are counter productive to real anarchic 'progress'.

That's the humour innit, in revolutionary terms, rucking with cops is secondary to local w/c organisation but we have to acknowledge the short term rewards are far greater for the former.

Real anarchists, to me, are those that can engage in both, each at the right time. So I guess, to me, a 'real' anarchist is an anarchist with good timing.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 22, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> I too enthuse about rucking with cops, and graffitti and shoplifting and all sorts of 'anti-social' behaviour, its part of what being an Anarchist is about, innit, in the here and now, in capitalist society, I am motivated to act, to attack capital. I don't see it as juevenille, unless to have a laugh and to get one up, albeit for brief periods, on authority, is purely a juevenille activity.
> 
> But I also acknowledge that in the here and now, in capitalist society, these actions will be used against me and that in this light these juevenille activities are counter productive to real anarchic 'progress'.
> 
> ...



So you are serious about 'rucking' with the police; it's an attack on capital afterall. Which is a little bit of an odd thing to say, given your previous criticism of LLETSA ('I did find it funny tho, that you thought Monte was serious about fighting cops')...or isn't Monte as serious about attacking capital as you?  

Cheers - Louis Mac


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 22, 2005)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> So you are serious about 'rucking' with the police; it's an attack on capital afterall. Which is a little bit of an odd thing to say, given your previous criticism of LLETSA ('I did find it funny tho, that you thought Monte was serious about fighting cops')...or isn't Monte as serious about attacking capital as you?
> 
> Cheers - Louis Mac






			
				LLESTA said:
			
		

> However - fighting coppers! Cor that's radical - be careful not to stop too quickly when you're walking along the street - you might get crushed by that mass of working class people marching along behind you ready to be led to where the action is.



It was this reamrk that I was criticising, the automatic sarcastic disassociation of rucking anarchos with the 'mass of working class people'.

I support rucking and wish that the 'mass of working class people' saw the rucking in its proper context to wit the said sarcastic response adds nothing, in fact it plays the state's game for them.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 22, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> It was this reamrk that I was criticising, the automatic sarcastic disassociation of rucking anarchos with the 'mass of working class people'.
> 
> I support rucking and wish that the 'mass of working class people' saw the rucking in its proper context to wit the said sarcastic response adds nothing, in fact it plays the state's game for them.



Thumper just how far are you willing to go in defense of your ill thought out dig at LLETSA...you seem to be saying that now he is objectively doing the work of the state. And the content of his state lackey labour is? Well it seems to consist of pointing out the all too obvious fact that the vast majority of working class people aren't queing up with the real anarchists to fight the police...the up shot of which is I think you need to work on your sense of proportion.

Take care - Louis Mac


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 22, 2005)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> or isn't Monte as serious about attacking capital as you?



I've met Monte on one or two occaisions and I believe he is up for a ruck as much as the next man, if the next man is me and I'm sure he views rucking in the same context as I do in that its right at the right time in the right place but is by no means the sole pursuit of anarchists, in fact, rucking with the plod has no place in an anarchist society because the plod have no place in an anarchist society. 

But in capitalist society rucking certainly does have a place but should be regarded as anti-capitalist, attacking capital, but being anti-capitalist doesn't make it anarchist. 

We can be as serious as we like about rucking with cops but we shouldn't really say its anarchism. And there endeth the humour.




			
				Monte said:
			
		

> personally speaking 1) methods of working together 2) fighting coppers, innit



1) anarchism 2) anti-capitalism


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 22, 2005)

Why this obsession with "rucking"?  It's all a bit macho wank fantasy bollocks.


----------



## swarthy thug (Feb 22, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> It was this reamrk that I was criticising, the automatic sarcastic disassociation of rucking anarchos with the 'mass of working class people'.
> 
> I support rucking and wish that the 'mass of working class people' saw the rucking in its proper context to wit the said sarcastic response adds nothing, in fact it plays the state's game for them.




I bet your soft as shit in real life.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 22, 2005)

*Phew ruck 'n' roll....*




			
				Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> It was this reamrk that I was criticising, the automatic sarcastic disassociation of rucking anarchos with the 'mass of working class people'.
> 
> I support rucking and wish that the 'mass of working class people' saw the rucking in its proper context to wit the said sarcastic response adds nothing, in fact it plays the state's game for them.





When you do your 'rucking' do you get to wear one of those bandana things across your gob?


----------



## swarthy thug (Feb 22, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> When you do your 'rucking' do you get to wear one of those bandana things across your gob?




And remember he needs a palestain headscarve wraped around his bonce to show his solidarty.Its like if yorkshire was invaded by the lancys people in jordan would wear flat caps and a halfed smoked roll up in there gobs.


bythe wat llatsa good to hear your still around since the demise of the ra boards its thomas koner  hear.


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 22, 2005)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Why this obsession with "rucking"?  It's all a bit macho wank fantasy bollocks.



Cos Monte made a tongue in cheek gag about rucking with the cops and a LLESTA flamed him for it, a couple of people chuckled at his indignant response and it all went tits up from there.




			
				swathy thug said:
			
		

> I bet your soft as shit in real life.



You and me both, sweetheart, m'wah!




			
				LLESTA said:
			
		

> When you do your 'rucking' do you get to wear one of those bandana things across your gob?



Again, sarcasm. What's the point in arguing with you? I accuse you of colluding with the state over the demonisation of anarchists and you repsond with sarcasm. Come on I want to know, is it only bad press that the ruckers generate that alienates the 'mass of working class' from anarchism? And don;t you think that these rucks could be put in a better light by bedating the real reasons for the rucks, the violence of the state as well as the machismo of the individual ruckers?


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 22, 2005)

swarthy thug said:
			
		

> And remember he needs a palestain headscarve wraped around his bonce to show his solidarty.Its like if yorkshire was invaded by the lancys people in jordan would wear flat caps and a halfed smoked roll up in there gobs.
> 
> 
> bythe wat llatsa good to hear your still around since the demise of the ra boards its thomas koner  hear.





Knew it right from the start!


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 22, 2005)

swarthy thug said:
			
		

> And remember he needs a palestain headscarve wraped around his bonce to show his solidarty.



You don't know me, so fuck off, cunt.


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 22, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Knew it right from the start!



Knew what from the start? 

Are we just now going to descend into whos' more radical, who's more grounded in reality, who's more working class etc, etc, etc?


----------



## swarthy thug (Feb 22, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> You don't know me, so fuck off, cunt.



soap and water lad ,soap and water.


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 22, 2005)

swarthy thug said:
			
		

> soap and water lad ,soap and water.



Right so you paint me as a crusty. 

You are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. this wide of the mark.

Chump!


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 22, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> Again, sarcasm. What's the point in arguing with you? I accuse you of colluding with the state over the demonisation of anarchists and you repsond with sarcasm. Come on I want to know, is it only bad press that the ruckers generate that alienates the 'mass of working class' from anarchism? And don;t you think that these rucks could be put in a better light by bedating the real reasons for the rucks, the violence of the state as well as the machismo of the individual ruckers?





Saying critical things about anarchism on Urban 75 is 'colluding with the state'?  Is this the New Totalitarianism or what? You'll be advocating show trials and forced confessions next. 

Don't you think you might just have things a little bit out of proportion?  And an inflated sense of your own/anarchism's importance?


----------



## swarthy thug (Feb 22, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> You don't know me, so fuck off, cunt.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> Do you norammly insult people like that the first time you met them,youll end up like dennis neilsen you know slopping out the human grual from yer seedy bedsit.


----------



## swarthy thug (Feb 22, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> Right so you paint me as a crusty.
> 
> You are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. this wide of the mark.
> 
> Chump!



Nothing to do with being a crusty,soap and water is what me dad used to say when i swore like a fishwife


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 22, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> Knew what from the start?





That it was Thomas Koner from the RA board.

Don't be so twitchy.


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 22, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Saying critical things about anarchism on Urban 75 is 'colluding with the state'?  Is this the New Totalitarianism or what? You'll be advocating show trials and forced confessions next.
> 
> Don't you think you might just have things a little bit out of proportion?  And an inflated sense of your own/anarchism's importance?



Okay state collusion is prolly a lil over the top but I think its not helpful. Say ruckers are cunts if you like but at least add the caveat that its a response to the violence and implied violence of the state, if you want to appear honest, especially when you are talking to the 'mass of working class'.


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 22, 2005)

swarthy thug said:
			
		

> Thumper Browne said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## audiotech (Feb 22, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> Fuck me, you and LLESTA are peas from the same pod. On another thread he accuses me of putting words in his mouth whilst putting words in mine. You show up here, our first exchange, you call me a crusty, at least that's the way it read in the context of U75, which in effect meant you insulted me with your first post. Pots and kettles, like.



'swarthy thug' sounds intimidating, but really he's a big softie and out to wind you up (he's succeeded I see). I thought you'd retired to the bog Koner?


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 22, 2005)

*You've left 'destroying the passer by' off your anarcho shopping list*




			
				Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> I too enthuse about rucking with cops, and graffitti and shoplifting and all sorts of 'anti-social' behaviour, its part of what being an Anarchist is about, innit, in the here and now, in capitalist society, I am motivated to act, to attack capital. I don't see it as juevenille, unless to have a laugh and to get one up, albeit for brief periods, on authority, is purely a juevenille activity.
> 
> But I also acknowledge that in the here and now, in capitalist society, these actions will be used against me and that in this light these juevenille activities are counter productive to real anarchic 'progress'.
> 
> ...





As Ali G said, "I has heard all the arguments. I don't undertand any of dem.  But I is really up for a ruck wid de police." 

Where does it go on, this 'rucking with the cops' that you keep referring to? And what are these 'short term rewards' it's supposed to lead to? 

You acknowledge that it 'undermines real anarchic progress' (a strange term that needs explaining.) So it's a bit like chasing your tail then?


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 22, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> Thanks for the info, but not interested.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



and jugglers, treehouse builders, and those who are up for 'rucking with cops' (apparantly its a point of resistance against the state). 

But, it has just struck me, you must be one of the few people on here who has discussed anarchism whilst not being being part of the left or part of an anarchist circle. How was that then?


----------



## Ryazan (Feb 22, 2005)

swarthy thug said:
			
		

> Thumper Browne said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 22, 2005)

Stop saying 'rucking' please.


----------



## swarthy thug (Feb 22, 2005)

MC5 said:
			
		

> 'swarthy thug' sounds intimidating, but really he's a big softie and out to wind you up (he's succeeded I see). I thought you'd retired to the bog Koner?




Ive had to resort to imodain to harden my stools.I miss my five minutes of poltics on a morning with ra,the rest of the day im human dust.


----------



## swarthy thug (Feb 22, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> Fuck me, you and LLESTA are peas from the same pod. On another thread he accuses me of putting words in his mouth whilst putting words in mine. You show up here, our first exchange, you call me a crusty, at least that's the way it read in the context of U75, which in effect meant you insulted me with your first post. Pots and kettles, like.



I thought the first excange was you calling  me a cunt.Not nice that,not for shyboys like me.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 22, 2005)

*The Ego has Landed (2)*




			
				Ryazan said:
			
		

> At least I am not getting attacked as much on this thread.






Was there really any need for that comment?  Some would call it attention seeking.


----------



## Ryazan (Feb 22, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> and jugglers, treehouse builders, and those who are up for 'rucking with cops' (apparantly its a point of resistance against the state).
> 
> But, it has just struck me, you must be one of the few people on here who has discussed anarchism whilst not being being part of the left or part of an anarchist circle. How was that then?



I observe from a distance.  I have read about anarchism, and other attempts at building "equal socieites" from other ideoligical standpoints, the various groups involved, South America, USSR, Yugoslavia...........Just because I am not part of any group does not mean I am not that illinformed about the, ahem, "left". 

I have dipped my toes but feel unsure as to which direction I should follow.  I am unashamedly classist, which does draw me to always see things through a class lense, which means also looking at the makeup of so called revoltionary groups that have attractive slogans and talk a good shop about workers issues, but offer very little practically in my day to day life, as an ordinary worker.  It seems to me to be  more about middle class posturing, from my experiences meeting anarchists, and mainstream local counselllors.

I am not active in any way in any group, apart from donating money regularly to things which I feel are of benefit.  One is taking part in a sponsorship programme for women affected by rape and displacement during the Bosnian war.  Gives them employment training, and also help with housing and other practical things.  Another thing of mine is giving money to a refuge for prositutes in London, which also does research into prostitution, particulary foreign sex workers.  And I also regularly donate to the IWCA.  Pity such a thing has not spread oop north.  If something like this has, I haven't noticed it.  But it's success could send ripples elsewhere.

That's it.  I don't build treehouses, or other such anti-capitalist activity.  But, one day I am sure I will join something.  Just waiting to see what becomes more attractive towards my beliefs and abilties.  Middle class cliques are what I have noticed so far.  And a social forum, well, when such a thing appears in a residential area instead of a university, and is not elitist and does not pander to young middle class student pretensions, then I will consider it a "social forum".


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Feb 22, 2005)

This is a great thread. It should be archived. It's made me, at different times, enraged, bewildered, despondent and amused.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 22, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> Again, sarcasm. What's the point in arguing with you? I accuse you of colluding with the state over the demonisation of anarchists and you repsond with sarcasm. Come on I want to know, is it only bad press that the ruckers generate that alienates the 'mass of working class' from anarchism? And don;t you think that these rucks could be put in a better light by bedating the real reasons for the rucks, the violence of the state as well as the machismo of the individual ruckers?



Are you for real? This is exactly the sort of juvenile embarrassing post that I was referring to . Unless I have misunderstood ;apparantly you and your mate are supposedly up for ruck with the police but manage to control this natural urge in order to work within communities but good anarchists can do both.However the real reason for these rucks is the violence of the state. ?

You sound like you're the sort of person who thinks dropping litter is a revolutionary act.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 22, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> I observe from a distance.  I have read about anarchism, and other attempts at building "equal socieites" from other ideoligical standpoints, the various groups involved, South America, USSR, Yugoslavia...........Just because I am not part of any group does not mean I am not that illinformed about the, ahem, "left".
> 
> I have dipped my toes but feel unsure as to which direction I should follow.  I am unashamedly classist, which does draw me to always see things through a class lense, which means also looking at the makeup of so called revoltionary groups that have attractive slogans and talk a good shop about workers issues, but offer very little practically in my day to day life, as an ordinary worker.  It seems to me to be  more about middle class posturing, from my experiences meeting anarchists, and mainstream local counselllors.
> 
> ...




Thanks pal.


----------



## swarthy thug (Feb 22, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> Fuck me, you and LLESTA are peas from the same pod. On another thread he accuses me of putting words in his mouth whilst putting words in mine. You show up here, our first exchange, you call me a crusty, at least that's the way it read in the context of U75, which in effect meant you insulted me with your first post. Pots and kettles, like.


----------



## editor (Feb 22, 2005)

swarthy thug said:
			
		

> (image removed)


Stop posting up pointless pictures of bagels, please.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 22, 2005)

editor said:
			
		

> Stop posting up pointless pictures of bagels, please.



Obsessed with nosh perhaps?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 22, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> Smells like shit "tabloid" tactics similar to Class War.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 22, 2005)

Just read the Manchester  Evening news and low and behold some anarchists have grabbed the headlines, well page two bottom bit to be exact. Manchester City Council is doing one of its 100 days to clean up the city and is targetting litter, flytipping, graffiti asb etc  having been shortlisted for the Tidy City award or something like that but some anrchists are opposing it.Now the MEN is  pro the Council on asb and obviously isn't going to give the anarchists fair representation  but the anarchists are issuing badges with no to the 100 days which for your average punter might  be construed as being in favour of litter, asb, graffitti etc. I am working away so I can't get any of the badges etc anyone any more details or info?

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/s/146/146959_anger_over_citys_dirty_terrorists.html


----------



## JHE (Feb 22, 2005)

> ...the anarchists are issuing badges with no to the 100 days which for your average punter might be construed as being in favour of litter, asb, graffitti etc.


It's difficult _not_ to construe it in that way.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 22, 2005)

Well I got some more info off the Council website page for last years  clean up which has been imaginatively hijacked but predictably misses the point.   http://www.100days.org.uk/news_v1.htm


----------



## Ryazan (Feb 23, 2005)

*The cunt has landed (errr...1)*




			
				LLETSA said:
			
		

> Was there really any need for that comment?  Some would call it attention seeking.



No no, not at all.  Just a pattern I have noticed from your posts, ans those of butchersapron, ernestotwatface, and Chuck Norris.


----------



## montevideo (Feb 23, 2005)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> Well it seems to consist of pointing out the all too obvious fact that the vast majority of working class people aren't queing up with the real anarchists to fight the police...the up shot of which is I think you need to work on your sense of proportion.
> 
> Take care - Louis Mac



_"I watched from the pavement as more than 300... charged police - pelting them with a hail of bricks, bottles, wooden poles and traffic cones".

"A television camera crew found themselves caught in no man's land and watched helplessly as... thugs destroyed their cameras and attacked their van".

"...fought running battles with riot police, who by this time were in no mood to mess around... ripped down walls - breaking up bricks and hurling them at police"._ 

i think it also needs pointing out working class people _do_ queue up to fight the police. Different context, different circumstances, but we could equally ask why aren't the vast majority of anarchists queueing up with 'real working class people' to fight the police?




			
				swarthy thug said:
			
		

> I bet your soft as shit in real life.



I think the term is prop forward. I would just like to clarify i don't "ruck" with the police, have never "rucked" with the police, & i sharn't be "rucking" with the police in the future. If however i am cleaning up my estate & handing out leaflets then thumper browne is one person i would be happy to have by my side.


----------



## Ryazan (Feb 23, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Thanks pal.



For what?


----------



## montevideo (Feb 23, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Just read the Manchester  Evening news and low and behold some anarchists have grabbed the headlines, well page two bottom bit to be exact. Manchester City Council is doing one of its 100 days to clean up the city and is targetting litter, flytipping, graffiti asb etc  having been shortlisted for the Tidy City award or something like that but some anrchists are opposing it.Now the MEN is  pro the Council on asb and obviously isn't going to give the anarchists fair representation  but the anarchists are issuing badges with no to the 100 days which for your average punter might  be construed as being in favour of litter, asb, graffitti etc. I am working away so I can't get any of the badges etc anyone any more details or info?
> 
> http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/s/146/146959_anger_over_citys_dirty_terrorists.html



they are also issuing badges that say "yuppie invasion tosser" How do you reckon that would be construed by "you average punter"?

And guess what, i looked over their website. Not one mention of the word anarchism/anarchy. 

And guess what if you actually read the fucking website (instead of investing in the time-honoured knee jerk bullshit reaction) it comes across as a teenage iwca with added humour.

Maybe it's just me but i credit "your average punter" with a bit more intelligence.


----------



## swarthy thug (Feb 23, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> _"I watched from the pavement as more than 300... charged police - pelting them with a hail of bricks, bottles, wooden poles and traffic cones".
> 
> "A television camera crew found themselves caught in no man's land and watched helplessly as... thugs destroyed their cameras and attacked their van".
> 
> ...




Those who contansly brag about how hard there are,are useally quivering wrecks when a real mash up happens.


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 23, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> What the market by the canal full of tie-dye stalls, new-age bollocks and vegan cafes?
> 
> How many 'normal people' go into these social centres?



Looks like your knowledge of leeds is limited, that place is granary wharfe and no where near leeds market which sells fruit and veg and and that.

What do you define as normal. We currently have a refugee group interested in space and im hoping to bring trade union colleagues down for meetings. we alos have lots of people from accross the community of leeds helping out!


----------



## swarthy thug (Feb 23, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> Looks like your knowledge of leeds is limited, that place is granary wharfe and no where near leeds market which sells fruit and veg and and that.
> 
> What do you define as normal. We currently have a refugee group interested in space and im hoping to bring trade union colleagues down for meetings. we alos have lots of people from accross the community of leeds helping out!




I know leeds very well how comes your helping out the w/c in places like seacroft/harehills/chapel town.Or are dilettantes rightly given hole in the groin by people who can smell them.


----------



## newbie (Feb 23, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> What do you define as normal.



Normal is a bit of a loaded word, but as involvement in any form of left or anarchist politics is incredibly unusual, I'd have though normal could be defined as everybody else.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 23, 2005)

But organising to meet your needs is normal surely? Why does it become neccesarily abnormal when its done collectively?


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 23, 2005)

Nice to see the strawmen being rolled out again on this thread (and Chuck- good job with the website that doesn't even mention anarchism- beyond "the councillor called it...anarchic..."). 

I hope that the IWCA types are sound in the knowledge that they have seen of the unwashed anarchist children, with their superior understanding and argument techniques.

Well done

Well done.

And to think that anyone with an actual understanding of our poitics would notice very little difference- certainly in comparison with the other tendencies on here.


----------



## newbie (Feb 23, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> But organising to meet your needs is normal surely? Why does it become neccesarily abnormal when its done collectively?




Is it?  I don't know.  My dad used to complain about how hard it was to interest people in the tenants association; my union branch has the same difficulty.  In bothncases the few who do organise collectively are far outweighed by the many who could but don't.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 23, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> Is it?  I don't know.  My dad used to complain about how hard it was to interest people in the tenants association; my union branch has the same difficulty.  In bothncases the few who do organise collectively are far outweighed by the many who could but don't.


 Well, if you look at formally constituted groups or initiatives this is certainly the case - but there are other less formal ways of doing things - lots of anti-mobile phone mast intitiatives are on an ad-hoc basis and part of looser community based networks - that don't need you to identify in the way that formal 'politics' often does. And maybe there is something about the way that TAs and Unions are organised and operate that discourages personal involvement?


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 23, 2005)

JHE said:
			
		

> It's difficult _not_ to construe it in that way.


So of course you do.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 23, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Nice to see the strawmen being rolled out again on this thread (and Chuck- good job with the website that doesn't even mention anarchism- beyond "the councillor called it...anarchic...").
> 
> I hope that the IWCA types are sound in the knowledge that they have seen of the unwashed anarchist children, with their superior understanding and argument techniques.
> 
> ...


Yep, you said it. Anyway back to my minging squat to smear rancid fat on my dreads (kept in the bath which is never used for washing)


----------



## newbie (Feb 23, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> And maybe there is something about the way that TAs and Unions are organised and operate that discourages personal involvement?




possibly there is, although they cover issues where the collective interest can be clearly identified.  Same with parents groups in schools or health service user groups.  Nimby groupings like those opposing a mobile phone mast or a rehab clinic might be demonstrating self-organisation but only very few of the people involved will also be involved with left or anarchist politics.  The rest are normal.


----------



## swarthy thug (Feb 23, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> Yep, you said it. Anyway back to my minging squat to smear rancid fat on my dreads (kept in the bath which is never used for washing)




Mouth zipped from now on


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 23, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> possibly there is, although they cover issues where the collective interest can be clearly identified.  Same with parents groups in schools or health service user groups.  Nimby groupings like those opposing a mobile phone mast or a rehab clinic might be demonstrating self-organisation but only very few of the people involved will also be involved with left or anarchist politics.  The rest are normal.


 That's precisely my point though - people organising around their own needs are normal, the oddities are those who try and impose their own parties/tendencies/ideologies on the struggle for those needs. Whereas you seem to be saying the first lot are abnormal as well.


----------



## our-streets (Feb 23, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> but only very few of the people involved will also be involved with left or anarchist politics.  The rest are normal.



i think thats the point.


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 23, 2005)

Thomas, I see you as an ally, and Lletsa for that matter.
You come from a part of the political spectrum that prioritises class, and goes from there. I see us fundamentally differing on electoralism- which I see as a dead end and a waste of time and money-  but little else (certainly less than the differences I see between my anarchist politics and those held by others who refer to themselves as anarchists). 

Perhaps if instead of a knee-jerk dismissal of people whose politics- going on the charicatures presented here- you don't actually understand (and Lletsa, having admitted to not having spoken to another human being about anarchism for 15 years, perhaps you aren't exactly qualified to tell us what we think), you might have a little more restrained approach until you can separate out those you see as allies from those you see as harmful.


----------



## newbie (Feb 23, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> That's precisely my point though - people organising around their own needs are normal, the oddities are those who try and impose their own parties/tendencies/ideologies on the struggle for those needs. Whereas you seem to be saying the first lot are abnormal as well.



We agree then, which is nice.  My original point came from whether 'normal' people use a 'social centre', which is a term used for an explicit intervention in 'the struggle' made by those with a developed ideological viewpoint.  There are plenty of other centres for socialising in, but that's not what's commonly understood by the term as used in this context.  A 'social centre' has clear left/anarchist involvement: normal people don't go there.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 23, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> We agree then, which is nice.  My original point came from whether 'normal' people use a 'social centre', which is a term used for an explicit intervention in 'the struggle' made by those with a developed ideological viewpoint.  There are plenty of other centres for socialising in, but that's not what's commonly understood by the term as used in this context.  A 'social centre' has clear left/anarchist involvement: normal people don't go there.


 I've never been in one anyway 

But there's clearly a difference between simply having what you term "a developed ideological viewpoint" and seeking to _[impose_ that viewpoint and the orgnasational forms you think follow form this on the struggles of others - which is typical left-wing poltical behaviour and has been for the last 100 years or so.


----------



## swarthy thug (Feb 23, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Thomas, I see you as an ally, and Lletsa for that matter.
> You come from a part of the political spectrum that prioritises class, and goes from there. I see us fundamentally differing on electoralism- which I see as a dead end and a waste of time and money-  but little else (certainly less than the differences I see between my anarchist politics and those held by others who refer to themselves as anarchists).
> 
> Perhaps if instead of a knee-jerk dismissal of people whose politics- going on the charicatures presented here- you don't actually understand (and Lletsa, having admitted to not having spoken to another human being about anarchism for 15 years, perhaps you aren't exactly qualified to tell us what we think), you might have a little more restrained approach until you can separate out those you see as allies from those you see as harmful.



For me the like lletsa my only experience of anarchism is very spare,the odd time ive come across  any action is when a pop in now and agian to the 1 and 12 in bradford and may be have a shufty of the flyers.But ive never seen any action from where i was brought up and the places ive lived.Besides the odd local counciller and chanceing mp visting when theres elections going on,the only action organizational happerning is residents groups by commited local people who only aim in life is to improve the lot of its fellow community,i could not do that im to misanthropic(which has dogged me from year dot) .Prehaps those residents groups are a form of @ who knows.But the actions on hear and what ive read seem to me un real in my world.


----------



## General Ludd (Feb 23, 2005)

> But ive never seen any action from where i was brought up and the places ive lived.


Sadly I've never seen any action by any socialist/IWCA-esq/anarchist group in the places I grew up (well, place, Herefordshire).


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 23, 2005)

swarthy thug said:
			
		

> I thought the first excange was you calling  me a cunt.Not nice that,not for shyboys like me.



Nah, it was you dressing me up in a Palestinian scarf


----------



## swarthy thug (Feb 23, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> Nah, it was you dressing me up in a Palestinian scarf




Bet you have one thou along with purple specked docs and those army tops todd carty wore in the 70s


----------



## swarthy thug (Feb 23, 2005)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> Sadly I've never seen any action by any socialist/IWCA-esq/anarchist group in the places I grew up (well, place, Herefordshire).



such is life.


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 23, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Are you for real? This is exactly the sort of juvenile embarrassing post that I was referring to . Unless I have misunderstood ;apparantly you and your mate are supposedly up for ruck with the police but manage to control this natural urge in order to work within communities but good anarchists can do both.However the real reason for these rucks is the violence of the state. ?
> 
> You sound like you're the sort of person who thinks dropping litter is a revolutionary act.



Yes I was being a bit of a cock but there is no way I am ever gonna publicly condem a confrontation with the state or the pigs or anyone who represents it, supports it or gives it implicit support. Why should I? The state and its machinery I reject almost entirely and I will always try to show the confrontation in its true light.

I also acknowledge that much of my attitude is based in adrenaline junkiedom and I do find better outlets for it. I've never really been involved in a proper riot


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 23, 2005)

swarthy thug said:
			
		

> Bet you have one thou along with purple specked docs and those army tops todd carty wore in the 70s



Listen mush, I don't have one of those rags, no docs niether or army tops, I do not dress the way you suggest, fuck your stereotypes, dick.


----------



## swarthy thug (Feb 23, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> Listen mush, I don't have one of those rags, no docs niether or army tops, I do not dress the way you suggest, fuck your stereotypes, dick.



Dick ,cunt i bet you call me a nicompoop 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 next.

hey up for a ruck


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 23, 2005)

swarthy thug said:
			
		

> Dick ,cunt i bet you call me a nicompoop  next.
> 
> hey up for a ruck



You really wanna fight, don't you?


----------



## our-streets (Feb 23, 2005)

willy waving!


----------



## swarthy thug (Feb 23, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> You really wanna fight, don't you?



No not really,losing your control ,  you need help with that temper lad.


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 23, 2005)

swarthy thug said:
			
		

> No not really,losing your control ,  you need help with that temper lad.



I haven't lost my temper. As our streets pointed out, the robust language and personal insults are the norm here. You'll get used to it. That said I should be used to the rampant stereotyping that goes on too, in that regard your attitude is nothing new and I shall rise above it.

Good day to you sir.


----------



## swarthy thug (Feb 23, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> I haven't lost my temper. As our streets pointed out, the robust language and personal insults are the norm here. You'll get used to it. That said I should be used to the rampant stereotyping that goes on too, in that regard your attitude is nothing new and I shall rise above it.
> 
> Good day to you sir.




Its a triumph of the human spirit thumper ,i should get jill dando to give you a heart of gold,youngs boys with no arms .....pah thumpers the real ruddy bloody brave one.


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 23, 2005)

*This message is hidden because swarthy thug is on your ignore list.*

That button really works, wow! never thought I'd use it.


----------



## swarthy thug (Feb 23, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> *This message is hidden because swarthy thug is on your ignore list.*
> 
> That button really works, wow! never thought I'd use it.




To quote ian bannen(playing a child rapeist being roughed up by a cop) in the film the offence 

"nothing i have done can be bad as the thoughts in your mind,i wouldt have your mind"


----------



## montevideo (Feb 23, 2005)

swarthy thug said:
			
		

> Those who contansly brag about how hard there are,are useally quivering wrecks when a real mash up happens.



i agree 100%


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 23, 2005)

Those who quote film usually have a limited life style


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 23, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> they are also issuing badges that say "yuppie invasion tosser" How do you reckon that would be construed by "you average punter"?
> 
> And guess what, i looked over their website. Not one mention of the word anarchism/anarchy.
> 
> ...



Guess what? I read the website before you and it doesn't come across a a teenage iwca with added humour , it comes across as " Its that time of year again, when your Council goes on a wild vindictive anti-social rampage against graffiti artists, flyposters, skateboarders and those evil parasites - the homeless."  which is its banner headline on all the pages.

Yes, they are issuing badges that say "yuppie invasion tosser" but the issue in Manchester is not that the working class are being moved out (there is no working class to move out in the first place cos noone lived there) but that huge estates remain unregenerated outside the city centre, with the exception of Hulme .

Hosting the Commonwealth Games, applying  to be the city of culture, building a 24 hour city centre culture, hosting the Labour party conference has been a pleasent diversion from the reality of these estates many of them riddled with crime ,asb, drug dealing with few transport links, loads of failing schools, and some of the worst health rates in England.

Instead these people ( and if they are not some member of the extended anarchist family what are they?) focus on car pollution and the right to skateboard and graffiti.

Teenage? yes. At the cutting point of working class action? No.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 23, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> No no, not at all.  Just a pattern I have noticed from your posts, ans those of butchersapron, ernestotwatface, and Chuck Norris.





Wouldn't let it all bother you.  Worse things happen in this world of ours.


----------



## montevideo (Feb 23, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Guess what? I read the website before you and it doesn't come across a a teenage iwca with added humour , it comes across as " Its that time of year again, when your Council goes on a wild vindictive anti-social rampage against graffiti artists, flyposters, skateboarders and those evil parasites - the homeless."  which is its banner headline on all the pages.
> 
> Yes, they are issuing badges that say "yuppie invasion tosser" but the issue in Manchester is not that the working class are being moved out (there is no working class to move out in the first place cos noone lived there) but that huge estates remain unregenerated outside the city centre, with the exception of Hulme .
> 
> ...




but in your original post you mentioned  'the anarchists' 4 times as those who were responsible. Where did that come from?


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 23, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Thomas, I see you as an ally, and Lletsa for that matter.
> (and Lletsa, having admitted to not having spoken to another human being about anarchism for 15 years, perhaps you aren't exactly qualified to tell us what we think), you might have a little more restrained approach until you can separate out those you see as allies from those you see as harmful.





Nowhere did I try to 'tell you what you think'; simply, I just gave an opinion about anarchism being invisible to the public at large. I wasn't even trying to push any kind of 'great alternative' to anarchism. This leads me onto the point about my lack of conversation about anarchism.  I don't normally socialise with politicos. Those that I do socialise with never raise the subject of anarchism simply because never encountering anarchists or hearing anything at all about anarchism, it doesn't even register with them. This must apply to 99.9% of people, so I can't see why to point it out has caused such defensive -and sometimes verbally aggressive- responses.


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 23, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> As Ali G said, "I has heard all the arguments. I don't undertand any of dem.  But I is really up for a ruck wid de police."



As Thumper B said "I has heard all the arguments. I understand dem.  And I is really up for a ruck wid de police." What's your point?



> Where does it go on, this 'rucking with the cops' that you keep referring to?



There were some small skirmishes on couple of occaisions outside USAF Fairford. As well as some rough stuff near Trafalgar square one Mayday recently passed. What do you do, just let the pig hit you or your muckers? Are you a pacifist?



> And what are these 'short term rewards'



Adrenaline



> it's supposed to lead to?



Feeling alive



> You acknowledge that it 'undermines real anarchic progress' (a strange term that needs explaining.)



I put progress in inverted commas to signify I was unsure about the write word to use but was still keen to respond. 



> So it's a bit like chasing your tail then?



Arguing with you, yes, very much so.


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 23, 2005)

Lletsa, I'm not sure whether you yourself beleive what you are writing. Since you arrived on this board, I have seen several (and been personally involved in some) threads where you are extremely hostile to anarchists- charicaturing their politics without finding out what they actually think. It may suit you to restrict my comment to this particular thread (where I think you have been derogatory and needlessly combative), but your posting history and board-presence so far confirms what I have said.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 23, 2005)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> Sadly I've never seen any action by any socialist/IWCA-esq/anarchist group in the places I grew up (well, place, Herefordshire).





Why do you continually choose to bring up irrelevant points?  Why so defensive all the time?  The IWCA is less than ten years old and was launched in an atmosphere where a rapidly retreating left (and anarchist movement for that matter) seems to wish to see out its natural life going through the same motions as if there hasn't been an ongoing crisis in progressive politics for at least two decades now (intensified drastically by the demise of Communism.) It does, however, need to be given credit for trying to operate differently and prioritising approaching unorganised working class people directly.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 23, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> For what?



Has anyone ever mentioned to you that you can be extremely hard work?

I asked you a question and for the very first time you gave a full and honest reply so I was acknowledging this.


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 23, 2005)

What the fuck is this? How can you criticise others for what yopu yourself are doing in spades?

Ludd comments that he hasn't seen ANY activity form either socialist/IWCA or anarchist groups in his area, entirely relevently to another post on the same topic, and you respond with the above defensive post- starting with a criticism of his defensiveness.

Get the bloody log out of your own eye.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 23, 2005)

*Life's a riot.*




			
				Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> Yes I was being a bit of a cock but there is no way I am ever gonna publicly condem a confrontation with the state or the pigs or anyone who represents it, supports it or gives it implicit support. Why should I? The state and its machinery I reject almost entirely and I will always try to show the confrontation in its true light.
> 
> I also acknowledge that much of my attitude is based in adrenaline junkiedom and I do find better outlets for it. I've never really been involved in a proper riot





In contrast the number one ambition of nearly every working class person is to be involved in a riot.  

This is fantasy kid's stuff.  

In countries where rioting and street confronatation are the norm, at least for some of the time, the vast majority of people join in out of sheer desperation, not 'adrenaline junkiedom.' 

By pointing this out I am 'giving the state and its machinery implicit support.'


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 23, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> It does, however, need to be given credit for trying to operate differently and prioritising approaching unorganised working class people directly.



At last concessions youve changed LLETSA you will be down the social centre next talking about the tyranny of structurelessness


----------



## montevideo (Feb 23, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> In contrast the number one ambition of nearly every working class person is to be involved in a riot.
> 
> This is fantasy kid's stuff.
> 
> ...



which countries? How many riots have you been in?


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 23, 2005)

*I've just had me dinner and the adrenaline's pumping*




			
				Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> As Thumper B said "I has heard all the arguments. I understand dem.  And I is really up for a ruck wid de police." What's your point?





Like I said, I is up for a ruck wid de police.  Lead on.


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 23, 2005)

could not get link going


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 23, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> but in your original post you mentioned  'the anarchists' 4 times as those who were responsible. Where did that come from?



Who else ,montevideo who else? We have had posts up here over the year that have suggested that we underestimate anarchist activity because anarchists don't claim responsibility for their activity and that is one of the reasons why anarchism hasn't a bigger audience.

If you are saying this is nothing to do with anarchism fine but I guess some anarchists would disgaree.


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 23, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> In contrast the number one ambition of nearly every working class person is to be involved in a riot.



No it isn't, the number one ambition for nearly every working class person should be/prolly is if you aked em the right questions, to be at liberty to realise the full value of their work. But its how we get from here to there that raises the question of state violence and violence used to counter act it.




> This is fantasy kid's stuff.



No it isn't its hard historical fact. Were the French and Russian Revolutions kids fantasies?



> In countries where rioting and street confronatation are the norm, at least for some of the time, the vast majority of people join in out of sheer desperation, not 'adrenaline junkiedom.'



Its all grey, there'll be both deperados and andrenaline freaks and I bet it's the adrenaline freaks who give the desperados the boost they need.



> By pointing this out I am 'giving the state and its machinery implicit support.'



You haven't really pointed anything out, have you? So no.


----------



## The Black Hand (Feb 23, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Many TV appearances? And so? The same could be said for Les Dennis. I think you'd find that those TV appearances confirmed you in the eyes of the audience as what you were already perceived as (through your own efforts) by the tiny numbers who already knew of you - a novelty act.
> 
> *THIS IS GIBBERISH...*
> 
> ...



No - i think you are an arsehole.


----------



## montevideo (Feb 23, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Who else ,montevideo who else? We have had posts up here over the year that have suggested that we underestimate anarchist activity because anarchists don't claim responsibility for their activity and that is one of the reasons why anarchism hasn't a bigger audience.
> 
> If you are saying this is nothing to do with anarchism fine but I guess some anarchists would disgaree.



*"some anarchists have grabbed the headlines 

but some anrchists are opposing it

the MEN is pro the Council on asb and obviously isn't going to give the anarchists fair representation 

the anarchists are issuing badges"* 

now simply, what information do you have to assert that this group is an  anarchist one? Doesn't concern me if they are or not, i just want to know how you know they are anarchists?


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 23, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Like I said, I is up for a ruck wid de police.  Lead on.



No you aren't, nor will I lead anyone anywhere.


----------



## swarthy thug (Feb 23, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> Those who quote film usually have a limited life style




Its affective thou,better that than some rotten corpse of a east european with a beard


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 23, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Why do you continually choose to bring up irrelevant points?  Why so defensive all the time?  The IWCA is less than ten years old and was launched in an atmosphere where a rapidly retreating left (and anarchist movement for that matter) seems to wish to see out its natural life going through the same motions as if there hasn't been an ongoing crisis in progressive politics for at least two decades now (intensified drastically by the demise of Communism.) It does, however, need to be given credit for trying to operate differently and prioritising approaching unorganised working class people directly.


Defensive? If you're attacked, you fight back. But you want us to roll over on our backs stick our legs in the air and admit that of course you're right.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 23, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> *"some anarchists have grabbed the headlines
> 
> but some anrchists are opposing it
> 
> ...


He doesn't , he's just using it as a stick to beat us with


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 23, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Lletsa, I'm not sure whether you yourself beleive what you are writing. Since you arrived on this board, I have seen several (and been personally involved in some) threads where you are extremely hostile to anarchists- charicaturing their politics without finding out what they actually think. It may suit you to restrict my comment to this particular thread (where I think you have been derogatory and needlessly combative), but your posting history and board-presence so far confirms what I have said.





Actually there was one thread - the Shoplifting as Revolutionary Act-cum-Interesting Lifestyle Option one.  Which, as any sane person reading the thread would agree, contained some imbecile, out-to-lunch commentary, including from people who I hope you would be ashamed to see call themselves anarchists.  It did, however, contain some very relevant arguments. As does this one. It's hard to believe how fragile is the political confidence of some of the anarchists.

I know I keep saying it, but go back to my original post in this thread and see that I wasn't being at all derogatory.  The derogatory stuff came from the anarchos and almost immediately - including throwing out stuff about the IWCA, whom I never even mentioned.  I even pointed this out again in my reply to you of just a few minutes ago.  

And anyway, boards like this are dull as dishwater without a few insults and barbed comment being tossed around....


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 23, 2005)

"Tossed" ? Yes, a patronising tosser should know


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 23, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> No it isn't its hard historical fact. Were the French and Russian Revolutions kids fantasies?





Ah this is a different story - I never realised you'd been involved in the contemporary equivalents of the French and Russian revoultions.  

Respect brother! (Slaps open palm on Thumper's.)


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 23, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> which countries? How many riots have you been in?





Various impoverished Third World countries run by tyrannies for instance.  Bit of a daft question.

No, like Thumper, I've never been involved in a full-scale riot (sob.) Although I was present a couple of times when the police kicked off during the miners' strike and at Wapping once. 

With regard to the kind of thing that you might have in mind, however, like most working class people, I regard getting twatted in pointless unwinnable skirmishes with the cops as a fucking mug's game.


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 23, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Ah this is a different story - I never realised you'd been involved in the contemporary equivalents of the French and Russian revoultions.
> 
> Respect brother! (Slaps open palm on Thumper's.)



He-he, I just knew you were gonna come back with something like that. Patronising twat that you are.

Please outline, in your own words, the mechanics of social revolution?


----------



## General Ludd (Feb 23, 2005)

> I know I keep saying it, but go back to my original post in this thread and see that I wasn't being at all derogatory.


Claiming that anarchists don't want anarchist to be heard of was derogatory, or at least you should have realised that it would be perceived that way by people who put a lot of effort into making anarchism better known, and that was what kicked this 10 page argument off way back in post 76.


----------



## swarthy thug (Feb 23, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Various impoverished Third World countries run by tyrannies for instance.  Bit of a daft question.
> 
> No, like Thumper, I've never been involved in a full-scale riot (sob.) Although I was present when the police kicked off during the miners' strike and at Wapping once.
> 
> Like most working class people, though, I regard getting twatted in pointless unwinnable skirmishes with the cops as a fucking mug's game.




It reminds of a story a mate of mine  about tommy steele the cockney crooner,supposingly he used to pay strapping ex plods to dress up as a cops, knock on his door and then assult him verbally physically and sexually.He got big kicks out of it.

Thumper do you want me to gets his number?.


----------



## blamblam (Feb 23, 2005)

Well doesn't this thread suck the balls. 

Some people are presenting (knowingly or not) a charicature of an anarchist position, some people are playing up to the charicature, it just all sucks really.

Anyhoo I just thought this was hilarious:



			
				montevideo said:
			
		

> If however i am cleaning up my estate & handing out leaflets then thumper browne is one person i would be happy to have by my side.


Are you pretending to live on estate now? 
Just brilliant!


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 23, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Like most working class people, though, I regard getting twatted in pointless unwinnable skirmishes with the cops as a fucking mug's game.



Like most working class people I don't enjoy getting twatted by the pigs either, that's why the adrenaline fix is sooooo good, cos I'm fucking scared shitless. The only reason I have found myself getting into an unwinnable situation with the cops in usually to defend a friend or the principle on which I am protesting. I'm prepared to lose many skirmishes with the long term view of exposing state violence, bit of pain now for, hopefully, future gains.


----------



## swarthy thug (Feb 23, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> Like most working class people I don't enjoy getting twatted by the pigs either, that's why the adrenaline fix is sooooo good, cos I'm fucking scared shitless. The only reason I have found myself getting into an unwinnable situation with the cops in usually to defend a friend or the principle on which I am protesting. I'm prepared to lose many skirmishes with the long term view of exposing state violence, bit of pain now for, hopefully, future gains.


[

http://www.trashfiction.co.uk/tommy_steele.jpg


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 23, 2005)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> Claiming that anarchists don't want anarchist to be heard of was derogatory, or at least you should have realised that it would be perceived that way by people who put a lot of effort into making anarchism better known, and that was what kicked this 10 page argument off way back in post 76.




Has it really been ten pages?  Hey - they call me the catalyst!  'Respect brother!' (Looks in mirror and slaps self on open palm with other open palm.)

It isn't at all derogatory to state the obvious truth that anarchism isn't even on the radar of working class people.  (Actually, I wasn't the first one to say this as, thinking back, I was replying to somebody who'd already done so when I first said it; I withdraw the above comment - it's all down to that man Ryazan again: now there is a true catalyst if ever there was one....) This is the truth of the situation, no matter how much hard work anarchists put into trying to make it otherwise.  Christ, it's a simple enough idea to grasp.


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 23, 2005)

yes, and that is *all* you were saying, isn't it Lletsa?


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 23, 2005)

swarthy thug said:
			
		

> To quote ian bannen(playing a child rapeist being roughed up by a cop) in the film the offence
> 
> "nothing i have done can be bad as the thoughts in your mind,i wouldt have your mind"


  
I would to have your mind?
I want to have your mind?


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 23, 2005)

swarthy thug said:
			
		

> It reminds of a story a mate of mine  about tommy steele the cockney crooner,supposingly he used to pay strapping ex plods to dress up as a cops, knock on his door and then assult him verbally physically and sexually.He got big kicks out of it.
> 
> Thumper do you want me to gets his number?.


Our Tommy, that cheeky chirpy cockney? I can't believe that!


----------



## General Ludd (Feb 23, 2005)

> It isn't at all derogatory to state the obvious truth that anarchism isn't even on the radar of working class people.


Not a single anarchist on this thread has denied that, I completely agree with it*. That is very very different to say that that is the situation that anarchists want.


*As long as you add the provisio of 'almost all', there certainly are working class people who've heard of anarchism - all working class anarchists for starters.


----------



## swarthy thug (Feb 23, 2005)

redsquirrel said:
			
		

> I would to have your mind?
> I want to have your mind?




Its sounds a bit off key out of content
.No more film outs from now on.


----------



## swarthy thug (Feb 23, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> Our Tommy, that cheeky chirpy cockney? I can't believe that!




Yeah but did you suss gary glitter out,or pee wee herman or arthur mullard.
public/private paradox


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 23, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> Defensive? If you're attacked, you fight back. But you want us to roll over on our backs stick our legs in the air and admit that of course you're right.





What I mean by defensive is the totally out-of-proportion response to the reasonable comment I made way back in the mists of Monday.  I will point out once more, just for your benefit, that I did not attack anybody, nor 'push' the 'great alternative.'  The indignation behind the responses - as well as their general apoliticism ('let's all give credit where it's due and be nice-by the way, the organisation you support is crap and you're a cunt!') is telling.

The only point I was making was that anarchism is totally unknown to and not understood by the working class and the public in general.  Fair point?  Ask around, why don't you?


----------



## General Ludd (Feb 23, 2005)

> The only point I was making was that anarchism is totally unknown to and not understood by the working class and the public in general. Fair point? Ask around, why don't you?


If that had been all you were saying this thread would have disappeared a long time ago.


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 23, 2005)

icepick said:
			
		

> Well doesn't this thread suck the balls.



Why yes it does.   



> Some people are presenting (knowingly or not) a charicature of an anarchist position,



Yes they are aren't they.



> some people are playing up to the charicature,



Yes I am, a bit, but I made the remark many pages ago that there should be a clear line where Anarchism begins and Anti-Capitalism ends. I'm not sure who's fault it is that the issue is so confused. This if anything needs to be addressed by the movement because when 'the working masses' do hear about anarchists through mainstream media its always in that shady light. But that doesn't mean the confrontations should be stopped because I honestly believe they shouldn't.



> it just all sucks really.



It's good to talk, like, have it out in the open.



> Anyhoo I just thought this was hilarious:
> 
> Are you pretending to live on estate now?
> Just brilliant!



That is a bit bad, but the point was well made, I thought.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 23, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> Like most working class people I don't enjoy getting twatted by the pigs either, that's why the adrenaline fix is sooooo good, cos I'm fucking scared shitless. The only reason I have found myself getting into an unwinnable situation with the cops in usually to defend a friend or the principle on which I am protesting. I'm prepared to lose many skirmishes with the long term view of exposing state violence, bit of pain now for, hopefully, future gains.





...er, hitting a copper...." 

Do you have a boner as well?


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 23, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> ...er, hitting a copper...."
> 
> Do you have a boner as well?



Are you even going engage in anything constuctive here or am I gonna put you on ignore like your mate swathy thug?


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 23, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> *"some anarchists have grabbed the headlines
> 
> but some anrchists are opposing it
> 
> ...




Given the fact that there isn't a sign saying 'we are anarchists' no information, just the tell tale signs.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 23, 2005)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> If that had been all you were saying this thread would have disappeared a long time ago.





Why what do you think I've been saying?


----------



## General Ludd (Feb 23, 2005)

> Why what do you think I've been saying?


That anarchism is totally unknown to and not understood by the working class and the public in general *and that is how anarchists want it to remain*.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 23, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> Are you even going engage in anything constuctive here or am I gonna put you on ignore like your mate swathy thug?





I'm gonna answer your points about the 'mechanics of social revolution' and all that later on, but I've got to go now-I've just seen a copper going by the window and I'm gonna have him!


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 23, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Given the fact that there isn't a sign saying 'we are anarchists' no information, just the tell tale signs.


So you get to decide who is and isn't an anarchist now? What are these tell tale signs. 
Your argument is circular - anarchists are childish and violent becuase childish and violent people are anarchists.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 23, 2005)

redsquirrel said:
			
		

> So you get to decide who is and isn't an anarchist now?




No I do.

I am the Grand Inquisitor!


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 23, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> He doesn't , he's just using it as a stick to beat us with



Who is 'us' ? Can't work you out Charlie, on one hand you try and set out a clear political difference bewteen your politics and the rest of the anarchists and then come over all faint on behalf of *all * anarchists.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 23, 2005)

redsquirrel said:
			
		

> So you get to decide who is and isn't an anarchist now? What are these tell tale signs.
> Your argument is circular - anarchists are childish and violent becuase childish and violent people are anarchists.






That arguement would be circular but its not mine. Some anarchists are childish, immature and juvenile but those descriptions apply equally to any form of politics. My problem is is that I still can't see much consensus amongst the anarchists as to what anarchism is  or how to attain it. Hence attacking one strand of anarchism seems to be an invite for another strand to defend its version of anarchism.

Incidentially the website doesn't mention any violence at all does it?


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 23, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> That arguement would be circular but its not mine. Some anarchists are childish, immature and juvenile but those descriptions apply equally to any form of politics. My problem is is that I still can't see much consensus amongst the anarchists as to what anarchism is  or how to attain it. Hence attacking one strand of anarchism seems to be an invite for another strand to defend its version of anarchism.
> 
> Incidentially the website doesn't mention any violence at all does it?


But you've done precisely that, you claimed that anarchism was immature etc then when asked for some evidence gave that link. When people pointed out that there was no reason to consider those people anarchists you claimed they were anarchists because they fitted "tell tale signs" (whatever those are, you still haven't said).


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 23, 2005)

redsquirrel said:
			
		

> So you get to decide who is and isn't an anarchist now? What are these tell tale signs.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Funnily enough I just got this quote from one of your fellow anarchists,General Ludd,  from another thread:
> ...


----------



## FreddyB (Feb 23, 2005)

One of the best threads I've read on here.

I could be described as working class by any deffinition. I really hadn't heard much about anarchism at all until about a 18mths ago aside from the media violent brick throwing lunatic mayday stuff. 

The absolutely depressing thing about it is how good an idea it is (in a generalised no hierarchy way) but to my mind at least there seems so little hope of it becoming a mainstream way of working/living. Which isn't to diminish it or the people actively involved in it, I guess it says something about the conditions in society.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 23, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> What I mean by defensive is the totally out-of-proportion response to the reasonable comment I made way back in the mists of Monday.  I will point out once more, just for your benefit, that I did not attack anybody, nor 'push' the 'great alternative.'  The indignation behind the responses - as well as their general apoliticism ('let's all give credit where it's due and be nice-by the way, the organisation you support is crap and you're a cunt!') is telling.
> 
> The only point I was making was that anarchism is totally unknown to and not understood by the working class and the public in general.  Fair point?  Ask around, why don't you?


And when did I , or anyone else say "the organisation you support is crap"etc. Putting the old words in the mouth again, aren't we?
And no, you were saying more than that, weren't you (and yes, when did any anarchist disagree with that statement). Go on, be honest for once, why don't you. You'll feel much better for it. It'll be much better than the glib and smug way you handle things here.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 23, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Who is 'us' ? Can't work you out Charlie, on one hand you try and set out a clear political difference bewteen your politics and the rest of the anarchists and then come over all faint on behalf of *all * anarchists.


So you won't get a job as a psychiatrist, then?
No, don't try to use the divide and rule crapola. As far as I can see, most (not all) of the anarchists on this thread have more or less the same politics. But we're talking about a website where there is no mention of anarchism, after a what appears like a naive belief in the Manchester Evening News objectivity- the old "It's in the paper, it must be true". Surely you realise this is not necessarily so.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 23, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> That arguement would be circular but its not mine. Some anarchists are childish, immature and juvenile but those descriptions apply equally to any form of politics. My problem is is that I still can't see much consensus amongst the anarchists as to what anarchism is  or how to attain it. Hence attacking one strand of anarchism seems to be an invite for another strand to defend its version of anarchism.
> 
> And that's not the case with socialism in general? Between the diffrent Trotskyist or Maoist groups?


----------



## swarthy thug (Feb 23, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> Are you even going engage in anything constuctive here or am I gonna put you on ignore like your mate swathy thug?


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 23, 2005)

swarthy thug said:
			
		

> It reminds of a story a mate of mine  about tommy steele the cockney crooner,supposingly he used to pay strapping ex plods to dress up as a cops, knock on his door and then assult him verbally physically and sexually.He got big kicks out of it.
> 
> Thumper do you want me to gets his number?.



Sweet baby Jesus! I took you off ignore cos like I said in me PM, off on the wrong foot and all that, but now that I can read your drivel again. I see you can only attack me as some kind of sexual fetishist, which as it happens I am, what of it? Do you think that because I am sexually deviant that I am to be ridiculed? At least I've been honest enough to acknowledge the thrills of anti-capitalist action, tho that's not sexually exciting, not all excitment has to be sexual.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 23, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> And when did I , or anyone else say "the organisation you support is crap"etc. Putting the old words in the mouth again, aren't we?





I was giving the overall gist of the comments made by anarchists regarding the IWCA - whom, I once again point out, I did not even mention. If you don't believe me go back and read it all again. 

I believe you were the first to raise the subject of the IWCA, charlie.  I just find it curious as to why- and why others were so quick to follow you.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 23, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> And no, you were saying more than that, weren't you (and yes, when did any anarchist disagree with that statement). Go on, be honest for once, why don't you. You'll feel much better for it. It'll be much better than the glib and smug way you handle things here.





In the words of Samuel Beckett (when repeatedly pestered as to the meaning of Waiting for Godot): 'I meant what the words on the page say.'

Some have said that my writing style's a bit like Beckett's only better....

Moral of the tale: if you read the posts you'll see exactly what I said.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 23, 2005)

No, sorry, you actually said that anarchists were content to be "off the radar" and when people pointed out what they were doing, you dodged, ducked and dived. Add to this your snide comment about bandanna wearing anarchists on another thread......


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 23, 2005)

Not curious at all. Elsewhere you have clearly stated that you support the IWCA and this is the agenda behind your comments


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 23, 2005)

..and how we have extremely fragile political confidence.

in short: a snidey twat without the _confidence_ to just come out and say it honestly.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 23, 2005)

*Jesus Christ, take it on the chin, will yous!*




			
				charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> No, sorry, you actually said that anarchists were content to be "off the radar" and when people pointed out what they were doing, you dodged, ducked and dived. Add to this your snide comment about bandanna wearing anarchists on another thread......





I'm beginning to get the feeling that 'the anarchist society' might be a bit like Stalin's Russia circa 1937, where even the mildest criticism or joke about the Great Teacher(s) would be punishable by torture or execution.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 23, 2005)

This is even more entertaining than the fash on RA.

Fucking hilarious!


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 23, 2005)

yes, hilarious.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 23, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> Not curious at all. Elsewhere you have clearly stated that you support the IWCA and this is the agenda behind your comments





Bourgeois Termites! Trotskyist vermin! British Spies and Fascist infiltrators!

Enemies of the People!


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 23, 2005)

wow, you just get funnier.
Do you like Frasier?


----------



## hibee (Feb 23, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> This is even more entertaining than the fash on RA.
> 
> Fucking hilarious!



At least on Shitefront et al you get a higher quality of debate


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 23, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Bourgeois Termites! Trotskyist vermin! British Spies and Fascist infiltrators!
> 
> Enemies of the People!


Oh how we laughed!


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 23, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Do you like Frasier?





No - the missus does though.  I usually leave her to it and go out to discuss anarchism in the pub.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 23, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> Oh how we laughed!





I aim to please.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 23, 2005)

A successor to Beckett? Don't give up the day job!


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 23, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> ..and how we have extremely fragile political confidence.
> 
> in short: a snidey twat without the _confidence_ to just come out and say it honestly.






There's a great quote in one of Milan Kundera's novels where he talks about the way that in Communist -run societies humour had to go underground because those societies were too fragile to tolerate it.  In his words, the rulers knew that they had discovered the secret to human happiness and so were far, far too important to ever be the target of even the mildest of jokes and fun-poking.

....


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 23, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> A successor to Beckett? Don't give up the day job!





No no - better than him mate.  Better than him.


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 23, 2005)

"The Joke" I believe. I don't like Kundera, I find his novels pretty tedious and to be honest unconvincing- he sets up situations which he then tries to draw conclusions about the human condition from- totally tautological.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 23, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> "The Joke" I believe. I don't like Kundera, I find his novels pretty tedious and to be honest unconvincing- he sets up situations which he then tries to draw conclusions about the human condition from- totally tautological.





Maybe, maybe not.  I like the quote though.  It kind of reminds me of summat but I can't think what....


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 23, 2005)

"5 years in a pc camp" -uh.


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 23, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Maybe, maybe not.  I like the quote though.  It kind of reminds me of summat but I can't think what....


 yes yes, you are very clever, I understood the subtle joke you were making, and stand in awe of your comedic prowess.


----------



## hibee (Feb 23, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> yes yes, you are very clever, I understood the subtle joke you were making, and stand in awe of your comedic prowess.



or, as the air traffic controller says in Airplane, "looks like I chose the wrong day to give up crack"


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 23, 2005)

swarthy thug said:
			
		

> Yeah but did you suss gary glitter out,or pee wee herman or arthur mullard.
> public/private paradox



How do you link the alleged S&M freakery of Tommy Steele with the paedos listed? You are a snide little fuck aren't you.

I also suspect, that swathy thug is also LLETSA, funny how you registered just in time to argue his side. And the way you both quote from film or novels makes me suspect you are one and the same.

Any chance of an IP check mods?


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 23, 2005)

Ah ha! The old amalgam tactic now coupled with "Well, I was only being humorous"
No, mate, judging by your contributions you would neither be a successor to or better than Beckett. Ever thought of getting a job writing those jokes for Christmas crackers? More your level. 
Only being humorous!


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 23, 2005)

no, they are Thomas Koner and Lletsa from the Red Action boards.


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 23, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> no, they are Thomas Koner and Lletsa from the Red Action boards.



Already a tag team then.


----------



## kropotkin (Feb 23, 2005)

yes, but given that they alone are possessors of "the truth" (again, something they seem to criticise others for), they are bound to stick together when enlightening those not in the vanguard.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Feb 23, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> they alone are possessors of "the truth"



which is what?


----------



## hibee (Feb 23, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> And the way you both quote from film or novels



"I'll be taking you to the bank, senetor... the blood bank" - S Segal in Hard to Kill

Wit like that is priceless


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 23, 2005)

Here's a guess- may well be wildly wrong. Judging by his interest in Beckett and his magisterial sarcasm and condescension I'd say LLETSA was a drama teacher in a comprehensive.


----------



## swarthy thug (Feb 23, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> How do you link the alleged S&M freakery of Tommy Steele with the paedos listed? You are a snide little fuck aren't you.
> 
> I also suspect, that swathy thug is also LLETSA, funny how you registered just in time to argue his side. And the way you both quote from film or novels makes me suspect you are one and the same.
> 
> Any chance of an IP check mods?




Well gazza glitter was a boylover,i think pee wee herman liked to tish his tadger in flea pits and arthur mullard was a wife-batterer and abused his kids.I,m not linking tommys plodephila with child abuse im linking itjust with private and public personas.

And the differnce between lletsa and me is that he as much better grammer skills than moi,as you can tell.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 23, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> So you won't get a job as a psychiatrist, then?
> No, don't try to use the divide and rule crapola. As far as I can see, most (not all) of the anarchists on this thread have more or less the same politics. But we're talking about a website where there is no mention of anarchism, after a what appears like a naive belief in the Manchester Evening News objectivity- the old "It's in the paper, it must be true". Surely you realise this is not necessarily so.



Well try and try and try again as the saying goes. It might be  necessary for the anarchists to actuall say who they broadly agree with and who they don't because if me, LLettsa and others who have been around a bit can't quite grasp it then the bloke in the pub has no chance.

Yes I take the point that what the MEN described as anarchists might not be the sort of anarchist of anarchists that your organsiation is .Perhaps they might be anti capitalists instead!


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 23, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> Chuck Wilson said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 23, 2005)

swarthy thug said:
			
		

> im linking itjust with private and public personas.



Fair enuff. 

Whilst we're on the subject is you private persona one of a swathy thug or did you pick that monika to have a pop at me?


----------



## hibee (Feb 23, 2005)

swarthy thug said:
			
		

> Well gazza glitter was a boylover,i think pee wee herman liked to tish his tadger in flea pits and arthur mullard was a wife-batterer and abused his kids.I,m not linking tommys plodephila with child abuse im linking itjust with private and public personas.
> 
> And the differnce between lletsa and me is that he as much better grammer skills than moi,as you can tell.



Tom you old cock, it's JC from RA. Been to any good jumble sales recently?


----------



## swarthy thug (Feb 23, 2005)

hibee said:
			
		

> Tom you old cock, it's JC from RA. Been to any good jumble sales recently?




Yeah i won that black doll and the tizers still flat.Jumbles or the world social forum no contest.


----------



## rednblack (Feb 23, 2005)

hibee said:
			
		

> or, as the air traffic controller says in Airplane, "looks like I chose the wrong day to give up crack"



this thread makes me want to deal crack...

oh and icepick - i think monty does live on an estate at the moment


----------



## swarthy thug (Feb 23, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> Fair enuff.
> 
> Whilst we're on the subject is you private persona one of a swathy thug or did you pick that monika to have a pop at me?




A picked swarthy thug even before i knew you exsisted.


monika?


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 23, 2005)

*I am Spartacus*




			
				Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> I also suspect, that swathy thug is also LLETSA, funny how you registered just in time to argue his side. And the way you both quote from film or novels makes me suspect you are one and the same.
> 
> Any chance of an IP check mods?





The Counter Revolution is a multi-headed hydra and is anywhere and everywhere! Be vigilant Comrade Citizens!

I didn't think it could get any better!


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 23, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> oh and icepick - i think monty does live on an estate at the moment


the crown estate?


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 23, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> The Counter Revolution is a multi-headed hydra and is anywhere and everywhere! Be vigilant Comrade Citizens!
> 
> I didn't think it could get any better!


It couldn't get any worse


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 23, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> It couldn't get any worse


give it five minutes...


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 23, 2005)

True!


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 23, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> give it five minutes...



I haven't got 5 minutes I got to go home


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 23, 2005)

Me too!
LLETSA didn't come back on that drama teacher question. True or not?


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 23, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> Here's a guess- may well be wildly wrong. Judging by his interest in Beckett and his magisterial sarcasm and condescension I'd say LLETSA was a drama teacher in a comprehensive.





Did you by any chance pose as a fascist on the RA board?  'Cos that's exactly the kind of thing they used to say when they failed to make any headway in the arguments.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 23, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> Judging by his interest in Beckett and his magisterial sarcasm and condescension I'd say LLETSA was a drama teacher in a comprehensive.





And funnily enough the fascists used to assume that nobody from the working class was capable of reading and understanding anything like Beckett.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 23, 2005)

well - it was less than five minutes.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 23, 2005)

No, mate, never been anywhere near the Red Action boards. Anyway, true or not. It doesn't hurt to say yes or no, does it. And no, I'm not "failing to make any headway".
As to assuming whether anybody from the working class can not understand or read Beckett, you said that, I certainly didn't. There's always been a strong current of autodidacticism within the anarchist movement ( as there has in the old Communist Party) So no, don't try and put words in my mouth again, cos I don't believe that.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 23, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> No, mate, never been anywhere near the Red Action boards. Anyway, true or not. It doesn't hurt to say yes or no, does it. And no, I'm not "failing to make any headway".





No.

And whether you're making any headway or not will only be judged by the Broad Mass of Workers and Toilers comrade citizen!


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 23, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> As to assuming whether anybody from the working class can not understand or read Beckett, you said that, I certainly didn't. There's always been a strong current of autodidacticism within the anarchist movement ( as there has in the old Communist Party) So no, don't try and put words in my mouth again, cos I don't believe that.





Your post was absolutely dripping with that implication.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 23, 2005)

Once again I am laughing till the tears run down my leg!


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 23, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Your post was absolutely dripping with that implication.


Well that's bollox. But carry on as you started out.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 23, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> Well that's bollox. But carry on as you started out.





'You must be some kind of middle class professional' (Subtext: because only middle class professionals are capable of matching me in an argument.)


----------



## charlie mowbray (Feb 23, 2005)

Eh? What are you on about now?


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 23, 2005)

swarthy thug said:
			
		

> And the differnce between lletsa and me is that he as much better grammer skills than moi,as you can tell.





And LLETSA originates from the civilized side of the pennines....


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 23, 2005)

*Yer wriggling like a ferret down a trouser leg*




			
				charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> Eh? What are you on about now?





Post number 479.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 23, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> The only reason I have found myself getting into an unwinnable situation with the cops in usually to defend a friend or the principle on which I am protesting. I'm prepared to lose many skirmishes with the long term view of exposing state violence, bit of pain now for, hopefully, future gains.





On way way home the other day I saw several spontaneous demonstrations of workers chanting your name and something about how you had opened their eyes to the true nature of the bourgeois state. They were carrying placards with your photo on 'em.  I could tell it was you despite the bandana over your gob.


----------



## montevideo (Feb 23, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Given the fact that there isn't a sign saying 'we are anarchists' no information, just the tell tale signs.



which are?


----------



## Ryazan (Feb 23, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> But organising to meet your needs is normal surely? Why does it become neccesarily abnormal when its done collectively?



Depends who is doing the orgainsing.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 23, 2005)

Read on...read on...


----------



## catch (Feb 23, 2005)

Don't know where to start with all this shite, but the MEN/100days lot look like broad anti-capitalists/anti-corporate/anti-globalisation types to me, which I  should think everyone on this board ought to be able to differentiate between anarchism by now.


----------



## Ryazan (Feb 23, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Read on...read on...



Cheers.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 23, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> which are?


I've already asked him twice but he doesn't seem to want to let us know.


----------



## montevideo (Feb 23, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> Don't know where to start with all this shite, but the MEN/100days lot look like broad anti-capitalists/anti-corporate/anti-globalisation types to me, which I  should think everyone on this board ought to be able to differentiate between anarchism by now.



i'd say coalition of skaterpunks, environmentalists, student types with a moral conscience. People who meet at kickstart or the basement or MERCi centre (pronounced "murky"). Maybe some hippie punk cast-off's from the okasional cafe & diehard homocult throwbacks. And probably the do summat collective too.

The iwca thing was because their wrath & anger was directed at The Council & its failings.


----------



## ernestolynch (Feb 23, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> i'd say coalition of skaterpunks, environmentalists, student types with a moral conscience. People who meet at kickstart or the basement or MERCi centre (pronounced "murky"). Maybe some hippie punk cast-off's from the okasional cafe & diehard homocult throwbacks. And probably the do summat collective too.



Soap-dodgers you mean?


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 24, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> On way way home the other day I saw several spontaneous demonstrations of workers chanting your name and something about how you had opened their eyes to the true nature of the bourgeois state. They were carrying placards with your photo on 'em.  I could tell it was you despite the bandana over your gob.



 

Now that's what I call making headway!

See you are sooooooooo full of SHIT, there you was yesterday, saying that !!ANARCHY!! was dead cos no-ones ever heard of !!!ANARCHY!!! in the working classes and now you're here TOTALLLLY contraDICKting yourself. See those FUCKING proles love ME AS THEIR GOD! 

THEY will cast THEIR dirty soap dodged bodies down before MY sk8board and low they will HOLD ALOFT a BLACK bandana (you know the nice one with the SKULLS!!!! on it) and low they will BLOW MY COCK. For it is written.

THUMPER
THUMPER
THUMPER
THUMPER

HEAR THEM ROAR!!!! THEY ARE MY PEOPLE AND THEY ADORE ME!!!!!!


----------



## The Black Hand (Feb 24, 2005)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LLETSA
Many TV appearances? And so? The same could be said for Les Dennis. I think you'd find that those TV appearances confirmed you in the eyes of the audience as what you were already perceived as (through your own efforts) by the tiny numbers who already knew of you - a novelty act.

_THIS IS GIBBERISH..._

In my experience the small number of people who ever came across it (to them Class War was merely stickers on a lamp post or graffiti on a wall) thought that Class War material was sometimes funny, and compared to the po-faced left it probably was. Nobody outside your own circle ever took it seriously as any kind of guide to action, however. 


Durrr, whoever said a sticker could be a guide to action dimwit? As I have already said class consciousness is a process, there are no QUICK FIxes and any know it all lefties who pretend they have an answer ARE LIARS... and your last sentence above is complete bollox, Class War was used as a symbol of resistance for many, note the way that people gravitated to the CLass War contingent on the miners huge demo in autumn 1992, and likewise during the poll tax anniversary march... that's not including stickers that were and are being put in many provocative places such as police cars, on prison wings, and on vandalised property during riots etc  

The whole approach Class War used to take towards the working class was fundamentally patronising (this was to some extent true of most anarchist groups I used to come across). To assume that most working people share your carefully cultivated 'rebel' poses and took seriously the juvenile 'fuck this, fuck that, fuck the other' tone of your propaganda can be described as nothing else. 

_AND FUCK YOU But seriously, Class War circulation grew in prisons approx 2000% (about a dozen to over 200) in one year of prison organising in the mid 1990s... a class composition that spits on you and yours and proves that working class people liked Class War... It is a take on working class people and their culture that you obviously have no comprehension nor knowledge of.  _ 

'Starbucks Fuck Off'? Is that the sound of empires tumbling? Oh no, it's just next door putting the bin out. 

Do you think working people are fucking daft or what?  




			
				Attica said:
			
		

> No - i think you are an arsehole.



Are you going to reply to the above points 'Lettsa start a waste of time irrelevant thread'...??


----------



## montevideo (Feb 24, 2005)

here's the wombles 'position' on violence on demonstrations (apologies for length):


"The main function, deliberate or not, of the dilemma "violence"/"non-violence" is to create a new field of critique, a new ideological battlefield where everyone (journalists, politicians, protestors etc) talk about; a new object for our attention is born, which marginalises the most important aspect of every demo - the social struggle (as a whole entity) against the capitalist, authoritarian system (as a whole entity).

Both the "never violent"/"always violent" positions seek a symbolic & material impact during the demo; yet, in the present conditions of the broader social struggle, the expectations of a material impact are usually low. Rather, under the spectacular mechanisms of the media, a symbolic impact is perceived as more possible. The latter possibility can drive the two positions to be used merely for spectacular goals.

The "always violence" position uses violence as the only means to symbolise the confrontation with the powers of the state & capital, to symbolise the power of social struggle. Thus violence becomes a self-goal & it is not treated as another means of the broader social struggle.

The "never violent" position achieves a small symbolic impact by being "morally legitimate", by being compliant with the social value of "peacefulness". A much greater symbolic impact is achieved though, if the police attack; then the non-violent crowd symbolises "the powerless society", "the victim", & reveals the violent nature of the state. Under such conditions, the moral power of "being a victim" is used to gain sympathy of the "public opinion".

Both the "never violent"/"always violent" positions, when they become a repeated reality, drive to easily predicted demos. They create well-established social expectations for the form & outcome of the demos, & stereotypical patterns of crowd action by the members of the demos.

Our intentions, as anarchists/anti-authoritarians, should not be fixated on any dogmatic & simplistic role - "always violent"/"never violent". Rather, we should try to make a coherent analysis of the broader social context so as to identify the potential role of an active confrontation at 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 & capital."


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 24, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by LLETSA
> Many TV appearances? And so? The same could be said for Les Dennis. I think you'd find that those TV appearances confirmed you in the eyes of the audience as what you were already perceived as (through your own efforts) by the tiny numbers who already knew of you - a novelty act.
> 
> ...





Seeing as you originally posted it up in a way that made it impossible - at least to somebody with my limited computer knowledge - to bring it up in my reply so as to make it obvious which post I was addressing, I left it for a while.  A line of angry revolutionaries to address, as you might have seen.  

Actually that's balls.  In truth, I was cringing before your erudite demolition of me.  I didn't sleep a wink last night. 

Hail the revolt of the spiky tops!


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 24, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> Now that's what I call making headway!
> 
> See you are sooooooooo full of SHIT, there you was yesterday, saying that !!ANARCHY!! was dead cos no-ones ever heard of !!!ANARCHY!!! in the working classes and now you're here TOTALLLLY contraDICKting yourself. See those FUCKING proles love ME AS THEIR GOD!
> 
> ...





Ricky Gervais can sleep easy.


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 24, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Hail the revolt of the spiky tops!



Why do you persist with the stereotypes?


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 24, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> Why do you persist with the stereotypes?





Why not?


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 24, 2005)

Who wears spiky tops


----------



## rednblack (Feb 24, 2005)

Herbert Read said:
			
		

> Who wears spiky tops



s&m freaks with the spikes on the inside


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 24, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Why not?



First off, its not helpful to any discussion to talk in terms of stereotypes. It's like quoting from fiction to support arguments about real life.

Secondly, it makes you look like a cunt.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 24, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> it makes you look like a cunt.





What, a bit like taking yourself over-seriously y'mean?


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 24, 2005)

Give up this ghost and comic book capers


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 24, 2005)

*washes hands*


----------



## Ryazan (Feb 24, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> here's the wombles 'position' on violence on demonstrations (apologies for length):
> 
> 
> "The main function, deliberate or not, of the dilemma "violence"/"non-violence" is to create a new field of critique, a new ideological battlefield where *everyone* (journalists, politicians, protestors etc) talk about; a new object for our attention is born, which marginalises the most important aspect of every demo - the social struggle (as a whole entity) against the capitalist, authoritarian system (as a whole entity).



Everyone?


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 24, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> which are?



Sorry I had to work till 8.00 clock  last night, watched the Chelsea game and am still at work, now so no time to reply at all. However by your friends you shall be known.



> manchester Anarchists met last night and discussed what to do on MayDay. we came up with the idea of a moving picnic between Urbis and Piccadilly Gdns. A chance to talk to people - propaganda by food? To illustrate the poverty of the shopping experience.


from the enrager boards



> May Day
> 11:45am, Piccadilly Gardens. Manchester Social Forum and Manchester
> Anarchists recently discussed what to do on May Day and decided
> they would like to organise a picnic in the city centre to give the
> ...



From Manchester network news bulletin



> Manchester Social Forum and Manchester Anarchists | 27.04.2004 17:44 | Manchester
> "The new gardens have a sense of emptiness. No matter which way you look,
> you can't get away from the concrete wall".
> 
> ...



from Manchester Indie Media News



> Mad Picnic for
> a Mad World
> Manchester Anarchists and friends celebrated May
> Day with a picnic on Piccadilly Gardens. It was a
> ...


From IndyMedia Manchester

In addition on enrager  we have manc anarchists supporting the 'critical mass'- a monthly bike ride against the car, "come with bikes, skateboards or rollerskates"

or Manchester street olympics - "reclaiming public spaces, putting two fingers up to corporate Manchester"

So I would suggest these are the tell tale signs of  activity so so similar to the fake 100 days site. Anarchy in the UK? Either they are mistaken that this is anarchism or you are.If they are right then its no wonder that anarchism isn't ever considered as an option by the working class. If you are right then you had better either reclaim the brand name or call yourself something else. Will the 'real ' anarchists stand up please?


----------



## catch (Feb 24, 2005)

Pretty much only call myself a libertarian communist/socialist now anyway... ocassionally anarchist-communist.

Of course you ignore the daily battle against radical liberal tendencies that we engage in daily on the enrager boards


----------



## montevideo (Feb 24, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Sorry I had to work till 8.00 clock  last night, watched the Chelsea game and am still at work, now so no time to reply at all. However by your friends you shall be known.
> 
> 
> from the enrager boards
> ...




no mate, not good enough. What tell tale signs on the website denotes it an anarchist one? So far you've giving nothing, not one tell tale sign from that website that could give away the fact that it was 'the anarchists' who did it. 

All the examples you've quoted above make absolutely no reference to this website or its content. 

You are a lair.

Now it may be that anarchists are indeed responsible (& more power to them) but nothing, nothing from that website betrays the fact. 

You are a liar.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 24, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> no mate, not good enough. What tell tale signs on the website denotes it an anarchist one? So far you've giving nothing, not one tell tale sign from that website that could give away the fact that it was 'the anarchists' who did it.
> 
> All the examples you've quoted above make absolutely no reference to this website or its content.
> 
> ...




Pants on fire! Let's not get into name calling monty, it simply doesn't make you look big or even clever. You know as well as I do that the list of comical activities that  that Manchester anarchists posted are in the same vein as that one the site.And the question you keep side stepping ( and not surprisingly) is , is this what anarchism is all about? More importantly for those of us who don't come across anarchists very often in real life  is are we supposed to take this as a serious contribution to pro working class politics? You say more power to them , I say leave the studio.

You can take the Real Anarchists with their skateboarders against the car,the 'fluffy' picnic with free popcorn on MayDay reclaiming open spaces, the street olympics against the corporatism of the city centre etc or those that who wish to remain annoymous who are into skateboarders against car pollution, anti corporatism of the city centre and want to reclaim the open spaces. Same trick same trade in my opinion.

If you are looking for an anarchist group to publicly take responsibility both you and I know that this is unlikely to happen so why invent that as a possibility?


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 24, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by LLETSA
> Many TV appearances? And so? The same could be said for Les Dennis. I think you'd find that those TV appearances confirmed you in the eyes of the audience as what you were already perceived as (through your own efforts) by the tiny numbers who already knew of you - a novelty act.
> 
> ...





I never said that you think stickers are a guide to action. What I said was that the tiny number of non-politicos I've come across who had heard about Class War (and this fifteen or more years ago) knew of the organisation only from stickers on a lamp post and the occasional graffiti that made already run-down areas look even worse.  They knew nothing about what they were actually supposed to stand for, even after the odd press article and the telly programmes you refer to. They were amused by the comic book nature of their propaganda in the same way that they might be amused by Viz.  'Fuck this and fuck that, angry, angry, angry!': this reveals an understanding of the working class mentality that might have been displayed by an art school punk band circa 1977, and lays bare a fundamental misunderstanding of the priorities of the average working class person. Far from considering Class War a serious political force, this form of propaganda ensured that they were taken even less seriously than the Socialist Worker sellers who occasionally turned up outside our workplaces and so on. In fact I didn't meet a single non-politico who assumed that Class War was actually trying to be taken seriously; as I said, they were, in my experience, viewed as a novelty act: sometimes mildly funny as long as they weren't on too long. 

The fact that some prisoners liked Class War proves nothing.  Prisoners are bored shitless and of course if somebody starts circulating something like Class War around jails, its contrived irreverence towards authority will go down well with some. What are you trying to say though? That having been inside somehow makes you more proletarian than anybody else? Never heard so much tosh in all me born days. That's the kind of patronising approach to the working class that I was talking about: of course to self-styled anti- authoritarians all prisoners are victims.  Some may well be but I think you'll find that the average working class person will first of all consider what an individual has actually been put inside for and conclude that for some of them - the violent and anti-social element in particular-that's the best fucking place for them.  Read all that stuff you've written again about 'a class composition that spits on you and yours'; hopefully you'll blush with embarrassment. Far from being an alternative to the condescending, middle class-dominated left you present just another form of condescension. No, in actual fact I've also heard this kind of thing from middle class Trots; it's just that you dressed it all up in comic book imagery.

'Stickers in provocative places such as police cars, on prison wings and on vandalised property during riots etc.'  As I said, is that the sound of empires falling?  Oh no it's just next door's kids playing football in the passage.


----------



## montevideo (Feb 24, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Pants on fire! Let's not get into name calling monty, it simply doesn't make you look big or even clever. You know as well as I do that the list of comical activities that  that Manchester anarchists posted are in the same vein as that one the site.And the question you keep side stepping ( and not surprisingly) is , is this what anarchism is all about? More importantly for those of us who don't come across anarchists very often in real life  is are we supposed to take this as a serious contribution to pro working class politics? You say more power to them , I say leave the studio.
> 
> You can take the Real Anarchists with their skateboarders against the car,the 'fluffy' picnic with free popcorn on MayDay reclaiming open spaces, the street olympics against the corporatism of the city centre etc or those that who wish to remain annoymous who are into skateboarders against car pollution, anti corporatism of the city centre and want to reclaim the open spaces. Same trick same trade in my opinion.
> 
> If you are looking for an anarchist group to publicly take responsibility both you and I know that this is unlikely to happen so why invent that as a possibility?


 
so 'the anarchists' didn't do it. Took our time getting there.

"se gli anarchici non se ne curano, la storia la faranno i loro nemici"


----------



## Random (Feb 24, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> so 'the anarchists' didn't do it. Took our time getting there.



If you have the same argument, but instead talk about the general libertarian activist scene (because there are very few overt UK anarchist groups) then Chuck's point make very good sense.  Many of those Manchester people are my good friends, some would call themselves anarchists, some not.  The point about anarchoid visibility to the general public, and the 'anti-100 days' as part of this, is still valid.


----------



## montevideo (Feb 24, 2005)

Random said:
			
		

> If you have the same argument, but instead talk about the general libertarian activist scene (because there are very few overt UK anarchist groups) then Chuck's point make very good sense.  Many of those Manchester people are my good friends, some would call themselves anarchists, some not.  The point about anarchoid visibility to the general public, and the 'anti-100 days' as part of this, is still valid.



the argument was it was a website done by 'the anarchists'. Those are his words. All i wanted to know was how did he know it was done by 'the anarchists'. Fact is he didn't.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 25, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> the argument was it was a website done by 'the anarchists'. Those are his words. All i wanted to know was how did he know it was done by 'the anarchists'. Fact is he didn't.




Ma se gli attori non ci offriranno le loro testimonianze gli storici non potranno scrivere?


----------



## ernestolynch (Feb 25, 2005)

Can we have a link to this offending website please?

Great thread so far  - I liked Chuck and LLETSA's posts from last night.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 25, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> Can we have a link to this offending website please?
> 
> Great thread so far  - I liked Chuck and LLETSA's posts from last night.





http://www.100days.org.uk/news_v1.htm


----------



## ernestolynch (Feb 25, 2005)

> What is an enviro-crime?
> Nose picking, long hair, piercings, not doing up your shoelaces, smirking, youth in groups of one or more, rap music, having a laugh, public gayness outside of mardi gras, farting, other things....



 

Cringeworthy. Is that a student project by Giles in Rusholme?


----------



## montevideo (Feb 25, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> Everyone?



Not everyone?


----------



## The Black Hand (Feb 25, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> I never said that you think stickers are a guide to action. What I said was that the tiny number of non-politicos I've come across who had heard about Class War (and this fifteen or more years ago) knew of the organisation only from stickers on a lamp post and the occasional graffiti that made already run-down areas look even worse.  They knew nothing about what they were actually supposed to stand for, even after the odd press article and the telly programmes you refer to. They were amused by the comic book nature of their propaganda in the same way that they might be amused by Viz.  'Fuck this and fuck that, angry, angry, angry!': this reveals an understanding of the working class mentality that might have been displayed by an art school punk band circa 1977, and lays bare a fundamental misunderstanding of the priorities of the average working class person. Far from considering Class War a serious political force, this form of propaganda ensured that they were taken even less seriously than the Socialist Worker sellers who occasionally turned up outside our workplaces and so on. In fact I didn't meet a single non-politico who assumed that Class War was actually trying to be taken seriously; as I said, they were, in my experience, viewed as a novelty act: sometimes mildly funny as long as they weren't on too long.
> 
> The fact that some prisoners liked Class War proves nothing.  Prisoners are bored shitless and of course if somebody starts circulating something like Class War around jails, its contrived irreverence towards authority will go down well with some. What are you trying to say though? That having been inside somehow makes you more proletarian than anybody else? Never heard so much tosh in all me born days. That's the kind of patronising approach to the working class that I was talking about: of course to self-styled anti- authoritarians all prisoners are victims.  Some may well be but I think you'll find that the average working class person will first of all consider what an individual has actually been put inside for and conclude that for some of them - the violent and anti-social element in particular-that's the best fucking place for them.  Read all that stuff you've written again about 'a class composition that spits on you and yours'; hopefully you'll blush with embarrassment. Far from being an alternative to the condescending, middle class-dominated left you present just another form of condescension. No, in actual fact I've also heard this kind of thing from middle class Trots; it's just that you dressed it all up in comic book imagery.
> 
> 'Stickers in provocative places such as police cars, on prison wings and on vandalised property during riots etc.'  As I said, is that the sound of empires falling?  Oh no it's just next door's kids playing football in the passage.


Bollocks.


----------



## swarthy thug (Feb 25, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> Bollocks.




LLETSA,you have no answer to that swiftain put down.


----------



## our-streets (Feb 25, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> Bollocks.



I thought it was quite an interesting post


----------



## montevideo (Feb 25, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Ma se gli attori non ci offriranno le loro testimonianze gli storici non potranno scrivere?



so what have we learnt:

1. you're happy to lie through your teeth (even after being found out)
2. you know italian

two things that may prove useful in the future


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 25, 2005)

*Robert De Niro's waiting for me and talking Italian*




			
				montevideo said:
			
		

> so what have we learnt:
> 
> 1. you're happy to lie through your teeth (even after being found out)
> 2. you know italian
> ...




Che parla male di Signor Wilson è uno sciocco. 
Non provenite da MI5 siete voi e provando a reclutarlo per provare e rintracciare giù coloro che impersonating gli anarchici e sta dando loro un nome difettoso?

in subtitles:

He who speaks badly of Signor Wilson is a fool. 

You're not from MI5 are you and trying to recruit me to try and track down those who are impersonating anarchists and giving them a bad name?


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 25, 2005)

swarthy thug said:
			
		

> LLETSA,you have no answer to that swiftain put down.





Once more I am shitting blue lights because of Atticus.

Attica I mean.


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 25, 2005)

**Decides to get hands dirty again**




			
				LLETSA said:
			
		

> I never said that you think stickers are a guide to action. What I said was that the tiny number of non-politicos I've come across who had heard about Class War (and this fifteen or more years ago) knew of the organisation only from stickers on a lamp post and the occasional graffiti that made already run-down areas look even worse.  They knew nothing about what they were actually supposed to stand for, even after the odd press article and the telly programmes you refer to. They were amused by the comic book nature of their propaganda in the same way that they might be amused by Viz.  'Fuck this and fuck that, angry, angry, angry!': this reveals an understanding of the working class mentality that might have been displayed by an art school punk band circa 1977, and lays bare a fundamental misunderstanding of the priorities of the average working class person. Far from considering Class War a serious political force, this form of propaganda ensured that they were taken even less seriously than the Socialist Worker sellers who occasionally turned up outside our workplaces and so on. In fact I didn't meet a single non-politico who assumed that Class War was actually trying to be taken seriously; as I said, they were, in my experience, viewed as a novelty act: sometimes mildly funny as long as they weren't on too long.
> 
> The fact that some prisoners liked Class War proves nothing.  Prisoners are bored shitless and of course if somebody starts circulating something like Class War around jails, its contrived irreverence towards authority will go down well with some. What are you trying to say though? That having been inside somehow makes you more proletarian than anybody else? Never heard so much tosh in all me born days. That's the kind of patronising approach to the working class that I was talking about: of course to self-styled anti- authoritarians all prisoners are victims.  Some may well be but I think you'll find that the average working class person will first of all consider what an individual has actually been put inside for and conclude that for some of them - the violent and anti-social element in particular-that's the best fucking place for them.  Read all that stuff you've written again about 'a class composition that spits on you and yours'; hopefully you'll blush with embarrassment. Far from being an alternative to the condescending, middle class-dominated left you present just another form of condescension. No, in actual fact I've also heard this kind of thing from middle class Trots; it's just that you dressed it all up in comic book imagery.
> 
> 'Stickers in provocative places such as police cars, on prison wings and on vandalised property during riots etc.'  As I said, is that the sound of empires falling?  Oh no it's just next door's kids playing football in the passage.



Fair point I reckon.

So what's the plan then, boss?


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 25, 2005)

*"White Riot, I wanna riot...."*




			
				Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> Fair point I reckon.
> 
> So what's the plan then, boss?





We'll get our hands on some bandanas and some bricks and then we is really up for a ruck wid de police.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 25, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> I never said that you think stickers are a guide to action. What I said was that the tiny number of non-politicos I've come across who had heard about Class War (and this fifteen or more years ago) knew of the organisation only from stickers on a lamp post and the occasional graffiti that made already run-down areas look even worse.  They knew nothing about what they were actually supposed to stand for, even after the odd press article and the telly programmes you refer to. They were amused by the comic book nature of their propaganda in the same way that they might be amused by Viz.  'Fuck this and fuck that, angry, angry, angry!': this reveals an understanding of the working class mentality that might have been displayed by an art school punk band circa 1977, and lays bare a fundamental misunderstanding of the priorities of the average working class person. Far from considering Class War a serious political force, this form of propaganda ensured that they were taken even less seriously than the Socialist Worker sellers who occasionally turned up outside our workplaces and so on. In fact I didn't meet a single non-politico who assumed that Class War was actually trying to be taken seriously; as I said, they were, in my experience, viewed as a novelty act: sometimes mildly funny as long as they weren't on too long.
> 
> The fact that some prisoners liked Class War proves nothing.  Prisoners are bored shitless and of course if somebody starts circulating something like Class War around jails, its contrived irreverence towards authority will go down well with some. What are you trying to say though? That having been inside somehow makes you more proletarian than anybody else? Never heard so much tosh in all me born days. That's the kind of patronising approach to the working class that I was talking about: of course to self-styled anti- authoritarians all prisoners are victims.  Some may well be but I think you'll find that the average working class person will first of all consider what an individual has actually been put inside for and conclude that for some of them - the violent and anti-social element in particular-that's the best fucking place for them.  Read all that stuff you've written again about 'a class composition that spits on you and yours'; hopefully you'll blush with embarrassment. Far from being an alternative to the condescending, middle class-dominated left you present just another form of condescension. No, in actual fact I've also heard this kind of thing from middle class Trots; it's just that you dressed it all up in comic book imagery.
> 
> 'Stickers in provocative places such as police cars, on prison wings and on vandalised property during riots etc.'  As I said, is that the sound of empires falling?  Oh no it's just next door's kids playing football in the passage.


what attica said.


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 25, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> We'll get our hands on some bandanas and some bricks and then we is really up for a ruck wid de police.



Yeah right, let's dispense with the comdey anarcho-punker stereotypes, not only in this discussion but in the movement itself. I say there's a role to play, or rather there's been a role to play for the skaterpunk in keeping anarchy in the headlines at least once a year. Maybe it is now time to drop the rocks and find a better way to get our point across but we need to do some work, set some realistic objectives, define a strategy and get to work.

Who's up for it? Mayday2006 conference thingy?


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 25, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> what attica said.



ugatz ?


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 25, 2005)

S'all gone quiet.

*watches tumble weed tumble*

No takers then?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 25, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> Mayday2006 conference thingy?




what's this?


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 25, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> what attica said.





What I said.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 25, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> What I said.


the difference is what attica said makes sense.

if you ain't been paying attention since 1990, where've you been?

and how many other anarcho papers get sent in to prisons? not a lot!


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 25, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> the difference is what attica said makes sense.
> 
> if you ain't been paying attention since 1990, where've you been?
> 
> and how many other anarcho papers get sent in to prisons? not a lot!





He didn't say a right lot as far as I could see.

Between 1990 and around 2001 I paid attention to the left (within which I include anarchism) only sporadically.  Since then I've encountered CW only on the internet.  Nothing against you lot, it's just that it doesn't hit home with me.  For the reasons I explain above. 

How does the fact that you send CW to prison cancel out what I said?


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 25, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> the difference is what attica said makes sense.
> 
> if you ain't been paying attention since 1990, where've you been?
> 
> and how many other anarcho papers get sent in to prisons? not a lot!



I hate to say this but Socialist Worker and the Morning Star have all been read and contributed to by people either serving time or on remand in prison. The point that Llettsa makes surely is about the content of the paper and the content of the politics of Class War, and the other anarchist groups. In other words what is the relevance of anarchist politics within the working class. 

The same question has been asked of ,what some of us would agree are, the cobweb left.


----------



## 888 (Feb 25, 2005)

I think anarchist politics are relevant, it's more the way and presentation which may need changing.

Some of lletsa/chuck wilson's points are valid, as are some of the anarchists', but this is drowned out by pointless point scoring on both sides. 

I think the IWCA have correctly identified a major reason for the left's failure, and a part of the correct solution (I don't know the whole of it) - this is something anarchists should copy as I think their core ideas are superior (of course, anarchists (worldwide) had already been doing it before - but not to a great enough extent).


----------



## audiotech (Feb 25, 2005)

888 said:
			
		

> I think anarchist politics are relevant, it's more the way and presentation which may need changing.
> 
> Some of lletsa/chuck wilson's points are valid, as are some of the anarchists', but this is drowned out by pointless point scoring on both sides.
> 
> I think the IWCA have correctly identified a major reason for the left's failure, and a part of the correct solution (I don't know the whole of it) - this is something anarchists should copy as I think their core ideas are superior (of course, anarchists (worldwide) had already been doing it before - but not to a great enough extent).



Superior? How?


----------



## montevideo (Feb 25, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> I hate to say this but Socialist Worker and the Morning Star have all been read and contributed to by people either serving time or on remand in prison. The point that Llettsa makes surely is about the content of the paper and the content of the politics of Class War, and the other anarchist groups. In other words what is the relevance of anarchist politics within the working class.
> 
> The same question has been asked of ,what some of us would agree are, the cobweb left.



well, we now know what you say about 'the anarchists' we can take with a pinch of salt. Or maybe you want to give us some tell tale signs?


----------



## Ryazan (Feb 26, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> I never said that you think stickers are a guide to action. What I said was that the tiny number of non-politicos I've come across who had heard about Class War (and this fifteen or more years ago) knew of the organisation only from stickers on a lamp post and the occasional graffiti that made already run-down areas look even worse.  They knew nothing about what they were actually supposed to stand for, even after the odd press article and the telly programmes you refer to. They were amused by the comic book nature of their propaganda in the same way that they might be amused by Viz.  'Fuck this and fuck that, angry, angry, angry!': this reveals an understanding of the working class mentality that might have been displayed by an art school punk band circa 1977, and lays bare a fundamental misunderstanding of the priorities of the average working class person. Far from considering Class War a serious political force, this form of propaganda ensured that they were taken even less seriously than the Socialist Worker sellers who occasionally turned up outside our workplaces and so on. In fact I didn't meet a single non-politico who assumed that Class War was actually trying to be taken seriously; as I said, they were, in my experience, viewed as a novelty act: sometimes mildly funny as long as they weren't on too long.
> 
> The fact that some prisoners liked Class War proves nothing.  Prisoners are bored shitless and of course if somebody starts circulating something like Class War around jails, its contrived irreverence towards authority will go down well with some. What are you trying to say though? That having been inside somehow makes you more proletarian than anybody else? Never heard so much tosh in all me born days. That's the kind of patronising approach to the working class that I was talking about: of course to self-styled anti- authoritarians all prisoners are victims.  Some may well be but I think you'll find that the average working class person will first of all consider what an individual has actually been put inside for and conclude that for some of them - the violent and anti-social element in particular-that's the best fucking place for them.  Read all that stuff you've written again about 'a class composition that spits on you and yours'; hopefully you'll blush with embarrassment. Far from being an alternative to the condescending, middle class-dominated left you present just another form of condescension. No, in actual fact I've also heard this kind of thing from middle class Trots; it's just that you dressed it all up in comic book imagery.
> 
> 'Stickers in provocative places such as police cars, on prison wings and on vandalised property during riots etc.'  As I said, is that the sound of empires falling?  Oh no it's just next door's kids playing football in the passage.



I think I like you.


----------



## ernestolynch (Feb 26, 2005)

I'm nominating that LLETSA post for UKP+P 'You got told' Post of the Year.


----------



## swarthy thug (Feb 26, 2005)

I think I like you.

comeone use your rapair wit and interlect and use this quote



Originally Posted by Attica
Bollocks.


FEEL THE FORCE


----------



## montevideo (Feb 26, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> I'm nominating that LLETSA post for UKP+P 'You got told' Post of the Year.



a poisoned chalice if ever there was one. Given LLETSA's post was a collection of gossip, hearsay, assertions of what The Working Class are, think & feel (& at the same time accusing others of having a patronising approach to The Working Class) & general unsubstantiated assumptions that are at best unreliable at worst pure invention i too nominate it for post of the year.

I also nominate LLETSA as official spokesperson of The Working Class.


----------



## steeplejack (Feb 26, 2005)

Actually I thought he made his case very well.

Interesting that those with some affiliation with CW on here have done nothing but sneer or avoid his points ever since.

Why are his arguments 'bollocks' for those of us not 'in the loop' with CW?


----------



## ernestolynch (Feb 26, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> a poisoned chalice if ever there was one. Given LLETSA's post was a collection of gossip, hearsay, assertions of what The Working Class are, think & feel (& at the same time accusing others of having a patronising approach to The Working Class) & general unsubstantiated assumptions that are at best unreliable at worst pure invention i too nominate it for post of the year.
> 
> I also nominate LLETSA as official spokesperson of The Working Class.



This coming from a Burnage man who plays treehouses, sorry 'Social Centers', with student drop-outs.


----------



## swarthy thug (Feb 26, 2005)

Interesting that those with some affiliation with CW on here have done nothing but sneer or avoid his points ever since

  Bollocks.Posted by attica

Surely thats enough,how can you improve on perfection

You cant tippex out the worse bits in the koran,its the word of god
swarthys thugs bumper book of relevant sayings.


----------



## Ryazan (Feb 26, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> I'm nominating that LLETSA post for UKP+P 'You got told' Post of the Year.



I hope that wasn't sarcasm, because it certainly was a good post in my flat capped opinion.


----------



## montevideo (Feb 26, 2005)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> Actually I thought he made his case very well.
> 
> Interesting that those with some affiliation with CW on here have done nothing but sneer or avoid his points ever since.
> 
> Why are his arguments 'bollocks' for those of us not 'in the loop' with CW?



okay:

*GOSSIP* _(the lads down the pub said to me)_ 

the tiny number of non-politicos I've come across who had heard about Class War


They knew nothing about what they were actually supposed to stand for

They were amused by the comic book nature of their propaganda

In fact I didn't meet a single non-politico who assumed that Class War was actually trying to be taken seriously
*HEARSAY* _(this is what they meant when the lads down the pub said what they said)_:


knew of the organisation only from stickers on a lamp post and the occasional graffiti that made already run-down areas look even worse


in the same way that they might be amused by Viz


they were, in my experience, viewed as a novelty act: sometimes mildly funny as long as they weren't on too long.

*SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE WORKING CLASS* _(i know what they think & why they think it, all of them, as one)_:

this reveals an understanding of the working class mentality that might have been displayed by an art school punk band circa 1977,


a fundamental misunderstanding of the priorities of the average working class person


I think you'll find that the average working class person will first of all consider what an individual has actually been put inside for


Prisoners are bored shitless and of course if somebody starts circulating something like Class War around jails, its contrived irreverence towards authority will go down well with some
[this last point is also assumption & patronising as fuck so triple points]

*ASSUMPTION* _what you are saying is this_: 

What are you trying to say though? That having been inside somehow makes you more proletarian than anybody else?


of course to self-styled anti-authoritarians all prisoners are victims

*GENUINELY AMUSING BIT* (how d'ya like them apples):

is that the sound of empires falling? Oh no it's just next door's kids playing football in the passage.

Like i say, takes one hell of a post to fit so much in without saying anything concrete.


----------



## rednblack (Feb 26, 2005)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> Actually I thought he made his case very well.
> 
> Interesting that those with some affiliation with CW on here have done nothing but sneer or avoid his points ever since.
> 
> Why are his arguments 'bollocks' for those of us not 'in the loop' with CW?



it's not complete bollocks but neither is it post of the year

for a start the vast majority of CW members are working class - including attica
classwar the newspaper was the only political paper my workmates were interested in
classwar as far as i am aware does not send stuff to every prisoner who contacts them - i know of at least one they have rejected (he was inside for a racist murder) i doubt they would support crack dealers or nonces either
classwar members also support constructive community politics and some in hackney have helped hackney independent (ex iwca) with stuff

- as for the other stuff - classwar can defend themselves, i have no doubt that a lot of working class people do merely find them silly or amusing - but a fair few of us like it - and would at least be interested in taking on their ideas


----------



## steeplejack (Feb 26, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> okay:
> 
> *GOSSIP* _(the lads down the pub said to me)_
> 
> ...




Gosh! Bullet Points!   Actually attica made the remark and I'd be more interesting in hearing _his_ or _Pickman's_ views as they made/seconded the comments- not a self appointed 'representative' whom most anarchists don't seem to have any time for, anyway.

@ R&B- fair do's, thanks.


----------



## montevideo (Feb 26, 2005)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> Gosh! Bullet Points!   Actually attica made the remark and I'd be more interesting in hearing _his_ or _Pickman's_ views as they made/seconded the comments- not a self appointed 'representative' whom most anarchists don't seem to have any time for, anyway.
> 
> @ R&B- fair do's, thanks.



ah a man (woman?) who knows what he knows.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 26, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> well, we now know what you say about 'the anarchists' we can take with a pinch of salt. Or maybe you want to give us some tell tale signs?



Burnage eh ? Used to drink in the Sun in September for a while.

Why don't you try answering the main point of the debate here rather than side tracking issues? What sort of anarchism do you support and what is its relevance for the working class?

My point is that the skateboarding , picnicing, let's build a den that we can call our base, gesture politics of that site and the Manchester Anarchists isn't relevant to the working class. I am not saying that it isn't fun and that people  involved in it aren't earnest but I don't see a lot of it on the council estates in Burnage.  If you are into all that sort of 'alternative' stuff defend it. If you are not tell us what sort of anarchism you are into, less of the man of mystery buisiness.


----------



## montevideo (Feb 26, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Burnage eh ? Used to drink in the Sun in September for a while.



where my dad's funeral reception was.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 26, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> okay:
> 
> *GOSSIP* _(the lads down the pub said to me)_
> 
> ...





You quote from my post a line explaining that only a tiny number of non-political acquaintances of mine had actually heard of and commented to me on Class War and then claim that I am setting myself up as some sort of Voice of the Working Class. Doesn't add up really, does it? 

How does trying to explain my own experience of something and my opinion on what that means with regard to working class attitudes amount to claiming to speak for the working class?  Don't we all do that? 

The supposed assumption I made about the CW (or Attica's) attitudes towards prisoners directly addressed exactly what was implied in his post, particularly in the line that prisoners reading CW amounted to 'a class composition that spits on you and yours' (whatever that means.)  And have you never come across the libertarian idea that all crooks are somehow victims?  It isn't an unfair assumption to make on the basis of what Attica wrote.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 26, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> it's not complete bollocks but neither is it post of the year
> 
> for a start the vast majority of CW members are working class - including attica
> classwar the newspaper was the only political paper my workmates were interested in
> ...





Nowhere did I say anything about the class composition of Class War.  I too found that more workmates were interested in Class War than any other political paper. However, they tended to be the apoliticals.  The more politically motivated - the works convenor, some of the shop stewards and a handful of others - were more interested in the Morning Star or SW.  They were sometimes amused by CW - but again because of its irreverance. None of them really considered that the people producing it saw what they were doing as a serious way forward for the class.  They seemed to regard it as a decent enough piss take of the powers-that-be and even of people like themselves and the left - but that was all. 

I never assumed that CW members would be supportive of the kind of prisoners you refer to, but this is in no way made clear by Attica's post, nor do I remember that in reading CW this came over at all.  I'm not saying they didn't make it clear, just that this is not what stands out for me in the general tone of the publication as I remember it.  Incidentally, this was what I recall some of the people who read it remarking on, with comments like 'not all crooks are heroes' and so on. (Something that working class people are best placed to understand, as you will know.) This is what I mean by it being considered a laugh but no more. Even those with a low political consciousness could sense that the world is a lot more complex than what was portrayed.  Actually, thinking about it, it's the non-politicals that probably grasp this best of all. 

Finally, I didn't comment on what CW members actually do or don't do-of that I have little idea. What I was commenting on was my own experience of the way CW comes across to working class people.  So, as Montevideo says elsewhere in the thread, please note that this is The Voice of the Working Class coming to you straight down the line....


----------



## The Black Hand (Feb 27, 2005)

steeplejack said:
			
		

> Gosh! Bullet Points!   Actually attica made the remark and I'd be more interesting in hearing _his_ or _Pickman's_ views as they made/seconded the comments- not a self appointed 'representative' whom most anarchists don't seem to have any time for, anyway.
> 
> @ R&B- fair do's, thanks.



Monty is right in what he says above - I've just arrived back on line (some of us have lives....) Will formulate my 'official' reply to Letssas nothingness soon....


----------



## swarthy thug (Feb 27, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> Monty is right in what he says above - I've just arrived back on line (some of us have lives....) Will formulate my 'official' reply to Letssas nothingness soon....




Come on it only takes 3 seconds to say"bollucks"


----------



## steeplejack (Feb 27, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> (some of us have lives....)





fuck off you patronising cunt.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 27, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> Monty is right in what he says above - I've just arrived back on line (some of us have lives....) Will formulate my 'official' reply to Letssas nothingness soon....





I'm not on line all that much but usually manage to 'formulate' my replies to you and other anarchists there and then. 

Piece of piss really.


----------



## swarthy thug (Feb 27, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> Monty is right in what he says above - I've just arrived back on line (some of us have lives....) Will formulate my 'official' reply to Letssas nothingness soon....


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 27, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> Monty is right in what he says above - I've just arrived back on line (some of us have lives....) Will formulate my 'official' reply to Letssas nothingness soon....




Been down the den have you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 27, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Finally, I didn't comment on what CW members actually do or don't do-of that I have little idea. What I was commenting on was my own experience of the way CW comes across to working class people.  So, as Montevideo says elsewhere in the thread, please note that this is The Voice of the Working Class coming to you straight down the line....


translated: what lletsa was commenting on was something from fifteen years ago he thought he recalled.


----------



## montevideo (Feb 27, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> You quote from my post a line explaining that only a tiny number of non-political acquaintances of mine had actually heard of and commented to me on Class War and then claim that I am setting myself up as some sort of Voice of the Working Class. Doesn't add up really, does it?
> 
> How does trying to explain my own experience of something and my opinion on what that means with regard to working class attitudes amount to claiming to speak for the working class?  Don't we all do that?
> 
> The supposed assumption I made about the CW (or Attica's) attitudes towards prisoners directly addressed exactly what was implied in his post, particularly in the line that prisoners reading CW amounted to 'a class composition that spits on you and yours' (whatever that means.)  And have you never come across the libertarian idea that all crooks are somehow victims?  It isn't an unfair assumption to make on the basis of what Attica wrote.



ok i'll put it another way:


> * this reveals an understanding of the working class mentality that might have been displayed by an art school punk band circa 1977,


my question would be: what is 'the working class mentality'? Do we all have it, is it a universal thing all working class people have, how do we go about understanding it? You are expressing a universal truth about 'the working class mentality'. 



> * a fundamental misunderstanding of the priorities of the average working class person


my question would be: how do you know what the priorities of the average working class person is? That's 30 million people. 


> * I think you'll find that the average working class person will first of all consider what an individual has actually been put inside for


my question would be: how do you know what the average working class person would do? Who are you speaking on behalf of when you say 'you'll find the average working class person will first consider...'?

My point is this: nobody can speak on behalf of The Working Class, yet you do a pretty good job of telling all & sundry what the avergae working class person thinks, how they behave & what they would do in a particular circumstance, simply to reinforce your position. Now if you want to talk about the people you know & what they think (about class war, about whatever subject) do so, but don't presume that that is somehow presentative of The Working Class.

Essentially your approach is 'the lads i meet down the pub think class war is shit' (which i don't consider invalid) but it has fuck all to do with a political argument does it?
"Of course to self-styled anti-authoritarians all prisoners are victims" how do you know this? What evidence if any do you have to back up that anti-authoritarians (what all of them?) consider prisoners as victims.

I can't speak on behalf of attica, or class war for that matter, but i can pull you up on your bullshittery.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 27, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> translated: what lletsa was commenting on was something from fifteen years ago he thought he recalled.





No no, something that I recall very well actually. 

How about something detailing the benefits of the CW approach and its practical results in advancing working class politics so far etc.

Or have you got to have a meeting of the politbureau first?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 27, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> No no, something that I recall very well actually.
> 
> How about something detailing the benefits of the CW approach and its practical results in advancing working class politics so far etc.
> 
> Or have you got to have a meeting of the politbureau first?


what happened in 1990 which put you off anarchist politics for fifteen years?


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 27, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> what happened in 1990 which put you off anarchist politics for fifteen years?





1990 was the beginning of the period of the eclipse of both Leninism and social democracy. I had been gradually losing interest in the Trotskyist politics in which I had been involved for a while before for various reasons not uncommon to many of those whose lives it has for a time captured, but the denial, not only of my own group, that recent events necessitated a fundamental rethink was what finally prompted me to go and do other things.  In short, I left them to it and went off and had a normal life. 

It would at first glance be unfair to say that anarchism was also dragged down in their wake but on closer examination it doesn't apply; having never got off the ground in the first place (except for very brief experiments) it could suffer no defeat.  It continues to be as irrelevant as it ever was.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 27, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> ok i'll put it another way:
> 
> my question would be: what is 'the working class mentality'? Do we all have it, is it a universal thing all working class people have, how do we go about understanding it? You are expressing a universal truth about 'the working class mentality'.
> 
> ...





Oh for Jesus' sake - it isn't difficult to see what I mean by 'the priorities of the average working class person' and so on.  Anybody other than those who view life through their ideological prism would understand. Ever thought about observing society instead of trying to interpret it with the aid of the sacred texts all the time? It seems from what you indicate on here that I spend more time with 'average' working class people than you do.  As I've said before, I neither work with nor socialise with politicos, which gives you a better perspective on just how redundant the political ideologies of yesteryear are than if you do (cue some more cack abut how I'm setting myself up as some kind of Man of the People - anything other than make a convincing case for your own politics eh?)  If socialist ideas, as they are widely understood, no longer have any real impact, can you imagine how anarchism is viewed?  In truth it is not viewed at all.  As others besides myself have also pointed out in this thread, it does not register with people outside the minute 'anarchist movement'. 

No no no - 'the lads that I meet down the pub' don't think CW is shit at all - they have never heard of CW.  A handful of people I once knew had - but, as I've said, that was fifteen or more years ago. It's amazing how many times you have to make a simple point to the same people on here but I'll do it again: I was not giving what I consider to be the definitive view on Class War; what I was doing was briefly detailing my own experience of the way that CW is viewed by people who are not involved in activist politics. Get over it.  Seeing as the anarchists from other groups have declined to defend their politics, I was hoping for some political argument from the 'best-known anarchist group of all time'; all I've received is name calling (somehow dead working class that) and pedantic 'how do you know' twattery.


----------



## Ryazan (Feb 27, 2005)

Another nomination is in order for that blinder of a post.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 27, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Seeing as the anarchists from other groups have declined to defend their politics, I was hoping for some political argument from the 'best-known anarchist group of all time'; all I've received is name calling (somehow dead working class that) and pedantic 'how do you know' twattery.


you don't seem interested in the politics - so where's the use in responding to you about them?


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 27, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> you don't seem interested in the politics - so where's the use in responding to you about them?





....


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 27, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> ....


exactly.


----------



## montevideo (Feb 27, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Oh for Jesus' sake - it isn't difficult to see what I mean by 'the priorities of the average working class person' and so on.  Anybody other than those who view life through their ideological prism would understand. Ever thought about observing society instead of trying to interpret it with the aid of the sacred texts all the time? It seems from what you indicate on here that I spend more time with 'average' working class people than you do.  As I've said before, I neither work with nor socialise with politicos, which gives you a better perspective on just how redundant the political ideologies of yesteryear are than if you do (cue some more cack abut how I'm setting myself up as some kind of Man of the People - anything other than make a convincing case for your own politics eh?)  If socialist ideas, as they are widely understood, no longer have any real impact, can you imagine how anarchism is viewed?  In truth it is not viewed at all.  As others besides myself have also pointed out in this thread, it does not register with people outside the minute 'anarchist movement' at all.
> 
> No no no - 'the lads that I meet down the pub' don't think CW is shit at all - they have never heard of CW.  A handful of people I once knew had - but, as I've said, that was fifteen or more years ago. It's amazing how many times you have to make a simple point to the same people on here but I'll do it again: I was not giving what I consider to be the definitive view on Class War; what I was doing was briefly detailing my own experience of the way that CW is viewed by people who are not involved in activist politics. Get over it.  Seeing as the anarchists from other groups have declined to defend their politics, I was hoping for some political argument from the 'best-known anarchist group of all time'; all I've received is name calling (somehow dead working class that) and pedantic 'how do you know' twattery.




but these are your words.  "I think you'll find that the average working class person will first of all consider..." & i want to know how do you know this. If it's not difficult then explain yourself. I'm simply throwing your own words back at you. In fact you take out your generalisations (that reinforce your position) & you are actually saying very little. -  a few non-politico's you've spoken to who have heard aabout class war think *this* about class war. 

If you were hoping for some political argument then put some forward instead of your gossipy bullshit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 27, 2005)

lletsa

all you seem to be concerned about is publicity - not even propaganda.

to my mind, the iwca are better off with yr money and without you as a member.


----------



## catch (Feb 27, 2005)

> I neither work with nor socialise with politicos





> If socialist ideas, as they are widely understood, no longer have any real impact, can you imagine how anarchism is viewed? In truth it is not viewed at all. As others besides myself have also pointed out in this thread, it does not register with people outside the minute 'anarchist movement'.



Then, as with Ryazan, how come it's registered with yerself?

Not all that interested in the positive, negative, or extent of image, anarchism (and especially the anarchist movement) has with 'normal working class people', I'm interested in the self-organisation of the working class, the majority, in order remove the economic and political power of the minority. Whether that's self-consciously anarchist or not is less important than it eventually leading to libertarian communism. However, I'm honest about my politics with people and always give people as much information as they want if they're interested.

The extent to which I'm an anarchist is the extent to which I think it's impossible to effectively achieve libertarian communism via representative democracy, this is to an extent ideological, but more accurately a practical assessment of how the state works in contemporary society. And because I identify with the philosophical legacy of Bakunin, Kropotkin and Bookchin, along with the self-organised elements of revolutions over the past 500 years, whether self-consciously anarchist or not. I have little or no identification with the subcultural elements of the anarchist movement as it exists in the UK (or US for that matter), nor to I have much contact with the movement apart from the AF in London and a few individuals.

Plenty of anarchists on here are very critical of large sections of the anarchist movement, something you and your mates conveniently forget. If Attica, Thumper Browne, Monte and Pickman's Model want to argue against (or in some cases reinforce) your strawman attacks on anarchism, then that's fine. Since I and many other anarchists on here have disagreed with Attica and Monte several times before, you can't expect me/us to jump in against you as some kind of homogenous ideological group in an us or them fight.


----------



## The Black Hand (Feb 27, 2005)

*From the Wife and kids thinktank*

Letsa denied saying ‘stickers were a guide to action’, but your sentence construction here says it is or could be – You said “Class War was merely stickers on a lamp post or graffiti on a wall…  Nobody outside your own circle ever took it seriously as any kind of guide to action”.  Implying that we thought it was…

As for  ‘average working class people’, it’s a figmant of a lazy imagination – such a déclassé construction doesn’t exist. I think the ‘multitude’ is better, or the ‘masses’, that implies many working class consciousnesses rather than the homogenous one implied by you.  Monty ripped the piss out of you very well for your gossip about ‘the seriousness’ of Class War too. We go the whole hog, and don’t pull our punches in our popular propaganda… 

You described ‘declasse’ individuals, and what ‘they thought’ about Class War, and ‘cos I know nothing about your class, I thought it was very apt to talk about prisoners having a better class composition than ‘you and yours’… And that still holds true. Every serious author describes prisoners as being virtually all of working class origin, and over 90% are inside for property crimes that can’t be divorced from capitalist social relationships. Rather than as in the philanthropic tradition that sees such people as victims, or like you, who, in a more conservative manner than Marx ever did, describes them as lumpen “violent and anti social”… We see prisoners as being working class with their own needs and interests, and of course we encourage progressive class consciousness (class for itself), rather than a reactionary one. The ‘average working class mentality’ you want to construct is merely ‘the class in itself’.

We are fundamentally different from Trots and you are so fundamentally similar, contrary to your weak stereotypical assertions. Your view of class consciousness is so orthodox it is embarrassing, you are ‘impressed’ with people liking Socialist Worker or the Morning Star. That view of class is from a long gone age ‘15 years ago’ or more, full employment/Fordism have long since gone. The proletarian factory based and homogenous definition of class with it, destined NEVER to return, and seeking to build the state structures of that age is a tactic that is not only questionable in its worth, but also it is a forlorn hope as those days HAVE gone for good. 

You patronisingly refer to those ‘apoliticals’ who liked Class War, and compared them to the ‘politicals’ who didn’t. Class War was always aimed at those ‘apoliticals’ whose class consciousness could develop, we don’t see things as set in stone like lefties such as you. So your evidence in fact is in Class Wars favour. Your patronising definition of class and what you approve of politically is also more arrogant same old lefty rubbish, it is both de facto Leninist and elitist, that’s a tautology even though it is worth saying in this instance…  

Try harder to step out of orthodoxy Leftism next time letsa, 1/10.


----------



## The Black Hand (Feb 27, 2005)

swarthy thug said:
			
		

>



I've already tried to tell people that;

Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery...


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 27, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> lletsa
> 
> all you seem to be concerned about is publicity - not even propaganda.
> 
> to my mind, the iwca are better off with yr money and without you as a member.



Is this a case of non players off the green pickman? Or are you choosing who can join the IWCA now? 

What I love about the anarchists here is their fierce criticism, and in many cases well founded, of the trots but their inability to be critical of the thousand and one island varieties who call, themselves anarchists. 

Personally I think you would be better off without the anarchists but small pool big fish?


----------



## montevideo (Feb 27, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Is this a case of non players off the green pickman? Or are you choosing who can join the IWCA now?
> 
> What I love about the anarchists here is their fierce criticism, and in many cases well founded, of the trots but their inability to be critical of the thousand and one island varieties who call, themselves anarchists.
> 
> Personally I think you would be better off without the anarchists but small pool big fish?



ah 'the anarchists' again. Pinch of salt, mate, pinch of salt.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 27, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> ah 'the anarchists' again. Pinch of salt, mate, pinch of salt.




I was under the impression that pickman was more than able to contribute himself. I know you like to think of yourself as the people representitive and often appear at courts and police stations but please ask others before you chip in on their behalf.

By the way if you get time , can you try and answer the questions  put to you. For example what is your sort of anarchism and does it have any relevance for the working class?


----------



## montevideo (Feb 27, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> I was under the impression that pickman was more than able to contribute himself. I know you like to think of yourself as the people representitive and often appear at courts and police stations but please ask others before you chip in on their behalf.
> 
> By the way if you get time , can you try and answer the questions  put to you. For example what is your sort of anarchism and does it have any relevance for the working class?



well we know from past experience your happy to lie through your teeth about 'the anarchists' so any further reference about them we can take with a pinch of salt.

My sort of anarchism is a method, not a goal. This method of self-organisation devoid of hierarchy (formal or otherwise) & coercion. No-one has any greater authority over anybody else, responsibility is a collective one & social responsibility is for the individual to acknowledge.

How this is relevant to working class people is that each of us has a role to play within capitalist society. This role, for working class people, involves a constant subservience to the needs of capital. The fact that working class people make up the majority at any given time & also actually create the concrete needs of everyone means we are forced to bear the brunt of any & all decision made of behalf of capital.

How that works in everyday life is the recognition that no-one has any greater power (be it your boss, The Council, government or lefty radicals (government in waiting)) over who you are. Collective self-identity is a starting point but it doesn't make a class, working or otherwise.

My experience of telling 'ordinary working class people' (of which i am one!) that i am an anarchist is, after that initial fear that you're not going to impose your political ideology on them, is one of absolute normality. Indeed i've always found that people associate anarchists with lefty radicals (soft, cobweb, ultra, trotskyist, whatever) which more than anything fosters suspicion & mistrust..


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 27, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> My sort of anarchism is a method, not a goal.



This kind of worldview has more in common with the urge to live in a commune than it does with changing the world.


----------



## montevideo (Feb 27, 2005)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> This kind of worldview has more in common with the urge to live in a commune than it does with changing the world.



don't know what you mean by that. But to clarify, i do not subscribe to the notion of an 'anarchist society'.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 27, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> don't know what you mean by that. But to clarify, i do not subscribe to the notion of an 'anarchist society'.



I mean that your attitude is that of the kind of people who go to live in leftist communes rather than the attitude of people who want to transform society. It lacks any sense of goal or strategic thinking and instead reduces political activity to personal lifestyle. Your personal lifestyle might be as individualist as becoming a vegan or it might involve some kind of collective action, either way it has nothing to do with getting rid of capitalism.


----------



## montevideo (Feb 27, 2005)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> I mean that your attitude is that of the kind of people who go to live in leftist communes rather than the attitude of people who want to transform society. It lacks any sense of goal or strategic thinking and instead reduces political activity to personal lifestyle. Your personal lifestyle might be as individualist as becoming a vegan or it might involve some kind of collective action, either way it has nothing to do with getting rid of capitalism.



well the transformation is a collective one, not one imposed by a given authority. Society is tranformed in the method of destroying capital, not in its goal.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 27, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> Society is tranformed in the method of destroying capital, not in its goal.



Could you elaborate on that in more concrete terms please?


----------



## montevideo (Feb 27, 2005)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> Could you elaborate on that in more concrete terms please?



capitalism is a method in which society is organised. The way in which people, collectively, choose to destroy this particular method of organisation would necessitate the destruction of previously understood relationships; that hierarchy, relationships of power, commodity etc. (In fact i would say the concept of alienation - where people not only recognise themselves as a commodity, but are compelled to live their lives around the very notion of it, would be the starting point of the destruction of capitalism as a way of organising society). 

To simply instruct & compel people towards a different society, without transforming the way in which people relate to each other, simply perpetuates class antagonism that is the motor of all societies.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 27, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> capitalism is a method in which society is organised.



With you so far.




			
				montevideo said:
			
		

> The way in which people, collectively, choose to destroy this particular method of organisation would necessitate the destruction of previously understood relationships; that hierarchy, relationships of power, commodity etc.



I don't think that this is particularly coherent. Do you mean that the overthrow of capitalism will also mean the a change in the social relationships between people? Or am I missing something which elevates your statement beyond truism?




			
				montevideo said:
			
		

> (In fact i would say the concept of alienation - where people not only recognise themselves as a commodity, but are compelled to live their lives around the very notion of it, would be the starting point of the destruction of capitalism as a way of organising society).



You think that recognition of alienation will be the motor for the overthrow of capitalism?

I asked if you could elaborate on this in a more *concrete* fashion. What does this actually mean in practice?


----------



## montevideo (Feb 27, 2005)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> With you so far.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1. well that would depend on how you would choose to 'overthrow' capitalism. But okay, simply a change in methods of social organisation (feudalism to capitalism) still retain the essential features of authority, hierarchy & control but in a different form. So all previously understood ways (ie the reliance on  abstract forms - be it the state, the party, the legal form) must also be destroyed. In their destruction people recognise the ability to form social relations above & beyond what is given. They are not mediated through any other form.

How you get to the point of the destruction of capitalism is just as important, if not more so, that the fact that capitalism is destroyed.

2. No

3. *conctrete* as in a plan of action? Or *concrete* as in how i would personally do it?


----------



## sovietpop (Feb 27, 2005)

ie (if  I'm reading you correctly?)

the means determine the end


----------



## The Black Hand (Feb 28, 2005)

Nigel Irritable said:
			
		

> I mean that your attitude is that of the kind of people who go to live in leftist communes rather than the attitude of people who want to transform society. It lacks any sense of goal or strategic thinking and instead reduces political activity to personal lifestyle. Your personal lifestyle might be as individualist as becoming a vegan or it might involve some kind of collective action, either way it has nothing to do with getting rid of capitalism.




We do have strategy and tactics, it's just our methods are egalitarian rather than elitist. We don't want to recreate state structures, or take them over, they need to be destroyed and something new built to take their place...


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 28, 2005)

Socialist Party typical clap trap well done nigel for being nominated for the trumpet of the year award. ctegory most likely to describe narchists as cartoon charicatures. Take a bow and join LLETSA.

Join your SP mates and name names to the police, state socailist idiots (class traitors springs to mond after the poll tax Nige)


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 28, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> We do have strategy and tactics, it's just our methods are egalitarian rather than elitist. We don't want to recreate state structures, or take them over, they need to be destroyed and something new built to take their place...




Just who is the 'we' ? You and Monty the den builder or anarchists per se? Taking your logic isn't it a bit elitist to be speaking on behalf of all anarchists or have you had 'permission to speak' ?


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 28, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> well we know from past experience your happy to lie through your teeth about 'the anarchists' so any further reference about them we can take with a pinch of salt.



Again who is this 'we'? Are you an official spokesman for some cladestine organisation or is the 'we' you?

Are you still trying to say that the spoof website had no conection with anarchists? Perhaps 'another boy' did it?


----------



## montevideo (Feb 28, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Again who is this 'we'? Are you an official spokesman for some cladestine organisation or is the 'we' you?
> 
> Are you still trying to say that the spoof website had no conection with anarchists? Perhaps 'another boy' did it?



royal 'we'. 

I am still trying to say what evidence adduced from the website makes you think it was done by 'the anarchists'.


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 28, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Just who is the 'we' ? You and Monty the den builder or anarchists per se? Taking your logic isn't it a bit elitist to be speaking on behalf of all anarchists or have you had 'permission to speak' ?






			
				Monte said:
			
		

> 3. *conctrete* as in a plan of action? Or *concrete* as in how i would personally do it?



No dice Chuck, you were given options.

As far as I can tell there definitely is an issue of how to form a social consensus without forming some kind of state but so long as the consensus is highly localised, subject to frequent monitoring and change and the people doing the monitoring and implementing the changes are the people affected then the risks of statism can be negated. No one need speak on everyones behalf anymore, anarchism means involvement in this respect.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 28, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> No dice Chuck, you were given options.
> 
> As far as I can tell there definitely is an issue of how to form a social consensus without forming some kind of state but so long as the consensus is highly localised, subject to frequent monitoring and change and the people doing the monitoring and implementing the changes are the people affected then the risks of statism can be negated. No one need speak on everyones behalf anymore, anarchism means involvement in this respect.



The first sentence is a bit cryptic for me, and the second  virtually impenetrable. Let's go back to this question of relevance and the working class, do you want working class rule?


----------



## montevideo (Feb 28, 2005)

Thumper Browne said:
			
		

> No dice Chuck, you were given options.
> 
> As far as I can tell there definitely is an issue of how to form a social consensus without forming some kind of state but so long as the consensus is highly localised, subject to frequent monitoring and change and the people doing the monitoring and implementing the changes are the people affected then the risks of statism can be negated. No one need speak on everyones behalf anymore, anarchism means involvement in this respect.



I thought you were off & running? More bloody comebacks than frank sinatra. Away with ya, it's just a bit of grit in me eye i tell ya.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 28, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> royal 'we'.
> 
> I am still trying to say what evidence adduced from the website makes you think it was done by 'the anarchists'.




I'm a republican monty and don't see a role for royalty . TBH I am beginning to struggle seeing the worth of your own brand of anarchist activity as well.


----------



## montevideo (Feb 28, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> I'm a republican monty and don't see a role for royalty . TBH I am beginning to struggle seeing the worth of your own brand of anarchist activity as well.



fair enough, no-one's forcing you to, just less of the knee-jerk reactionary bulshittery about 'the anarchists' & i'm happy.


----------



## The Black Hand (Feb 28, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Just who is the 'we' ? You and Monty the den builder or anarchists per se? Taking your logic isn't it a bit elitist to be speaking on behalf of all anarchists or have you had 'permission to speak' ?



Its me, the groups I am in and work with, a 'collective' we... I am not speaking on behalf of all anarchists as given the various ideologies you can find under the word anarchist it covers stuff I don't believe in. And given that you know that 'anarchist' is a large unmbrella the questions a bit purile too..


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 28, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> but these are your words.  "I think you'll find that the average working class person will first of all consider..." & i want to know how do you know this. If it's not difficult then explain yourself. I'm simply throwing your own words back at you. In fact you take out your generalisations (that reinforce your position) & you are actually saying very little. -  a few non-politico's you've spoken to who have heard aabout class war think *this* about class war.
> 
> If you were hoping for some political argument then put some forward instead of your gossipy bullshit.





I thought that to gossip you had to name names.

Once again: I detailed briefly my experience of how Class War was viewed by the only non-political people I've ever known who had ever actually seen a copy of the paper.  Nothing more, nothing less. 

In order to get political argument going surely it is enough to question ideologies adhered to by other posters?  This is what I have tried to do in this thread with regard to anarchism.  Evidently some people view their chosen ideology as beyond questioning and therefore sacred.  Eeh these individualist libertarians eh?


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 28, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> lletsa
> 
> all you seem to be concerned about is publicity - not even propaganda.
> 
> to my mind, the iwca are better off with yr money and without you as a member.





Publicity? Nobody on this board knows me personally.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 28, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> Then, as with Ryazan, how come it's registered with yerself?
> 
> Not all that interested in the positive, negative, or extent of image, anarchism (and especially the anarchist movement) has with 'normal working class people', I'm interested in the self-organisation of the working class, the majority, in order remove the economic and political power of the minority. Whether that's self-consciously anarchist or not is less important than it eventually leading to libertarian communism. However, I'm honest about my politics with people and always give people as much information as they want if they're interested.
> 
> ...





I never asked anybody to form an homogeneous ideological group.  I merely asked a few questions.  Yours is probably the best post from an anarchist so far - at least you put forward a viewpoint that details your way of analysing things rather than being a mere 'how do you know?/ who says?/you twat.'

As for how I knew of anarchism and the people I spoke of didn't - this is self-explanatory: I had been active on the left and had therefore encountered anarchism, while they hadn't.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 28, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> Its me, the groups I am in and work with, a 'collective' we... I am not speaking on behalf of all anarchists as given the various ideologies you can find under the word anarchist it covers stuff I don't believe in. And given that you know that 'anarchist' is a large unmbrella the questions a bit purile too..



Isn't there room in the world for a bit of purile? 
Attica who are these groups then? I am getting a bit confused as to who on here is what strand of anarchism and where  the anrchist umbrella ends.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 28, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> fair enough, no-one's forcing you to, just less of the knee-jerk reactionary bulshittery about 'the anarchists' & i'm happy.




I'm afraid there's more to life than just you being happy chum. If anarchism is a method ( some form of voluntary association with no leaders and no structures?) rather than an end what is the end you are striving for, is it working class rule?


----------



## Thumper Browne (Feb 28, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> I thought you were off & running? More bloody comebacks than frank sinatra. Away with ya, it's just a bit of grit in me eye i tell ya.



Yeah, just popped back into to log off properly so that no-one picks up my cookies, don't wanna end up like The Black Hand now do I? 

See yous all later.


----------



## rednblack (Feb 28, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> I'm afraid there's more to life than just you being happy chum. If anarchism is a method ( some form of voluntary association with no leaders and no structures?) rather than an end what is the end you are striving for, is it working class rule?



i must admit i don't understand what monty meant by that bit 

tbh i want to see an anarchist society and i think it will only be achieved by working class self organisation - i don't think that has to take a specifically anarchist form though - although it's the best for me at the moment - and in the short term it can lead to improvements in our living conditions on a day to day basis 

as for working class rule in working class areas, i don't have a problem with that as a slogan if it means us running our own areas for our own benefit - and even if it means excluding those non working class people in our areas who don't recognise our rule


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 28, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Just who is the 'we' ? You and Monty the den builder or anarchists per se? Taking your logic isn't it a bit elitist to be speaking on behalf of all anarchists or have you had 'permission to speak' ?





Well it does seem that he had to wait until the politbureau had met before posting up his latest reply to me....


----------



## Herbert Read (Feb 28, 2005)

Monte speaks for every anarchist on every issue, we are one we are anarchotron


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 28, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Is this a case of non players off the green pickman? Or are you choosing who can join the IWCA now?
> 
> What I love about the anarchists here is their fierce criticism, and in many cases well founded, of the trots but their inability to be critical of the thousand and one island varieties who call, themselves anarchists.
> 
> Personally I think you would be better off without the anarchists but small pool big fish?


perhaps you might care to read what i think of other anarchists before you come out with yr ill-informed rc shit.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 28, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> perhaps you might care to read what i think of other anarchists before you come out with yr ill-informed rc shit.



Where are the thoughts of Chairman Pickman you miserable anarchist you ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 28, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Publicity? Nobody on this board knows me personally.


and i'm not surprised.

all you've moaned about is that w/c people either haven't heard of cw or the few people (fifteen years ago) you had met in some nameless pub in a nameless city or town who thought it an anarchist version of viz.

there are worse things to be described as, since viz has - on occasion - contained some hilarious political satire.

yr dreary complaint seems to be based on the lack of publicity in recent years, which is certainly different from the usual "i thought issue 73 was the last paper you produced" yammer.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 28, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Where are the thoughts of Chairman Pickman you miserable anarchist you ?


here, for example.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 28, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> i must admit i don't understand what monty meant by that bit
> 
> tbh i want to see an anarchist society and i think it will only be achieved by working class self organisation - i don't think that has to take a specifically anarchist form though - although it's the best for me at the moment - and in the short term it can lead to improvements in our living conditions on a day to day basis
> 
> as for working class rule in working class areas, i don't have a problem with that as a slogan if it means us running our own areas for our own benefit - and even if it means excluding those non working class people in our areas who don't recognise our rule



Ta, at least you and catch have put their cards on the table . I wouldn't have any problems working alongside some of the posters on here but I can't understand the apparant need for the majority of self proclaimed anarchist posters on here to defend anything that is called anarchism when there is som much difference between you all. It appears, to an ousider, that 'unity' between anarchists is seemingly  more important than actually thrashing out what is the best political path to take to achieve working calss rule. Perhaps working class rule isn't a priority for other anarchists?

I read somewhere that anarchism as a term is relatively new and  replaced the concept of libertarian socialism. If that's true why don't those who are the latter ditch the term anarchism?


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Feb 28, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> here, for example.



much obliged, I can now be well informed and rc.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 28, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> and i'm not surprised.
> 
> all you've moaned about is that w/c people either haven't heard of cw or the few people (fifteen years ago) you had met in some nameless pub in a nameless city or town who thought it an anarchist version of viz.
> 
> ...





I agree about Viz - it wasn't meant to be an insult.  The point was that CW was taken no more seriously than Viz.  Now it is my experience that people do not generally take Viz all that seriously.  It won't be on people's minds in the forthcoming general election for example.

As for the 'yammer' you're bemoaning, I have no idea who does or doesn't say this kind of thing.


----------



## rednblack (Feb 28, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Perhaps working class rule isn't a priority for other anarchists?
> 
> I read somewhere that anarchism as a term is relatively new and  replaced the concept of libertarian socialism. If that's true why don't those who are the latter ditch the term anarchism?



you are definately right that working class rule or working class self organisation is not a priority for some anarchos (the lifestylists, treehuggers, many of the squatters etc)

afaik anarchism has been around since the 1860's as a term for what i believe in - i don't really know what the difference is between anarchism and libertarian socialism - but i do know that libertarian socialism is if anything laughed at more than anarchism by non politically active people as a phrase

i'd be happy with another term tbh - something like working class action, or hmm well workers democracy sounds too trotish...workerism?


----------



## JoeBlack (Feb 28, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> I read somewhere that anarchism as a term is relatively new and  replaced the concept of libertarian socialism. If that's true why don't those who are the latter ditch the term anarchism?



Don't think this is right.  

My understanding is that in the years after the Paris commune (1871) the French state banned all anarchist organisations/publication so the anarchists who excaped the round up switched to calling themselves libertarians.  I don't think that was suffixed at the time with either 'socialist' or 'communist' though.

Which term people use probably has a lot to do with history and a lot to do with global politics.  Britain along with the US does seem particularly dominated by the sort of 'punk thing' - not because the 'punk thing' is particularly strong but because the organised movement is weak, fractured and so almost invisible.  In a lot of other countries this wouldn't be the case.

I use the term 'punk thing' above as IMHO its more of an accurate snap shot of where the problem is then 'squatter'.  Squatter can mean a huge variety of different things right down to the mass occupations by demobilised soldiers after WWII.  Squatting is just about space and I don't see anything in particular that makes buying or renting space abstractly politically better then simply taking it.


----------



## rednblack (Feb 28, 2005)

JoeBlack said:
			
		

> I use the term 'punk thing' above as IMHO its more of an accurate snap shot of where the problem is then 'squatter'.  Squatter can mean a huge variety of different things right down to the mass occupations by demobilised soldiers after WWII.  Squatting is just about space and I don't see anything in particular that makes buying or renting space abstractly politically better then simply taking it.



you're right there


----------



## catch (Feb 28, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> I'm afraid there's more to life than just you being happy chum. If anarchism is a method ( some form of voluntary association with no leaders and no structures?) rather than an end what is the end you are striving for, is it working class rule?



No insitutionalised authority/leadership maybe. No structures - that's absolute bollocks. Did Monte actually say that? FFS.




			
				rednblack said:
			
		

> as for working class rule in working class areas, i don't have a problem with that as a slogan if it means us running our own areas for our own benefit - and even if it means excluding those non working class people in our areas who don't recognise our rule



The only problem I have with 'working class rule in working class areas' is that I think the only effective way for that to happen is via popular direct democracy in those areas. I don't think it can be achieved in the sense of 'rule by a few members of the working class in elected positions representing the interests of the rest of the working class' - which could be an interpretation of that phrase.

Mainly because those elected positions are only one part of power within the local and national state - it doesn't address the bureaucracies that have as much or more control over the running of a council as the councillors do, and there's no elections to the leadership of businesses or management positions. So putting energy into electing councillors, who have limited effectiveness even if they're in a majority on the council, just seems like a waste of resources.

I think the only way federated directly democratic institutions can be achieved is by consistent community work. Having been out with Hackney Independent surveying a couple of times in the past two weeks, and hand delivering newletters before that, those things are useful as a way of getting information (for feeding into campaigns and producing publicity, and obviously giving information to people as well), but more importantly, it's an excuse to meet and talk to people face to face you otherwise wouldn't. Hopefully it'll lead to more people thinking about how their situation could be improved, and taking collective action if things come up.

What concerns me about it though, is I've now met more people who live on one or two estates in Haggerston/Hoxton than I have people who live in my own street in Clapton in the past year, plenty of those people, in the same block, might not have spoken to each other either. That's by no means a permanent situation, but it's one which individual canvassing doesn't necessarily solve long term if the main goal is to get elected - if the concern is to get individuals to vote for an organisation which will represent them better, it's not that important (or at least it's of secondary importance) whether they're discussing issues amongst themselves and taking collective action. Now that doesn't mean I don't think it's a much more honest way of taking part in representative democracy than other examples, but I don't think it'd lead to a radical directly democratic movement that locates power within communities in opposition to both the state and capitalism.

However, say it got to a situation where there were regular public meetings on local issues, with contact and co-ordination between different neighbourhoods, then it's quite likely that people would suggest the best way to impose the decision of the community on the borough council (for example), would be to elect someone to the council to replace an unrepresentative councillor. In that kind of situation, I think this comes closer to a kind of municipal delegate democracy (if it's a mandated and recallable councillor), even if the position is nominally a representative one - if the purpose is to take power out of the council itself into the community. So I'm not 100% against participating in elections in all circumstances, but I don't think it can be done the other way round - i.e. electing a councillor and then suddenly seeing mass participation in local direct democracy. And London mayoral or parliamentary elections, I don't see any way those institutions could be brought within a grass roots movement of the kind I'd like to see. Doesn't mean I'm not prepared to work with people who think the opposite, but I'd consistently argue for anarchist forms of organisation - open and without fixed positions of authority -  to work towards aims that I think are pretty common.


----------



## rednblack (Feb 28, 2005)

i think i agree 100% with that last post catch


----------



## catch (Feb 28, 2005)

I also wanted to say that I think propaganda, discussion sites and networking organisations are important. Already said it on this thread but I wouldn't be here talking to you (or just starting to get involved in practical political activity) if it wasn't for a couple of books on anarchism in my school library and the networking/social potential offered by enrager and the AF. If these ideas aren't discussed and publicised (even if everyone agrees that there could be big improvements in the publicity), no-one's likely to find out about them. With such a small number of people, it makes sense to try to get hold of (politically) isolated individuals, and also to argue for certain kinds of activity with people who are already politically active. So Freedom (bookshop and paper), AK press, Organise and Resistance and other newsletters, papers, journals, shops, sites etc. are important in terms of winning people over intellectually and outside the very small geographical boundaries that we necessarily have to work in. Having sources of information on current and historical working class self-organisation and the ideas behind it is as important as the activity itself - neither can be effective without the other.


----------



## rednblack (Feb 28, 2005)

i agree with that as well - i'd also like to see on top of that a loose network of working class community action groups (or whatever you want to call them) that can provide support for those who want to get involved in community stuff but don't have any local groups already in existance - it wouldnt be exclusively anarchist, but could involve anarchists and would have a website and mailing list so people could keep in touch with eachother and space for people to share their xperiences and to debate about which tactics work better

i'd like to see one for workplaces as well for that matter


----------



## catch (Feb 28, 2005)

Yeah, it'd be great to have that. Hopefully the June 10th conference will go some way towards forming that.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 28, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> 3. *conctrete* as in a plan of action? Or *concrete* as in how i would personally do it?



*Concrete* in both senses. The more I've asked about this the more I've got a lot of not particularly coherent but quite impressively wordy sentences back.

What I am asking for in relatively unambiguous english are the answers to questions like:

What sort of society are you aiming at?
How do you think we can get there?
What social forces, organised in what way and doing what, in other words?

So far I have been genuinely unable to decipher if you are saying either:

A) You are aiming for a classless, stateless, socialist society. We will get there through a working class revolution, which will require mass political action, organisation and insurrection. In the course of the struggle to reach that point we should organise in federations etc. This as I understand is (in very simplistic terms) the position of organisations like the WSM and the AF, and in a syndicalist form SolFed.

B) You believe that the most important political action involves living your life in a particular way, which may include collective action, and which does include rejecting the authority of the state and so on.

C) Something else entirely.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 28, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> and i'm not surprised.
> 
> all you've moaned about is that w/c people either haven't heard of cw or the few people (fifteen years ago) you had met in some nameless pub in a nameless city or town who thought it an anarchist version of viz.





And by the way, I never said that the discussions with people who hadn't heard of CW were in a pub - others keep bringing that up.  As I said, they were people I used to work with and the conversation was an ongoing one.  It was in Manchester, as if the place makes any difference to the point being made. 

As stated before, nowadays I never discuss CW with anybody because I don't meet anybody that's ever heard of it. Believe it or not, they are very very much in the majority.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 28, 2005)

*Attica's pseudo-sociological meanderings (1)*




			
				Attica said:
			
		

> Letsa denied saying ‘stickers were a guide to action’, but your sentence construction here says it is or could be – You said “Class War was merely stickers on a lamp post or graffiti on a wall…  Nobody outside your own circle ever took it seriously as any kind of guide to action”.  Implying that we thought it was…
> 
> As for  ‘average working class people’, it’s a figmant of a lazy imagination – such a déclassé construction doesn’t exist. I think the ‘multitude’ is better, or the ‘masses’, that implies many working class consciousnesses rather than the homogenous one implied by you.  Monty ripped the piss out of you very well for your gossip about ‘the seriousness’ of Class War too. We go the whole hog, and don’t pull our punches in our popular propaganda…
> 
> You described ‘declasse’ individuals, and what ‘they thought’ about Class War, and ‘cos I know nothing about your class, I thought it was very apt to talk about prisoners having a better class composition than ‘you and yours’… And that still holds true. Every serious author describes prisoners as being virtually all of working class origin, and over 90% are inside for property crimes that can’t be divorced from capitalist social relationships. Rather than as in the philanthropic tradition that sees such people as victims, or like you, who, in a more conservative manner than Marx ever did, describes them as lumpen “violent and anti social”… We see prisoners as being working class with their own needs and interests, and of course we encourage progressive class consciousness (class for itself), rather than a reactionary one. The ‘average working class mentality’ you want to construct is merely ‘the class in itself’..




Is this the Big Reply that was so long in coming then?

Yes, I probably did imply that you think that stickers are a guide to action in my first post about CW if you want to be pedantic. However, I went on to explain in a subsequent post that all I meant was that the small number of people that I knew who had ever heard of CW knew about it from stickers on lamposts and graffitti on walls.  Only for you to bring up the (irrelevant)point yet again. Such is life. 

As I've said to Monte, I fail to see how what I have said amounts to 'gossip.'  For gossip to take place there has to be  interest in the subject on the part of those doing the gossiping. The people I mention were not interested in CW nor in the intrigues of the left as a whole.  Like most people. They merely mentioned it in passing. I was the one who used to keep the conversation going.  It was a useful way of discussing the issues of class, racism and so on.  In fact, to a large degree I defended you from their misplaced assumptions regarding what you were about.


Nay lad, I didn't 'describe declasse individuals' at all. I described  conversations I had as a semi-skilled factory worker to other semi-skilled factory workers. How would you know who 'me and mine' are?  I wouldn't mind betting that the people I associate with on a daily basis better reflect in their attitudes the mood at large among the working class than those you do. Could be wrong but it's just a feeling you give me. And in this you are not alone among lefties. 

'Every serious author'? Bit of an abstract statement, isn't it? Care to elaborate?  Not that I need 'every serious author' to tell me that most prisoners are from working class backgrounds.  Who does? And nowhere did I describe them all as 'lumpen and violent'. What I asked in response to your naive statement was how does fetishing prisoners make for 'a class composition that pisses on you and yours' or whatever it was you said. And then I went on to point out that far from sharing this fetishisation, most working class people would ask what an individual prisoner was inside for and conclude that there was little else to do with the violent and anti-social element.  Notice that nowhere do I say what my own answer would be, nor that CW shouldn't send papers to people in prison?  But if you doubt the way I claim that most working class people think on the matter, like I said, ask around.


----------



## Ryazan (Feb 28, 2005)

Class War is shite.


----------



## The Black Hand (Feb 28, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> Class War is shite.


    Try putting these in the right order if you can -  EKANWR


----------



## audiotech (Feb 28, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> Try putting these in the right order if you can -  EKANWR



KEN WAR


----------



## The Black Hand (Feb 28, 2005)

Letsa said this -"I described conversations I had as a semi-skilled factory worker to other semi-skilled factory workers. How would you know who 'me and mine' are? I wouldn't mind betting that the people I associate with on a daily basis better reflect in their attitudes the mood at large among the working class than those you do. Could be wrong but it's just a feeling you give me. And in this you are not alone among lefties. 

'Every serious author'? Bit of an abstract statement, isn't it? Care to elaborate? Not that I need 'every serious author' to tell me that most prisoners are from working class backgrounds. Who does? And nowhere did I describe them all as 'lumpen and violent'. What I asked in response to your naive statement was how does fetishing prisoners make for 'a class composition that pisses on you and yours' or whatever it was you said. And then I went on to point out that far from sharing this fetishisation, most working class people would ask what an individual prisoner was inside for and conclude that there was little else to do with the violent and anti-social element. Notice that nowhere do I say what my own answer would be, nor that CW shouldn't send papers to people in prison? But if you doubt the way I claim that most working class people think on the matter, like I said, ask around."   

I live in County Durham, my town is a working class town, in an area with a huge mining tradition. I dropped off and picked up my son from a skool in this town, associating with working class people who are as stereotypically working class as they come... There are no anarchists in my town that I know of... Who has the most privileged positon? WHo associates with 'anarchists'? Fuck me, this is bullshit, who speaks with privileged voice crap. Far better to engage in struggles WITH people first and discuss issues in a concrete situation then i think...

The feeling you give me is a typical one of the 'arrogant know it all lefty Leninists'... You generalise from your own assumptions that are felt to be better than others... oh dear.

Your patronising assumptions are glaring for all to see, nowhere will you find anything where I fetishise prisoners. They are one particular struggle sector, although encompasssing many issues, and hence many smaller struggles...  You described anti social prisoners in the manner I quoted, you didn't quantify the statement, but it was made in such a way that you were writing off the majority of prisoners as anti social, and i disagree with such a position. AS I mentioned over 90% are inside for property offences, mainly of a short term nature...


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 28, 2005)

*Attica's pseudo-sociological meanderings (2)*




			
				Attica said:
			
		

> We are fundamentally different from Trots and you are so fundamentally similar, contrary to your weak stereotypical assertions. Your view of class consciousness is so orthodox it is embarrassing, you are ‘impressed’ with people liking Socialist Worker or the Morning Star. That view of class is from a long gone age ‘15 years ago’ or more, full employment/Fordism have long since gone. The proletarian factory based and homogenous definition of class with it, destined NEVER to return, and seeking to build the state structures of that age is a tactic that is not only questionable in its worth, but also it is a forlorn hope as those days HAVE gone for good.
> 
> You patronisingly refer to those ‘apoliticals’ who liked Class War, and compared them to the ‘politicals’ who didn’t. Class War was always aimed at those ‘apoliticals’ whose class consciousness could develop, we don’t see things as set in stone like lefties such as you. So your evidence in fact is in Class Wars favour. Your patronising definition of class and what you approve of politically is also more arrogant same old lefty rubbish, it is both de facto Leninist and elitist, that’s a tautology even though it is worth saying in this instance…
> 
> Try harder to step out of orthodoxy Leftism next time letsa, 1/10.




As I said, it's a bit hard to believe that this is the Big Reply that was so long in coming, Attica. Are you the one who used to go on about aiming to be the next EP Thompson?

Stop letting your emotions run away with you and read what I said if you insist on replying.  If you read that post again you will find that I did not say that I was impressed with anybody reading the Morning Star or Socialist Worker. What I said was that those who were politically conscious took those papers more seriously than they took Class War. What are you on about with your 'full employment/ Fordism'?  In 1990? Were you in suspended animation between 1979 and then?  Some of the people I worked with back then were on temporary contracts.  It was all we could do to get them in the union, so precarious did they find their postions to be and so bad was the local job market. Read it again - it was the late 1980s, not the late fifties. But I don't know what you're going on about this 'full employment/ Fordism' stuff for anyway. It might all be very interesting but nowhere did I hold it up as being the basis upon which political work should be carried out. At least that's what I think you're saying because the last sentence of your first paragraph (above) is gibberish. 

You'll find that if you read other posts of mine I've been arguing with Leninists about the non-organised working class, as opposed to the waning organised labour movement, being the basis of any re-emerging working class movement.  Class War is to be applauded for recognising this before many others did. However, it has nothing at all to do with what I said. What I did was to state the facts of the situation that I experienced then - and those were that those who were most entertained - entertained as they might be by a telly programme or a football match or whatever, that is - by CW were those that were less politically conscious.  It did not, in my experience, politicise them in any way, because it did not come over as being a serious attempt to do so. And nowhere did I say that they liked CW -what I said was that some of them thought it was mildly funny. Those who were more sussed out politically and therefore had a better grasp of what you were attempting to do, did not take CW seriously either.  You might wish that I could tell you otherwise but I can't. And where did I state any details of 'what I approve of politically?' 

In actual fact, contrary to what you so desperately assert, it is you that stands on common ground with the Trots.  Your posts ooze with a desire, shared by so many of them, to not see the working class as it actually exists, but to invent one that fits in with your own dogma. Perhaps that is why you choose to dress up your assertions in all this stilted pseudo- sociological jargon.  Why don't you try and put forward a convincing argument which actually addresses what I said rather than hysterically putting words in my mouth, and do it in plain language?  EP Thompson was a lot more readable than you are.


----------



## audiotech (Feb 28, 2005)

I've just spotted a young Dave Douglas on 'Faith' addressing striking miners in some footage from '84.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 28, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> Letsa said this -"I described conversations I had as a semi-skilled factory worker to other semi-skilled factory workers. How would you know who 'me and mine' are? I wouldn't mind betting that the people I associate with on a daily basis better reflect in their attitudes the mood at large among the working class than those you do. Could be wrong but it's just a feeling you give me. And in this you are not alone among lefties.
> 
> 'Every serious author'? Bit of an abstract statement, isn't it? Care to elaborate? Not that I need 'every serious author' to tell me that most prisoners are from working class backgrounds. Who does? And nowhere did I describe them all as 'lumpen and violent'. What I asked in response to your naive statement was how does fetishing prisoners make for 'a class composition that pisses on you and yours' or whatever it was you said. And then I went on to point out that far from sharing this fetishisation, most working class people would ask what an individual prisoner was inside for and conclude that there was little else to do with the violent and anti-social element. Notice that nowhere do I say what my own answer would be, nor that CW shouldn't send papers to people in prison? But if you doubt the way I claim that most working class people think on the matter, like I said, ask around."
> 
> ...





Fucking hell, calm down will you?  You're answering things that I haven't said. Again.


----------



## LLETSA (Feb 28, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> Letsa said this -"I described conversations I had as a semi-skilled factory worker to other semi-skilled factory workers. How would you know who 'me and mine' are? I wouldn't mind betting that the people I associate with on a daily basis better reflect in their attitudes the mood at large among the working class than those you do. Could be wrong but it's just a feeling you give me. And in this you are not alone among lefties.
> 
> 'Every serious author'? Bit of an abstract statement, isn't it? Care to elaborate? Not that I need 'every serious author' to tell me that most prisoners are from working class backgrounds. Who does? And nowhere did I describe them all as 'lumpen and violent'. What I asked in response to your naive statement was how does fetishing prisoners make for 'a class composition that pisses on you and yours' or whatever it was you said. And then I went on to point out that far from sharing this fetishisation, most working class people would ask what an individual prisoner was inside for and conclude that there was little else to do with the violent and anti-social element. Notice that nowhere do I say what my own answer would be, nor that CW shouldn't send papers to people in prison? But if you doubt the way I claim that most working class people think on the matter, like I said, ask around."
> 
> ...





Who said anything about you 'speaking with a priveliged voice'?  Not me.  I never mentioned privilege.  I'm sure you must have come across the type of political activist that takes the assertions of those that he spends most time with as being more typical of large sections of society than they actually are. I'll take your word for it that you are alone as an anarchist in a working class town and that you sometimes rub shoulders with people who work for a living on the school run, but your posts come across as being the product of somebody who views society as he'd like it to be, rather than how it is.  

What are 'stereotypically working class people' by the way?  You must know because you are the one who keeps using the term. 

You don't think you were fetishising prisoners?  Read your first intervention into this thread where you put them at the forefront of 'a class composition that pisses on you and yours.' (A class composition of what exactly you did not say.) And no, I didn't 'write off a majority of prisoners as anti social.'  As I say, read the posts again.  You'll find that what I said was that you seem to be stating that sending papers to prisoners makes you somehow more proletarian than others ('a class composition that pisses....') I said that I'd wager that most working class people, far from sharing this apparent attitude, would look at what a prisoner was actually inside for before making a judgement, and that they would be likely to be hostile to the violent and anti-social.  I did not attempt to give any breakdown of the prison population whatsoever.  As I say, the posts are there to re-read, so I don't know how many times I have keep pointing this out.


----------



## The Black Hand (Feb 28, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> but your posts come across as being the product of somebody who views society as he'd like it to be, rather than how it is.
> 
> What are 'stereotypically working class people' by the way?  You must know because you are the one who keeps using the term.
> 
> You don't think you were fetishising prisoners?  Read your first intervention into this thread where you put them at the forefront of 'a class composition that pisses on you and yours.' (A class composition of what exactly you did not say.) And no, I didn't 'write off a majority of prisoners as anti social.'  As I say, read the posts again.  You'll find that what I said was that you seem to be stating that sending papers to prisoners makes you somehow more proletarian than others ('a class composition that pisses....') I said that I'd wager that most working class people, far from sharing this apparent attitude, would look at what a prisoner was actually inside for before making a judgement, and that they would be likely to be hostile to the violent and anti-social.  I did not attempt to give any breakdown of the prison population whatsoever.  As I say, the posts are there to re-read, so I don't know how many times I have keep pointing this out.




And your posts come across as being the product of somebody who views society as he'd like it to be, rather than how it is.... No i wasn't fetishising prisoners, never, that is the product of someones brain who wants the world as he sees it rather than how it is. As for class composition, i was on about the actual struggles that were participated in, involving prisoners, whose class composition pisses on you from a great height... 

And I'd rather talk about REAL ideas in real struggles rather than stuff you carry on asserting/repeating that gets us nowhere.


----------



## The Black Hand (Feb 28, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> What I said was that those who were politically conscious took those papers more seriously than they took Class War. What are you on about with your 'full employment/ Fordism'?  In 1990? Were you in suspended animation between 1979 and then?  Some of the people I worked with back then were on temporary contracts.  It was all we could do to get them in the union, so precarious did they find their postions to be and so bad was the local job market. Read it again - it was the late 1980s, not the late fifties. But I don't know what you're going on about this 'full employment/ Fordism' stuff for anyway. It might all be very interesting but nowhere did I hold it up as being the basis upon which political work should be carried out. At least that's what I think you're saying because the last sentence of your first paragraph (above) is gibberish.
> 
> You'll find that if you read other posts of mine I've been arguing with Leninists about the non-organised working class, as opposed to the waning organised labour movement, being the basis of any re-emerging working class movement.  Class War is to be applauded for recognising this before many others did. However, it has nothing at all to do with what I said. What I did was to state the facts of the situation that I experienced then - and those were that those who were most entertained - entertained as they might be by a telly programme or a football match or whatever, that is - by CW were those that were less politically conscious.  It did not, in my experience, politicise them in any way, because it did not come over as being a serious attempt to do so. And nowhere did I say that they liked CW -what I said was that some of them thought it was mildly funny. Those who were more sussed out politically and therefore had a better grasp of what you were attempting to do, did not take CW seriously either.  You might wish that I could tell you otherwise but I can't. And where did I state any details of 'what I approve of politically?'
> 
> ...




Reply to para 1 - i did not date Fordism, I was talking about the class consciousness you appeared to share with SW and the Morning Star. The last sentence you refer to as 'gibberish' makes perfect sense to me too - so have another go with it.

reply to para 2 - Well we disagree and have different experiences...

Reply to para 3 - You were very well taken apart by montivideo, this para deserves the same. The  'stilted pseudo- sociological jargon' is infact basic Marxism, something that the British left you are apart of doesn't understand. The radical traditions of the working class in Italy are so much more impressive than ours. Contrary to the patronising attitude of lefties like you, who thinks the working class is blameless and 'can break free if', I think it takes 2 to tango, the British working class does share some responsibility for its political fate... Finally I have NO common ground with Trots, and you do (there we disagree again)...


----------



## montevideo (Feb 28, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> I'm afraid there's more to life than just you being happy chum. If anarchism is a method ( some form of voluntary association with no leaders and no structures?) rather than an end what is the end you are striving for, is it working class rule?



no. Is your ultimate goal a classless society?


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 1, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> And your posts come across as being the product of somebody who views society as he'd like it to be, rather than how it is.... No i wasn't fetishising prisoners, never, that is the product of someones brain who wants the world as he sees it rather than how it is. As for class composition, i was on about the actual struggles that were participated in, involving prisoners, whose class composition pisses on you from a great height...
> 
> And I'd rather talk about REAL ideas in real struggles rather than stuff you carry on asserting/repeating that gets us nowhere.





Real issues?  What you've written here neither addresses real issues nor answers what I've said to you.  It is gibberish.  

Are you pissed?


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 1, 2005)

*Who brought Italy into it?*




			
				Attica said:
			
		

> Reply to para 3 - You were very well taken apart by montivideo, this para deserves the same. The  'stilted pseudo- sociological jargon' is infact basic Marxism, something that the British left you are apart of doesn't understand. The radical traditions of the working class in Italy are so much more impressive than ours. Contrary to the patronising attitude of lefties like you, who thinks the working class is blameless and 'can break free if', I think it takes 2 to tango, the British working class does share some responsibility for its political fate... Finally I have NO common ground with Trots, and you do (there we disagree again)...




"The 'stilted pseudo-sociological jargon is in fact basic Marxism....'"  Is this laughable twaddle more of the same then or what?


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 1, 2005)

*Just wondering*




			
				Attica said:
			
		

> And your posts come across as being the product of somebody who views society as he'd like it to be, rather than how it is.... No i wasn't fetishising prisoners, never, that is the product of someones brain who wants the world as he sees it rather than how it is. As for class composition, i was on about the actual struggles that were participated in, involving prisoners, whose class composition pisses on you from a great height...
> 
> And I'd rather talk about REAL ideas in real struggles rather than stuff you carry on asserting/repeating that gets us nowhere.





'....involving prisoners, whose class composition pisses on you from a great height.'

Is this basic Marxism as well?


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 1, 2005)

*Doing yourself no favours*




			
				Attica said:
			
		

> As for class composition, i was on about the actual struggles that were participated in, involving prisoners, whose class composition pisses on you from a great height...





Which struggles does this sentence refer to?  What, in fact, is it supposed to actually mean?


----------



## Ryazan (Mar 1, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> Try putting these in the right order if you can -  EKANWR



Well, you are witty.  what has Class War done, that has won loads of workers over to your beloved ideals?  Nout.


----------



## BAKU9 (Mar 1, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> Well, you are witty.  what has Class War done, that has won loads of workers over to your beloved ideals?  Nout.



Well that could be safely said for practically all on the left couldn't it?


----------



## Paul Marsh (Mar 1, 2005)

MC5 said:
			
		

> I've just spotted a young Dave Douglas on 'Faith' addressing striking miners in some footage from '84.



Nonsense - Dave Douglass looks younger every time I see him, which is extremely sinister. 

I am beginning to think all that time under ground much be good for you....


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 1, 2005)

You should see the portrait painting he has stashed away in his attic


----------



## kropotkin (Mar 1, 2005)

Lletsa et al., If you would prefer to, you can continue chipping away at the homogenous strawman anarcho-edifice you have erected by ignoring the sane posts by catch and rnb, and focusing only on attica and the class war people.

But you cannot claim that we all think the same, and in honesty you cannot smear all who come from our tradition.


----------



## BAKU9 (Mar 1, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Lletsa et al., If you would prefer to, you can continue chipping away at the homogenous strawman anarcho-edifice you have erected by ignoring the sane posts by catch and rnb, and focusing only on attica and the class war people.
> 
> But you cannot claim that we all think the same, and in honesty you cannot smear all who come from our tradition.



Er, and to be fair to the Class War people, I wouldn't count the rantings of Attica as being representative of their organisation either!


----------



## kropotkin (Mar 1, 2005)

I agree.


----------



## Paul Marsh (Mar 1, 2005)

BAKU9 said:
			
		

> Er, and to be fair to the Class War people, I wouldn't count the rantings of Attica as being representative of their organisation either!



His rantings are not representative of the group.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 1, 2005)

*Damn you Kropotkin!*




			
				kropotkin said:
			
		

> Lletsa et al., If you would prefer to, you can continue chipping away at the homogenous strawman anarcho-edifice you have erected by ignoring the sane posts by catch and rnb, and focusing only on attica and the class war people.
> 
> But you cannot claim that we all think the same, and in honesty you cannot smear all who come from our tradition.





In actual fact Attica has said more than you, Kropotkin. At least his posts are combative rather than just demanding:'withdraw those filthy lies, you scoundrel!'

I have a lot of respect for the stuff posted up by rednblack and catch; they are the only anarchists to say anything political. Both have been among the best of the anarchist posters in various threads since I've been coming on here.  But let us not forget that, far from attempting to take apart anarchism, or trying to 'smear all who come from your tradition', this thread mushroomed only after I merely agreed with a poster who made the perfectly reasonable observation that anarchism does not register with almost anybody outside the anarchist movement.  What seems to have sparked all the outrage is that I said that anarchist principles seem to lead to a preference for keeping it that way, something that was confirmed by anarchist posters who admitted that they don't really push anarchist ideas when they carry out practical political activity and the confusion that ensued when somebody brought up the subject of anarchist ideas regarding leadership and so on.  I did not say that anarchists do nothing to publicise anarchism; what was implied in my posts was that what they do doesn't seem able to lift anarchism out of the ghetto in which it finds itself. Where did I claim that you 'all think the same,' by the way? 

As for Class War, it was Attica who came on acusing me of saying things that I hadn't - and then carried on doing so.  Class War has only any significance to this thread in as much as they too, in my own experience, register with the public little more than any other anarchist group, and nowhere near as much as some of its members seem to believe. 

But at least Atticus has, along with catch and rnb, tried to argue politically. The wounded and paranoid tone of some of the other anarchists in response to even the mildest criticism has been little short of amazing.

It would be interesting to see how some anarchists would fare were a real test of their politics ever to come along if that is how hard they find it to cope with inoffensive comments on an internet forum.


----------



## montevideo (Mar 1, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> In actual fact Attica has said more than you, Kropotkin. At least his posts are combative rather than just demanding:'withdraw those filthy lies, you scoundrel!'
> 
> I have a lot of respect for the stuff posted up by rednblack and catch; they are the only anarchists to say anything political. Both have been among the best of the anarchist posters in various threads since I've been coming on here.  But let us not forget that, far from attempting to take apart anarchism, or trying to 'smear all who come from your tradition', this thread mushroomed only after I merely agreed with a poster who made the perfectly reasonable observation that anarchism does not register with almost anybody outside the anarchist movement.  What seems to have sparked all the outrage is that I said that anarchist principles seem to lead to a preference for keeping it that way, something that was confirmed by anarchist posters who admitted that they don't really push anarchist ideas when they carry out practical political activity and the confusion that ensued when somebody brought up the subject of anarchist ideas regarding leadership and so on.  I did not say that anarchists do nothing to publicise anarchism; what was implied in my posts was that what they do doesn't seem able to lift anarchism out of the ghetto in which it finds itself. Where did I claim that you 'all think the same,' by the way?
> 
> ...



& what real test would this be? Arguing the toss of the interweb is simply that, arguing the toss. From what i can gather from your 100 odd posts you haven't put forward anything political of any sort whatsoever. Your 'inoffensive comments' have been sujected to ridicule, contempt, held up for criticism & generally, & genuinely, questioned. But through all that i haven't seen any of your politics, simply a reinforcing of your position by various methods, some facile, some utterly bewildering, mostly anecdotal, towards class war & anarchism in general. 

Indeed we could ask now what your politics are, how far & wide you promote them & how much they register beyond the ghetto you find yourself in. I have no idea. Doubtless you'll be happy to promote & publicise your politics here, whatever they may be.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 1, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> & what real test would this be? Arguing the toss of the interweb is simply that, arguing the toss. From what i can gather from your 100 odd posts you haven't put forward anything political of any sort whatsoever. Your 'inoffensive comments' have been sujected to ridicule, contempt, held up for criticism & generally, & genuinely, questioned. But through all that i haven't seen any of your politics, simply a reinforcing of your position by various methods, some facile, some utterly bewildering, mostly anecdotal, towards class war & anarchism in general.
> 
> Indeed we could ask now what your politics are, how far & wide you promote them & how much they register beyond the ghetto you find yourself in. I have no idea. Doubtless you'll be happy to promote & publicise your politics here, whatever they may be.





Oh and this is political is it?  Funny how so many of you have focussed on what a rotter I am rather than the mild cricism I made of anarchism in the first place. Read the post fuck's sake.


----------



## montevideo (Mar 1, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Oh and this is political is it?  Funny how so many of you have focussed on what a rotter I am rather than the mild cricism I made of anarchism in the first place. Read the post fuck's sake.



yes have read them, which is why i posted what i just did. I don't particularly mind your criticism, mild or otherwise, i mind you bullshit approach & that is what i have been criticising. Give me some of your 'politics' & i will see what i can do.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 1, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> yes have read them, which is why i posted what i just did. I don't particularly mind your criticism, mild or otherwise, i mind you bullshit approach & that is what i have been criticising. Give me some of your 'politics' & i will see what i can do.





I'll spell it out again more briefly.

1/ I backed up a poster who made a reasonable point; I got a reaction from most anarchists that was big on outrage, small on a robust defence of anarchist politics.

2/ I was not attacking anarchism in itself (nor later Class War.)

3/ I am running out of different ways of explaining these simple points.

Have you ever considered that whatever you might consider my 'bullshit approach' (a term which may or may not be down to a lack of humour on you part) might have been prompted by the silly reaction of some of the anarchists to mild, non-hostile criticism?


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 1, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> & what real test would this be? Arguing the toss of the interweb is simply that, arguing the toss.



Is this meant to be a reply to when I said:

It would be interesting to see how some anarchists would fare were a real test of their politics ever to come along if that is how hard they find it to cope with inoffensive comments on an internet forum.

It is, isn't it?


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Mar 1, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> no. Is your ultimate goal a classless society?



No , that is far too modest an ambition in my lifetime. You really need to think 'bigger picture' monty.


----------



## catch (Mar 1, 2005)

LLETSA,

Since you've not disagreed with either mine or rednblack's posts on this thread, am I to assume that you agree with them? And if you do disagree could you say in what way your own politics differ?


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Mar 1, 2005)

No doubt some of the anarchists on here will have no doubt already seen it ( and perhaps contributed?) but I had a look at the enrager boards and there is a very mixed thread on Class War and its politics.Apart from a couple of posts nobody really identifies their politics or an alternative  and the Gangster, formally The Black Hand, makes a complete twat of himself. Or is it the gangster? and which version of Class War are we discussing?


----------



## montevideo (Mar 1, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> I'll spell it out again more briefly.
> 
> 1/ I backed up a poster who made a reasonable point; I got a reaction from most anarchists that was big on outrage, small on a robust defence of anarchist politics.
> 
> ...



1/ i can't speak on behalf of what others have said, i initially pulled you up on your post; it being based on gossip & hearsay (& not political insight) to reinforce your point coupled with a flawed representation of The Working Class. If others choose to defend 'their' anarchism their way that is entirely up to them. I don't think we are in disagreement here.

2/ whatever you are attacking i am criticising your bullshit approach that masks a lack of political insight.

3/ the feeling is mutual

Now if you want you explain what your particular brand of politics is then do so & i'll be more than willing to engage. 



> It would be interesting to see how some anarchists would fare were a real test of their politics ever to come along if that is how hard they find it to cope with inoffensive comments on an internet forum



what real test would this be? Simply repeating vague & imcomprehensive assertions doesn't really work does it?


----------



## montevideo (Mar 1, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> No , that is far too modest an ambition in my lifetime. You really need to think 'bigger picture' monty.



Obviously way over my head, so give me a hint of this bigger picture.

So you want working class rule but not a classless society as your ultimate goal yes?


----------



## catch (Mar 1, 2005)

Chuck, I'm the same username on enrager, but don't really understand that post, there's been loads of threads on enrager that end up with slanging matches between various people and gangster, you'd have to link to a specific one.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Mar 1, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> Obviously way over my head, so give me a hint of this bigger picture.
> 
> So you want working class rule but not a classless society as your ultimate goal yes?



It was a joke Monty.


----------



## montevideo (Mar 1, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> It was a joke Monty.



like i say, way over my head.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Mar 1, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> Chuck, I'm the same username on enrager, but don't really understand that post, there's been loads of threads on enrager that end up with slanging matches between various people and gangster, you'd have to link to a specific one.



enrager.net forums Forum Index -> General Discussion -> General -> CLASS WAR - simply the best

It starts with :


> AT first, i fell in love with the working class culture and language used. Then, it was the attitude and action that I adored. Then the poll tax came along and it was a marriage made in heaven.
> 
> I tried the other girls, but they really didn't move the earth for me. They still don't, they are about as frigid and as politically dynamic as the Jehovas Witnesses.
> 
> I've had my doubts, but my one true love is the class war and Class War



by Gangster , for whom I am increasingly worried about his health.


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 1, 2005)

Was that written by Sue Townsend?

enrager is a minefield of ammo.

"We should bring the samba drummers to the estates near my halls of uni, and the chavs will realise where their anger should be directed and fight the state for us!"

"Real anarchists should send their kids to private school to escape the influence of the state"


TWO REAL QUOTES FROM ENRAGER IN THE LAST YEAR


----------



## audiotech (Mar 1, 2005)

Avoid the scarcasm and watch a thousand flowers bloom.


----------



## JHE (Mar 2, 2005)

> "We should bring the samba drummers to the estates near my halls of uni, and the chavs will realise where their anger should be directed and fight the state for us!"
> 
> "Real anarchists should send their kids to private school to escape the influence of the state"


  

Bless 'em.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2005)

Only problem is that they're not real are they ern?


----------



## JoeBlack (Mar 2, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> enrager is a minefield of ammo.
> 
> "We should bring the samba drummers to the estates near my halls of uni, and the chavs will realise where their anger should be directed and fight the state for us!"



Yeah but enrager is simply a minefield of faux ironic crap by people who should know better.  The above quote has to be tongue in cheek from somebody who hates samba bands.  It's quite a funny parody too.


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 2, 2005)

They fucking are real quotes, I lurk there all the time. I've been banned twice and had my posts edited and deleted, the bastards!


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 2, 2005)

I'll admit I made that samba one up, but it was based upon one by some nerk who wanted to get the 'estate kids' to follow their vanguardery. I'll look for it now.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2005)

*********


----------



## Epicurus (Mar 2, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> I'll admit I made that samba one up,



Come on 5c are waiting for you Mr Hedgies


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 2, 2005)

*I am glad to be in the traditions of 'The Ranters'*




			
				LLETSA said:
			
		

> Real issues?  What you've written here neither addresses real issues nor answers what I've said to you.  It is gibberish.
> 
> Are you pissed?



YOu write gibberish - you are pissed...


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 2, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> "The 'stilted pseudo-sociological jargon is in fact basic Marxism....'"  Is this laughable twaddle more of the same then or what?



You are laughable twaddle...


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 2, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> '....involving prisoners, whose class composition pisses on you from a great height.'
> 
> Is this basic Marxism as well?



Stupid question stupid boy.


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 2, 2005)

Attica said - "As for class composition, i was on about the actual struggles that were participated in, involving prisoners, whose class composition pisses on you from a great height..." 




			
				LLETSA said:
			
		

> Which struggles does this sentence refer to?  What, in fact, is it supposed to actually mean?



Are you that dim? It means what it says - to break it down;

Class composition of prisoners in class struggle was better than you/yours and your declasse mates down the pub.

Class Warriors outside of prison worked with prisoners inside prison on some issues, I remember we worked around/against racist screws at HMP The Mount where some prisoners experienced it.


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 2, 2005)

What is a 'declasse', and where can I buy one?


----------



## montevideo (Mar 2, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> What is a 'declasse', and where can I buy one?



posh cherries. The organic counter at your local social centre. Or fresh & wild, south wimbledon.


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 2, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> posh cherries. The organic counter at your local social centre. Or fresh & wild, south wimbledon.



Have you got one in your den? Or have the students eaten it already?


----------



## montevideo (Mar 2, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> Have you got one in your den? Or have the students eaten it already?



go nice with roast duck & oven chips. Get the ever fragrant on the case.


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 2, 2005)

What's in your den, Monty? Some empty Pot Noodles and a soiled copy of Razzle?


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 2, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Who said anything about you 'speaking with a priveliged voice'?  Not me.  I never mentioned privilege.  I'm sure you must have come across the type of political activist that takes the assertions of those that he spends most time with as being more typical of large sections of society than they actually are. I'll take your word for it that you are alone as an anarchist in a working class town and that you sometimes rub shoulders with people who work for a living on the school run, but your posts come across as being the product of somebody who views society as he'd like it to be, rather than how it is.
> .



I was on about your view of your own worth, speaking with a 'privileged voice'. Let's remember you said this; 

"I wouldn't mind betting that the people I associate with on a daily basis better reflect in their attitudes the mood at large among the working class than those you do. Could be wrong but it's just a feeling you give me. And in this you are not alone among lefties."

This means 'i am in a more working class environment than you'... That's why I said you were typically leftist, arrogant and elitist, and i think i am right

I mentioned I did the 'skool run today' in a working class town and you said (and my- wasn't it big of you) - "I'll take your word for it that you are alone as an anarchist in a working class town and that you sometimes rub shoulders with people who work for a living on the school run, but your posts come across as being the product of somebody who views society as he'd like it to be, rather than how it is." I only 'rub' shoulders? Wtf?? Do i only rub shoulders at the karate club in my town too? Fucks sake - you think you are 'the voice of the working class' as monty says... BULLSHIT.


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 2, 2005)

Anyone live in a hole in't road then?


----------



## montevideo (Mar 2, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> What's in your den, Monty? Some empty Pot Noodles and a soiled copy of Razzle?



sounds suspiciously like chez o'lynch when the ever fragrant is out on the town with your 'imaginery' friend anthony.


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 2, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> sounds suspiciously like chez o'lynch when the ever fragrant is out on the town with your 'imaginery' friend anthony.



Shite comeback, boss.

Have you ever played soggy biscuit with your pals in the den? (Serious question)


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 2, 2005)

*For the record, and in case you didn't know*

I only speak for myself, just like EP Thompson


----------



## montevideo (Mar 2, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> Shite comeback, boss.
> 
> Have you ever played soggy biscuit with your pals in the den? (Serious question)




"but dear, it's just like the real thing"
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?i...22Panzer+Grenadier%22&start=20&hl=en&lr=&sa=N


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 2, 2005)

You play computer games in the den? Kewl!


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Mar 2, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> I only speak for myself, just like EP Thompson



Thank heavens for that , if there were any more like you out there  there would have to be a cull.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Mar 2, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> "but dear, it's just like the real thing"
> http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?i...22Panzer+Grenadier%22&start=20&hl=en&lr=&sa=N



Have you got a copy of Sim Den yet?


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 2, 2005)

*Attica spends too much time in 'Skool'*




			
				Attica said:
			
		

> YOu write gibberish - you are pissed...





The first of a great series of post from you at the botom of page 28, Attica.

Respec' man! (Gives high five to Attica and marvels at firmess of hand hardened by karate.  Hardened by something anyway.)


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 2, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> Attica said -
> 
> Class Warriors outside of prison worked with prisoners inside prison on some issues, I remember we worked around/against racist screws at HMP The Mount where some prisoners experienced it.





And, of course, that was immediately obvious from the sentence: 

"As for class composition, i was on about the actual struggles that were participated in, involving prisoners, whose class composition pisses on you from a great height..." 

Back to 'skool' I'm afraid.  By the way, that 'radical working class' spelling of the word school, as well as the rather careless style of your otherwise Thompsonesque prose, makes me think that you might have been a member of Slade at one time?

Nice to meet you Noddy.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 2, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> Attica said - "As for class composition, i was on about the actual struggles that were participated in, involving prisoners, whose class composition pisses on you from a great height..."
> 
> 
> 
> Class composition of prisoners in class struggle was better than you/yours and your declasse mates down the pub.





A tip: next time you do the 'skool' run try not to listen to the tots' conversation.

Better to pick up some ideas from the 'stereotypical working class people' that you're sometimes forced to rub shoulders with.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 2, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> I was on about your view of your own worth, speaking with a 'privileged voice'. Let's remember you said this;
> 
> "I wouldn't mind betting that the people I associate with on a daily basis better reflect in their attitudes the mood at large among the working class than those you do. Could be wrong but it's just a feeling you give me. And in this you are not alone among lefties."
> 
> ...





And where, may I ask, did I outline my views regarding 'my own worth'?  

Yes, I suppose you're right, Noddy, I do indeed consider myself The Voice of the Working Class.  Anybody reading my posts would be able to discerrn  that.  He said with typical declasse leftist arrogance to a member of the real working class, whose kids go not to school but 'skool', and who participates in real class struggles with those of a class composition that pisses on you and yours from a truly great height (the roof, Durham jail.)  Not to mention the stereotypical working class. And, most importantly of all, has grasped that standing outside prison gates clutching some copies of an obscure publication means that he alone has recognised who the working classest element of the working class are.

EP Thompson - your successor rides forth (even if it's only on the 'skool' run.)


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 2, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> EP Thompson - your successor rides forth (even if it's only on the 'skool' run.)



Sounds more Denis Wheatley than E P Thompson.
 

Cheers - Louis Mac


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 2, 2005)

*Attica: Badder than Old Nick*




			
				Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> Sounds more Denis Wheatley than E P Thompson.
> 
> 
> Cheers - Louis Mac





No no: Noddy is obviously tuffer than the devil.


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 2, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> No no: Noddy is obviously tuffer than the devil.




Wipe the saliva off your chin loser


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 2, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> And where, may I ask, did I outline my views regarding 'my own worth'?
> 
> Yes, I suppose you're right, Noddy, I do indeed consider myself The Voice of the Working Class.  Anybody reading my posts would be able to discerrn  that.  He said with typical declasse leftist arrogance to a member of the real working class, whose kids go not to school but 'skool', and who participates in real class struggles with those of a class composition that pisses on you and yours from a truly great height (the roof, Durham jail.)  Not to mention the stereotypical working class. And, most importantly of all, has grasped that standing outside prison gates clutching some copies of an obscure publication means that he alone has recognised who the working classest element of the working class are.
> 
> EP Thompson - your successor rides forth (even if it's only on the 'skool' run.)




You certainly need some self criticism, and you are in denial regarding your endless self promotion of your own worth too... I never, nor would i ever say, that one struggle is the priority, and therefore no one conception of working classness is the most typical... There are multiple working class consciousnesses, and many particular class struggles...


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 2, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> You certainly need some self criticism, and you are in denial regarding your endless self promotion of your own worth too... I never, nor would i ever say, that one struggle is the priority, and therefore no one conception of working classness is the most typical... There are multiple working class consciousnesses, and many particular class struggles...





Self Promotion?  ("Of my own worth" no less!) 

Well you said it TBH/Gangsta/Toys in the Attica.  'Stop stealing my name! Look everybody!  Look editor!  Look at me!  Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!'

And who started this argument about 'one struggle being the priority'?  I've never commented on anything along those lines anywhere on this board.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 2, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> You certainly need some self criticism, and you are in denial regarding your endless self promotion of your own worth too... I never, nor would i ever say, that one struggle is the priority, and therefore no one conception of working classness is the most typical... There are multiple working class consciousnesses, and many particular class struggles...



Do you really mean that in the midst of the miners' strike for example you couldn't have found it in your vocabulary to say that it was the priority at that time...not even to yourself and a few of your mates...how very strange?

Cheers - Louis Mac


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 2, 2005)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> Do you really mean that in the midst of the miners' strike for example you couldn't have found it in your vocabulary to say that it was the priority at that time...not even to yourself and a few of your mates...how very strange?
> 
> Cheers - Louis Mac



If that was the struggle I was engaged in at the time it would certainly have been my priority... However, that doesn't mean other struggles were not as valid to the people they concerned...


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 2, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> What is a 'declasse', and where can I buy one?





Ever thought about Kleeneze?

We got one from their catalogue and have never stained the carpet since.


----------



## swarthy thug (Mar 2, 2005)

Originally Posted by ernestolynch
What is a 'declasse', and where can I buy one?

Tim westwood at a adult youth club (socail center)


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 2, 2005)

Welcome back thug - he broke his cherry! Importantly - he never ratted on no-one.


----------



## swarthy thug (Mar 2, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> Welcome back thug - he broke his cherry! Importantly - he never ratted on no-one.



I lost my cherry at the back of the youthie(soacil center),next to the faded brit skin mags with moss over it ,a pair of used pantys and a calor gas canister.GREAT DAYS GREAT DAYS.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 2, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> If that was the struggle I was engaged in at the time it would certainly have been my priority... However, that doesn't mean other struggles were not as valid to the people they concerned...



That's very po-mo of you...how does that degree of relativism fit in with a class based view of the world?

Cheers - Louis Mac


----------



## montevideo (Mar 2, 2005)

swarthy thug said:
			
		

> I lost my cherry at the back of the youthie(soacil center),next to the faded brit skin mags with moss over it ,a pair of used pantys and a calor gas canister.GREAT DAYS GREAT DAYS.



you have a suspciously indepth knowledge of these things. What was his name?


----------



## swarthy thug (Mar 2, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> you have a suspciously indepth knowledge of these things. What was his name?



Whos name? what where when.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 2, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> what real test would this be? Simply repeating vague & imcomprehensive assertions doesn't really work does it?





If you really can't imagine what a real test of anarchism or any other brand of radicalism might look like then I don't know what to say. 

Really I don't.


----------



## montevideo (Mar 2, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> If you really can't imagine what a real test of anarchism or any other brand of radicalism might look like then I don't know what to say.
> 
> Really I don't.



which is the point, you don't really say anything do you?


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 2, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> LLETSA,
> 
> Since you've not disagreed with either mine or rednblack's posts on this thread, am I to assume that you agree with them? And if you do disagree could you say in what way your own politics differ?





Sorry for the delay in replying - I thought I'd get the fun out of the way first....

What I meant was that, in contrast to most of the other anarchist posters, who reacted like the Keepers of the Faith, you and rednblack explained how you try to apply anarchism to the kind of political practice pursued by the IWCA, which is basically what I agree with.  In my view, working class politics is back to square one in any case and what the IWCA is engaged in is proving to be the only route out of the cul-de-sac, even if it is only small beginnings.  As is evidenced by the fact that they are the only group from a left-wing background winning significant support from the non-organised working class. When people are supportive of that kind of work I personally don't care what political label they give themselves. Overall political philosophy and programme is not, in my view, what is most important at the present time.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 2, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> which is the point, you don't really say anything do you?






How many more times?  With every utterance I make I am speaking directly for the working class.  With its multiple class compositions and consciousness's and prison rooftop protests.


----------



## catch (Mar 2, 2005)

LLETSA, I think consistent community work is very important, but also have some very strong differences of politics with the IWCA - at least with various bits of their published literature and Joe Reilly who used to post here and started an even worse thread on anarchism than this one believe it or not, Louis Macneice, the only remaining poster who admits to be involved with the IWCA (someone correct me if I'm wrong) seems very reasonable though.

My main concern, is that by mainly focusing on council housing, they appear to define class by (loosely) consumption of housing, limiting their constituency (and in terms of the IWCA proper I think it is seen very much as a constituency) to a small subsection of the working class. Not that I don't think social housing is important, and it's definitely a potential way to politicise people, but it's not even the worst form of housing IMO (private bedsit accommodation gets my vote, at least on a cost/quality ratio), but people who live in bedsits are less easy to locate (fair enough), and don't make up an electoral block (not fair enough). Most of what HI's doing at the moment is council housing related as well, which I know from experience is as much to do with limited resources as anything else, so perhaps that's why, and it's difficult to tell unless it develops more.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 2, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> LLETSA, I think consistent community work is very important, but also have some very strong differences of politics with the IWCA - at least with various bits of their published literature and Joe Reilly who used to post here and started an even worse thread on anarchism than this one believe it or not, Louis Macneice, the only remaining poster who admits to be involved with the IWCA (someone correct me if I'm wrong) seems very reasonable though.
> 
> My main concern, is that by mainly focusing on council housing, they appear to define class by (loosely) consumption of housing, limiting their constituency (and in terms of the IWCA proper I think it is seen very much as a constituency) to a small subsection of the working class. Not that I don't think social housing is important, and it's definitely a potential way to politicise people, but it's not even the worst form of housing IMO (private bedsit accommodation gets my vote, at least on a cost/quality ratio), but people who live in bedsits are less easy to locate (fair enough), and don't make up an electoral block (not fair enough). Most of what HI's doing at the moment is council housing related as well, which I know from experience is as much to do with limited resources as anything else, so perhaps that's why, and it's difficult to tell unless it develops more.




Could it be that threads about anarchism end up being so bad mainly due to the over-reaction of too many anarchists to the slightest bit of criticism? That's what happened in this one, a thread in which serious questions are only asked of anarchism as far in as page four. 

You might have answered your own criticisms of the IWCA/HI in your last sentence.  They do, after all, have to start somewhere. Plus, isn't there a section on their national website that deals with much of this?


----------



## catch (Mar 2, 2005)

No, frankly, with that particular thread it's because he was a loonspud. I put forward my reservations about the practicality of running for council office - that even if you get in the bureaucracy is so entrenched you'd not be able to do much - and he said "you can't criticise the bureaucracy of the council unless your a councillor" or something like that, then proceeded to repeat it like a mantra.

In fact this thread has probably been more heated than it should in part due to the inane crap that was posted on "Does Anarchism Have a Future?".


----------



## swarthy thug (Mar 3, 2005)

Is that the same joe riley who rights those good arcticles on the red action website?.


----------



## catch (Mar 3, 2005)

I'm not familiar with the quality of his articles on the RA site (which I shall go take a look at at some point, along with the IWCA site again), but I am familiar with his continued posting of unsubstantiated assumptions and misrepresentations here:



> Joe Reilly
> 
> Join Date: May 2003
> Posts: 573
> ...



http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=96291&highlight=anarchism+future


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 3, 2005)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> That's very po-mo of you...how does that degree of relativism fit in with a class based view of the world?
> 
> Cheers - Louis Mac




NO, there is no degree of relativism, just anti hierarchical egalitarian working class politics. Recognising that imposing struggles upon people because it is 'the priority' (a la Leninism/RA/IWCA) is not the way forward. Rather we need many struggles working with each other in solidarity, and that is the kind of class consciousness that can start winning the class war again... a totalising class consciousness as I have mentioned before.


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 3, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> Again, i do not see anarchism as an end, a goal, the ultimate solution, but a method in which we work.
> 
> 
> If we are to recognise class as one of relationship, not only one we have towards the means of production but with every other person who exists, so class articulates itself through a commonality of experience, by means in which common interest is sought & identified, both between ourselves but also towards those whose interests are antagonistic & in opposition to ours. This happens through experience, awareness, realisation & ultimately self-acknowledgement. I am working class not because i choose it as a category but because of the sum total accumulation of my experiences. People experience class culturally, politically, socially & intellectually, but it is experienced as a relationship. Class then is not a position we hold, but one we live through.



This above is what I believe. And to develop it further, and paraphrasing EP Thompson, and Karl Marx;

 'people make history through moral choice, but they do not do so exactly as they please, they make it in conditions inherited and transmitted from the past'....


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 3, 2005)

swarthy thug said:
			
		

> Is that the same joe riley who rights those good arcticles on the red action website?.



There are no good articles on the Red Action website.  

but there are some on www.thecommoner.org


----------



## kropotkin (Mar 3, 2005)

That is toss gangster, there are loads.
The attitude displayed by some of the RA types is shit, but some of their analysis was very good- and their commitment couldn't be doubted.


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 3, 2005)

Letsa - do you know anything about what happened at Attica in the early 1970's?


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 3, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> That is toss gangster, there are loads.
> The attitude displayed by some of the RA types is shit, but some of their analysis was very good- and their commitment couldn't be doubted.



Sorry, it just doesn't do it for me, i don't subscribe to their narrow world view.


----------



## swarthy thug (Mar 3, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> That is toss gangster, there are loads.
> The attitude displayed by some of the RA types is shit, but some of their analysis was very good- and their commitment couldn't be doubted.



Not a member of ra just contributed to the site,same with lettsa.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 3, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> NO, there is no degree of relativism, just anti hierarchical egalitarian working class politics. Recognising that imposing struggles upon people because it is 'the priority' (a la Leninism/RA/IWCA) is not the way forward. Rather we need many struggles working with each other in solidarity, and that is the kind of class consciousness that can start winning the class war again... a totalising class consciousness as I have mentioned before.




I'm not talking about the imposition of heirarchies; that's your imposition on my post.  It is much simpler than that; what I'm refering to is the ability to make choices and the willingness to explain why you've made the choices you have, with an eye to getting people to join you in making similar decisions...like saying the best way to beat the poll tax was not to pay it and explaining why. Without these you are a relativist...although I can see why you wouldn't want to acknowledge this. 

Cheers - Louis Mac


----------



## rednblack (Mar 3, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> Sorry, it just doesn't do it for me, i don't subscribe to their narrow world view.



no, you've got your own


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2005)

All this prolier than thou shite is hilarious.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 3, 2005)

You've not read the thread have you Blagsta?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2005)

I have read most of it actually.  I was referring to the stuff about "my class composition is better than yours" stuff.  Funny as fuck.


----------



## rednblack (Mar 3, 2005)

blagsta jumping to conclusions??!!! 

shurely not


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 3, 2005)

Errr...I find it funny.  "my class composition pisses over yours" is funny.  That people argue over that is funny.


----------



## newbie (Mar 3, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> Louis Macneice, the only remaining poster who admits to be involved with the IWCA (someone correct me if I'm wrong) seems very reasonable though.




Has PC left here or left IWCA?


----------



## rednblack (Mar 3, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> Has PC left here or left IWCA?



he hasnt posted round here recently, i'd be very surprised if he left the iwca

sean still posts now and again and he is iwca

or and geri


----------



## kropotkin (Mar 3, 2005)

no- catch there are quite a few IWCA ers here. Sean, past caring, Louis MacNeice, Joe Reilly, haggy (ex?- now HI), cogg, er...more I think.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 3, 2005)

lletsa

you don't get it, do you? class war is not supposed to be like lefty trot shit such as _social worker_. it is supposed to be _entertaining_ and thought-provoking, rather than some sludge the fuckwitted central committee wants you to read. if you were vaguely interested in anarchist politics fifteen years ago, i'd hope you'd have read - or glanced at - the two class war books, _decade of disorder_ and _unfinished business_. i don't suppose you have cos you wouldn't perhaps be making yrself out to be such a braying ass had you.

why do you take _social worker_ and its sordid ilk seriously? anyone with even a passing interest in anarchist and left-wing politics should notice quite quickly that where anarchists lead the fuckwit trots follow. i think one of the anarchist federation's luminaries describes it as the "leadership of ideas". certainly that describes it best. class war - for example - were involved in anti-fascism in the '80s and '90s when the swp didn't consider it a threat, before their papersales started getting turned over by the fash. class war members were active in anti-capitalism (vs g8, in the '80s stop the city demos &c) before the swp had realised they might be missing a good thing. every fucking thing the swp do is so fucking obviously a rip-off of what anarchists have done previously it's bizarre. if you want to know what the swp will be up to in 2007 or 2009 look at what anarchists are doing irl now.

returning to class war's politics, you could profitably read _unfinished business_ - which, despite being published in 1992, is a good introduction to what we think. you might learn something from it.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 3, 2005)

newbie said:
			
		

> Has PC left here or left IWCA?


 On holiday in NZ.


----------



## rednblack (Mar 3, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> if you want to know what the swp will be up to in 2007 or 2009 look at what anarchists are doing irl now.



very true - if the swp arent doing some sort of shite parody of community politics i'll eat my cloth cap


----------



## rednblack (Mar 3, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> On holiday in NZ.



ha! that's what he claims - i bet he's setting up a kiwi IWCA as the IWCA's international development director


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 3, 2005)

what's that maori name for new zealand?


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 3, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> no, you've got your own



No, they have a narrow and parochial view of class consciousness, and mine is as wide as it could possibly get... Hence it is not possible for me to have a narrow class consciousness...


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 3, 2005)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about the imposition of heirarchies; that's your imposition on my post.  It is much simpler than that; what I'm refering to is the ability to make choices and the willingness to explain why you've made the choices you have, with an eye to getting people to join you in making similar decisions...like saying the best way to beat the poll tax was not to pay it and explaining why.




What you are describing here is compatable with the position i described earlier.


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 3, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> if you want to know what the swp will be up to in 2007 or 2009 look at what anarchists are doing irl now.



Building dens?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 3, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> Building dens?


making plans for icepick fodder.

at least, i am.


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 3, 2005)

*The voice of respectable moderation*




			
				Pickman's model said:
			
		

> lletsa
> 
> you don't get it, do you? class war is not supposed to be like lefty trot shit such as _social worker_. it is supposed to be _entertaining_ and thought-provoking, rather than some sludge the fuckwitted central committee wants you to read. if you were vaguely interested in anarchist politics fifteen years ago, i'd hope you'd have read - or glanced at - the two class war books, _decade of disorder_ and _unfinished business_. i don't suppose you have cos you wouldn't perhaps be making yrself out to be such a braying ass had you.
> 
> ...




Well done Pickmans Model, keep up the good work.


----------



## rednblack (Mar 3, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> what's that maori name for new zealand?



land of the long cloud?

or summat


----------



## rednblack (Mar 3, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> On holiday in NZ.



when he gets back do you reckon he'll give a lecture on the treaty of rangatiratunga to millwall supporters club?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 3, 2005)

he'll teach that haka to all the ra lot!


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 3, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> he'll teach that haka to all the ra lot!



I do a good Haka, and also Sumo


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 3, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> making plans for icepick fodder.
> 
> at least, i am.




Were my files useful, boss?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 3, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> Were my files useful, boss?


they always are!

i'm organising a ditch digging holiday in armagh cos of the information you've provided! 

although the people going don't know it's a one-way trip for them!


----------



## kropotkin (Mar 3, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> I do a good Haka, and also Sumo


 When I met you up in Newcastle you didn't seem all that large.


----------



## nastyned (Mar 3, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> land of the long cloud?
> 
> or summat



Aotearoa, which translates as 'land of the long white cloud'.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 3, 2005)

Pickman's model "i think one of the anarchist federation's luminaries describes it as the "leadership of ideas". "
That would have been me. I'm pretty sure I coined the phrase and the thinking around it in the mid-70s


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 3, 2005)

yeh. i thought you'd notice that, somehow.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 3, 2005)

nastyned said:
			
		

> Aotearoa, which translates as 'land of the long white cloud'.


cheers!


----------



## rednblack (Mar 3, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> That would have been me. I'm pretty sure I coined the phrase and the thinking around it in the mid-70s


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 3, 2005)

Me no have beard or long hair


----------



## kropotkin (Mar 3, 2005)

...or a super wonky left eye neither


----------



## rednblack (Mar 3, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> ...or a super wonky left eye neither



that is a casually raised eyebrow


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 3, 2005)

or specs- 'specially Supertramp ones like that!


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 3, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> that is a casually raised eyebrow


Well, I am good at the caually raised eyebrow, even if I say so meself.


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 3, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> Pickman's model "i think one of the anarchist federation's luminaries describes it as the "leadership of ideas". "
> That would have been me. I'm pretty sure I coined the phrase and the thinking around it in the mid-70s


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 3, 2005)

- Is that you in the pic , tankie?


----------



## rednblack (Mar 3, 2005)

lol! that looks like random actually


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 3, 2005)

*Talk to the SWP then, not me*




			
				Pickman's model said:
			
		

> lletsa
> 
> you don't get it, do you? class war is not supposed to be like lefty trot shit such as _social worker_. it is supposed to be _entertaining_ and thought-provoking, rather than some sludge the fuckwitted central committee wants you to read. if you were vaguely interested in anarchist politics fifteen years ago, i'd hope you'd have read - or glanced at - the two class war books, _decade of disorder_ and _unfinished business_. i don't suppose you have cos you wouldn't perhaps be making yrself out to be such a braying ass had you.
> 
> ...





Oh dearie me!

Has it really taken you, what is it now, a week or so since the subject of CW came up, to think up that little pile of irrelevancies? Even Flowers in the Attica managed to compose his buffooneries quicker. Your post is better but irrelevant to anything I've said.  For the thousandth time-the point I made was that, in my own experience, almost nobody has heard of CW and those that have do not take it seriously. Yes, it was fifteen or more years ago - but that was when a handful of people I knew actually raised the subject of CW.  Now, nobody I know ever does. If I spoke of CW, the reaction would be:'who?'  I can't help suspecting that they are more typical of the population than those that have heard of CW. To say that is not to score points - I have read CW often enough, and nodded with approval at plenty of things it has said, but it does not do enough for me to care what happens to it one way or the other. As with for the vast majority of people, Class War does not touch my life at all.

So I hope that clears that up then.  Another brief summary just for your diaries: in my experience few have heard of CW and those that have were either unmoved by it or misunderstood what it was supposed to be about.  End of story; no comment passed by me (check my posts) as to the worth of CW or the pushing forward of any alternatives to it. Least of all Socialist Worker and the Morning Star.  In addition to the above, you also seem to need reminding that what I was saying when referring to them, was that the more politicised people in my then workplace took those particular publications more seriously than they did CW.  Simple as. Maybe they shouldn't have. Maybe they should.  But I didn't advise them one way or another - I was a mere strip of a lad; that was just the way it was. So spare me all the toss about lines handed down by central committees and all that because nowhere do I advocate anything of the kind.  

Fuck me - an incredible seven hundred and odd posts on and the vanguard of Urban 75 anarchism is still crying over nowt, still speaking in the same outraged tone and deflecting criticisms by lying about what people have said.  Or maybe, like the fash on RA, some of you have difficulty comprehending what you read?  

Is it any wonder, then, that some people among you have so much difficulty in comprehending the working class? 

And I think you might have missed the irony of your assertion that Socialist Worker is a Class War rip off....


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 3, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> And I think you might have missed the irony of your assertion that Socialist Worker is a Class War rip off....


i think you made that last bit up rather too blatantly.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 3, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> Well done Pickmans Model, keep up the good work.





Says it all really.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 3, 2005)

all yr bullshit about vanguards and central committees and politburos shows you really have never got to grips with some core aspects of anarchism.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 3, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> Letsa - do you know anything about what happened at Attica in the early 1970's?





No.  

Nor do I even know where Attica is.  I expect that's because I'm a 'down the pub declasse' individual.

But whatever it was that happened, I'm glad to see that you're keeping it in one of the many consciousness's of the working class by choosing as one of your many usernames on Urban 75 Politics and Protest.


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 3, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> - Is that you in the pic , tankie?



Nah Chuck, my hair's longer than that for my next assignment - infiltrate den-building hippies...


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 3, 2005)

You'd need dreads for that, tankie-boy.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 3, 2005)

Why do they call it an opium den ?
They smoke opium den they smoke more opium den they smoke more opium etc


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 3, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> When I met you up in Newcastle you didn't seem all that large.



You don't have to be large to have a good go.


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 3, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> You'd need dreads for that, tankie-boy.



Not all you hippies have dreadlocks do you?


----------



## swarthy thug (Mar 3, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> Pickman's model "i think one of the anarchist federation's luminaries describes it as the "leadership of ideas". "
> That would have been me. I'm pretty sure I coined the phrase and the thinking around it in the mid-70s



I coined a phrase in the 70s yer know


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 3, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> Why do they call it an opium den ?
> They smoke opium den they smoke more opium den they smoke more opium etc




 
_
That's_ where the B and silentNate are. Inscrutable!


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 3, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> Nor do I even know where Attica is.  I expect that's because I'm a 'down the pub declasse' individual.
> 
> But whatever it was that happened, I'm glad to see that you're keeping it in one of the many consciousness's of the working class by choosing as one of your many usernames on Urban 75 Politics and Protest.



Well perhaps maybe you should, 'the flowers in the Attica' you mentioned would be on the working class graves in the biggest massacre by American forces in the USA since the Native American Indian genocide... 

But, not only for that reason. The prison movement in America is providing some of the best radical working class organising at the moment, thousands attend their conferences...  I don't accept the view that there is nothing to learn from outside 'our sceptered isle' either, that would be a truly pathetic position in this techno global age...


----------



## swarthy thug (Mar 3, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> Well perhaps maybe you should, 'the flowers in the Attica' you mentioned would be on the working class graves in the biggest massacre by American forces in the USA since the Native American Indian genocide...
> 
> But, not only for that reason. The prison movement in America is providing some of the best radical working class organising at the moment, thousands attend their conferences...  I don't accept the view that there is nothing to learn from outside 'our sceptered isle' either, that would be a truly pathetic position in this techno global age...




Ive just sussed out who you are,the black hand.
Master of biblographys and lowlife fetashist.


----------



## kropotkin (Mar 3, 2005)

bingo

"lowlife fetishist"


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 3, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> Again, i do not see anarchism as an end, a goal, the ultimate solution, but a method in which we work.
> 
> If we are to recognise class as one of relationship, not only one we have towards the means of production but with every other person who exists, so class articulates itself through a commonality of experience, by means in which common interest is sought & identified, both between ourselves but also towards those whose interests are antagonistic & in opposition to ours. This happens through experience, awareness, realisation & ultimately self-acknowledgement. I am working class not because i choose it as a category but because of the sum total accumulation of my experiences. People experience class culturally, politically, socially & intellectually, but it is experienced as a relationship. Class then is not a position we hold, but one we live through.This is what I believe. And to develop it further, and paraphrasing EP Thompson, and Karl Marx;
> 
> 'people make history through moral choice, but they do not do so exactly as they please, they make it in conditions inherited and transmitted from the past'....




Go on Letsa, try engaging with real ideas such as the above, rather than the purile repetition that is your usual crap.


----------



## catch (Mar 3, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> no- catch there are quite a few IWCA ers here. Sean, past caring, Louis MacNeice, Joe Reilly, haggy (ex?- now HI), cogg, er...more I think.



Fair enough, forgot pc was iwca - and don't remember seeing him post about the iwca to be honest, had mentioned Louis, didn't count haggy since he's HI (can speak for himself though), and haven't really had dealings with sean or cogg. My mistake, I'm still new!


----------



## ernestolynch (Mar 3, 2005)

attica didn't you post once that you said all prisoners should be freed?


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 3, 2005)

ernestolynch said:
			
		

> attica didn't you post once that you said all prisoners should be freed?



No, I was asked this before though, and i said it was an abstract question,  ahistorical and apolitical, and hence devoid of meaning.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 3, 2005)

if attica's tbh and gangster, are we going to be treated to a repeat of the recent fuckwittery about doppelgangers?


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 3, 2005)

*Next time I'll say it with a deadpan face*




			
				Pickman's model said:
			
		

> all yr bullshit about vanguards and central committees and politburos shows you really have never got to grips with some core aspects of anarchism.





I did it to wind certain people up.  Like you do, you know? Makes you feel better for seconds on end. 

Even though you appear to have been conferring with each other regarding how to refute such issues of world historic importance as somebody saying, 'In my experience Class War isn't seen as very important or relevant,' I didn't really think that you had a politbureau.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 3, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> Well perhaps maybe you should, 'the flowers in the Attica' you mentioned would be on the working class graves in the biggest massacre by American forces in the USA since the Native American Indian genocide...
> 
> But, not only for that reason. The prison movement in America is providing some of the best radical working class organising at the moment, thousands attend their conferences...  I don't accept the view that there is nothing to learn from outside 'our sceptered isle' either, that would be a truly pathetic position in this techno global age...





Maybe I should.

As for your last sentence, I have, of course, been saying throughout this thread that there is nothing to learn outside 'our sceptered isle.' Haven't I?

Anybody reading the thread would be able to see that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 3, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> I did it to wind certain people up.  Like you do, you know? Makes you feel better for seconds on end.


what a sad, sad life you lead.


----------



## rednblack (Mar 3, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> I didn't really think that you had a politbureau.



or but they have, attica is the general secretary and pickman's is the party whip


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 3, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> or but they have, attica is the general secretary and pickman's is the party whip


for secretary read dogsbody.


----------



## rednblack (Mar 3, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> for secretary read dogsbody.



oh, and he's your leading theorist!


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 3, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Maybe I should.
> 
> As for your last sentence, I have, of course, been saying throughout this thread that there is nothing to learn outside 'our sceptered isle.' Haven't I?
> 
> Anybody reading the thread would be able to see that.



Funnily enough, all my points are not directed at you, although a lot are. They are also directed at other blinkered parochials, such as, but not, you in this instance.


----------



## swarthy thug (Mar 3, 2005)

blinkered parochials,

Tut tut.


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 3, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> oh, and he's your leading theorist!



Class War is full of Gramscis 'organic intellectuals'


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 3, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> I did it to wind certain people up.  Like you do, you know? Makes you feel better for seconds on end.
> 
> Even though you appear to have been conferring with each other regarding how to refute such issues of world historic importance as somebody saying, 'In my experience Class War isn't seen as very important or relevant,' I didn't really think that you had a politbureau.



Don't delude yourself about your own importance again   
I have not conferred with anybody...

Remember in post 241 in this thread I had you sussed - i said this;
"Yawn. Wot a waste of time arguing with Letsa... You're not really interested in debate, you have a record that I have heard so many boring times before..."


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 3, 2005)

swarthy thug said:
			
		

> blinkered parochials,
> 
> Tut tut.



Parish life died with Feudalism...[thankgod]


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 3, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> if attica's tbh and gangster, are we going to be treated to a repeat of the recent fuckwittery about doppelgangers?



Aren't we already?  

Louis Mac


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 3, 2005)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> Aren't we already?
> 
> Louis Mac



There is a chance, albeit slim   that i could be right


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 3, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> Don't delude yourself about your own importance again
> I have not conferred with anybody...
> 
> Remember in post 241 in this thread I had you sussed - i said this;
> "Yawn. Wot a waste of time arguing with Letsa... You're not really interested in debate, you have a record that I have heard so many boring times before..."


So why do you continue doing so?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 3, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> oh, and he's your leading theorist!


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 3, 2005)

Louis MacNeice said:
			
		

> Aren't we already?
> 
> Louis Mac


that's true...

i think i see another ban approaching.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 3, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> what a sad, sad life you lead.





So says the man whose sole purpose in life seems to consist of starting up 'scathing'-but ultimately apolitical-threads about what the editor of this site rightly calls 'the S -fucking WP.'


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 3, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> Funnily enough, all my points are not directed at you, although a lot are. They are also directed at other blinkered parochials, such as, but not, you in this instance.





Don't put it in a reply to me then if you don't want me to answer.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 3, 2005)

*How can anybody answer that?*




			
				Attica said:
			
		

> Don't delude yourself about your own importance again
> I have not conferred with anybody...
> 
> Remember in post 241 in this thread I had you sussed - i said this;
> "Yawn. Wot a waste of time arguing with Letsa... You're not really interested in debate, you have a record that I have heard so many boring times before..."





Oh well - that's that then.

What's more -the multiply-named self-proclaimed heir to EP Thompson's throne lectures somebody on his own sense of importance.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 3, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> Class War is full of Gramscis 'organic intellectuals'





And one organic turnip it seems....


----------



## audiotech (Mar 3, 2005)

Is this an episode of 'That's Life' I missed?

Esther and her saucy vegetables eh?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 3, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> So says the man whose sole purpose in life seems to consist of starting up 'scathing'-but ultimately apolitical-threads about what the editor of this site rightly calls 'the S -fucking WP.'


and that's another lot of fuckwittery from you.

75% + of the extant threads i've started have fuck all to do with the swp.


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Mar 4, 2005)

icepick said:
			
		

> 100% (all Assisted Places, natch )


fuck around!! SERIOUSLY?! ALL of you?

Christ on a tricycle. Actually all the ones i've met were, so its not surprising...
What was surprising is that som chose to STAY in private education even after becoming 'anarchists' and laughing at me for thinking setting fire to policemen was a bit off*

Actually i met one yesterday who went to _____ which is a normal school so no, there's one.

* i've changed my mind now tho


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2005)

tax

you don't mean yr going soft in yr old age?


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 4, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> and that's another lot of fuckwittery from you.
> 
> 75% + of the extant threads i've started have fuck all to do with the swp.





So by your own admission 25% of your near-10,000 have?

And I'M the sad bastard?


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Mar 4, 2005)

no i i'm going hard in my old age.

i was pissed of at them for saying they found the following situation funny:
cop comes to evict woman for reant non-payment. Woman pushes cop down stairs, where he lies crippled/immobile. Woman comes down stairs, marinates him in petrol and sets him on fire.

not really that nice.

But now, a few years later, like the letters page in Viz, i've seen the funny side


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> So by your own admission 25% of your near-10,000 have?
> 
> And I'M the sad bastard?


no - that's clearly bollocks. which you'd realise if you read.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 4, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> no - that's clearly bollocks. which you'd realise if you read.




Put it this way- the thing that I most associate with your contributions to this board is an obsession with the SWP.  An obsession which is, furthermore, devoid of any political analysis whatsoever.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Put it this way- the thing that I most associate with your contributions to this board is an obsession with the SWP.  An obsession which is, furthermore, devoid of any political analysis whatsoever.


let's put it this way - you've made a claim which is clearly fallacious.

or rather, two claims.


----------



## Isambard (Mar 4, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Put it this way- the thing that I most associate with your contributions to this board is an obsession with the SWP.  An obsession which is, furthermore, devoid of any political analysis whatsoever.




Wanna pint Lletsa?    

<Runs from Pickman's Model     >


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2005)

grtho said:
			
		

> Wanna pint Lletsa?
> 
> <Runs from Pickman's Model     >


i didn't think they sold imperial measures in germany.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 4, 2005)

grtho said:
			
		

> Wanna pint Lletsa?
> 
> <Runs from Pickman's Model     >





Yeah.  E mail me a Guiness please.  Standard kind not extra cold.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> So says the man whose sole purpose in life seems to consist of starting up 'scathing'-but ultimately apolitical-threads about what the editor of this site rightly calls 'the S -fucking WP.'


isn't it a bit unfair to slag off everyone who posts on those threads?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2005)

lletsa

why don't _you_ start a thread? it might be interesting.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Mar 4, 2005)

He's never slagged off me.

Anyway, have we come to any sort of conclusion as to who is the most working class anarchist group? 

As I have said before there are individuals on here who I would have no problem working with and who would be definately be an assett. However there are others who clearly don't see the working class as being central and others who say they do but have no real connection with them politically.  

As for Class War. It's dead isn't it?


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 4, 2005)

*Maybe I could start one on the SWP?*




			
				Pickman's model said:
			
		

> lletsa
> 
> why don't _you_ start a thread? it might be interesting.





Maybe not - better not to tread on the toes of those who have certain areas of discussion boxed off, so to speak. 

I might very well do that when I have something that it's worth starting a thread about.

A good rule to stick to methinks....


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 4, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> isn't it a bit unfair to slag off everyone who posts on those threads?





I didn't do that.  But since you ask - no, not really.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Maybe not - better not to tread on the toes of those who have certain areas of discussion boxed off, so to speak.
> 
> I might very well do that when I have something that it's worth starting a thread about.
> 
> A good rule to stick to methinks....


so, in the best part of a year you've been unable to think of _anything_ to start a thread about?

you could have started a thread to introduce yrself last april - though it's clearly a bit late for that now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> I didn't do that.  But since you ask - no, not really.


yes you did.

you said that i started threads which ended up being apolitical, thus blaming the  posters on threads i started. i initiated the discussions - i didn't always conclude them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> As for Class War. It's dead isn't it?


no.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 4, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> so, in the best part of a year you've been unable to think of _anything_ to start a thread about?
> 
> you could have started a thread to introduce yrself last april - though it's clearly a bit late for that now.





I could have but I didn't.  It isn't a stated requirement of membership. 

I registered when it became compulsory so that I could continue to view the board now and again. Only decided to post when RA closed their boards.  You lucky people.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2005)

and did you start any threads on the ra boards?


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 4, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> yes you did.
> 
> you said that i started threads which ended up being apolitical, thus blaming the  posters on threads i started. i initiated the discussions - i didn't always conclude them.





You start off threads that are apolitical from the off.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> You start off threads that are apolitical from the off.


some of them, true. 

but i didn't think we were talking about threads in books and that.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 4, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> and did you start any threads on the ra boards?





I would have to check.  Can't remember offhand. 

But what's this obsession with starting off threads?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> I would have to check.  Can't remember offhand.
> 
> But what's this obsession with starting off threads?


yr just carping from the sidelines, without anything to offer except yr knocking copy.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 4, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> some of them, true.
> 
> but i didn't think we were talking about threads in books and that.





Don't understand that last sentence.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 4, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> yr just carping from the sidelines, without anything to offer except yr knocking copy.





So starting off apolitical threads on obscure internet boards is somehow showing leadership to the working class is it?  Oh no - I forgot, you don't approve of leadership. 

Ask the other former contributors to the RA board if I had nothing to say in the threads in which I chose to post.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Don't understand that last sentence.


i agree i have started some apolitical threads - in books, health, community and so on - but i didn't think we were talking about other fora.

do you understand _now_?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> So starting off apolitical threads on obscure internet boards is somehow showing leadership to the working class is it?  Oh no - I forgot, you don't approve of leadership.
> 
> Ask the other former contributors to the RA board if I had nothing to say in the threads in which I chose to post.


i can't think of anything memorable you posted there.

you also seem to be confusing posting here with political activity irl. why?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> You start off threads that are apolitical from the off.


like?


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Mar 4, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> no.



any sign of pulse or condensation on mirror then?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> any sign of pulse or condensation on mirror then?


www.londonclasswar.org


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 4, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> like?





The vast majority of those in which you indulge your SWP obsession.

Hey, it's good this isn't it?  I've never done this verbal tennis stuff on the internet before.  All of a sudden I feel like I'm truly up to speed (as they say) with contemporary society. 

Makes me regret that I need to go and have a pee.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 4, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> you also seem to be confusing posting here with political activity irl. why?





That's precisely what I am not doing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> The vast majority of those in which you indulge your SWP obsession.
> 
> Hey, it's good this isn't it?  I've never done this verbal tennis stuff on the internet before.  All of a sudden I feel like I'm truly up to speed (as they say) with contemporary society.
> 
> Makes me regret that I need to go and have a pee.


no - come up with examples - if you can.

before we proceed, though, you may wish to remind yrself of the title of this forum.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 4, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> you also seem to be confusing posting here with political activity irl. why?





Although it does puzzle me that whenever I come on this board certain people are always but always on line.  Without exception.  Makes me wonder how they manage to do anything else.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> That's precisely what I am not doing.


just a good impression, then?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Although it does puzzle me that whenever I come on this board certain people are always but always on line.  Without exception.  Makes me wonder how they manage to do anything else.


that'll be the mods.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 4, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> no - come up with examples - if you can.
> 
> before we proceed, though, you may wish to remind yrself of the title of this forum.





Do you honestly think that I or anybody else would waste time searching the archives of a board like this for threads you've started about the SWP?

The title of this board?  What have apolitical threads about the SWP got to do with UK Politics?  (You admit above that many of them are apolitical.)


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 4, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> that'll be the mods.





Oh yeah.  

(Rolls eyes and all that.)


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Do you honestly think that I or anybody else would waste time searching the archives of a board like this for threads you've started about the SWP?
> 
> The title of this board?  What have apolitical threads about the SWP got to do with UK Politics?  (You admit above that many of them are apolitical.)


if you can't produce a single example from the 10,000 threads you claim above i've started, then i'll have to consider you a bit of a liar.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 4, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> if you can't produce a single example from the 10,000 threads you claim above i've started, then i'll have to consider you a bit of a liar.





Ten thousand posts I meant.  My mistake. 'S a lot though innit, especially when you consider how many of them are about that number one problem for the international working class, the SWP? 

An example?  The one that you started a couple of nights ago - still above or below somewhere. When you started two on the same subject (evidence of an obsession?) only for one to be deleted.

Don't you think that your diverting of this thread down the road of a discussion about yourself might be further evidence of the general apoliticism you often spread throughout the board?  (I remind you of the title....)


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Ten thousand posts I meant.  My mistake. 'S a lot though innit, especially when you consider how many of them are about that number one problem for the international working class, the SWP?
> 
> An example?  The one that you started a couple of nights ago - still above or below somewhere. When you started two on the same subject (evidence of an obsession?) only for one to be deleted.
> 
> Don't you think that your diverting of this thread down the road of a discussion about yourself might be further evidence of the general apoliticism you often spread throughout the board?  (I remind you of the title....)


you've produced one thread you can't recall the title or subject of and expect me to accept that? i don't believe that that sort of sub-anecdotal evidence proves a fucking thing. nor does yr slur that i "spread" "apoliticism" throughout the board. just cos you say something, doesn't make it true. and when you can't produce a shred of evidence to substantiate yr claims, yr position is somewhat undermined. it's been the same throughout this thread where yr strong on allegation and very short on anything to back up yr assertions.


----------



## montevideo (Mar 4, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> He's never slagged off me.
> 
> Anyway, have we come to any sort of conclusion as to who is the most working class anarchist group?
> 
> ...



hope that's not the royal 'we' you're using there chuck? 

Central to what? Building the party? Having a pop at the council? Being central to fucking what!!? 

If you consider some anarchists an asset to your particular brand of leftism, then sadly i have to agree with you.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 4, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> you've produced one thread you can't recall the title or subject of and expect me to accept that? i don't believe that that sort of sub-anecdotal evidence proves a fucking thing. nor does yr slur that i "spread" "apoliticism" throughout the board. just cos you say something, doesn't make it true. and when you can't produce a shred of evidence to substantiate yr claims, yr position is somewhat undermined. it's been the same throughout this thread where yr strong on allegation and very short on anything to back up yr assertions.





Okay okay.  I can see now that you are not the slightest bit interested in yourself when it comes to the content of what you post on this board.  Your constant abbreviation of 'your' to 'yr' is clear proof that when it comes to the class struggle you are a man at least in as much of a hurry as Lenin.


----------



## montevideo (Mar 4, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Okay okay.  I can see now that you aree not the slightest bit interested in yourself when it comes to the content of what you post on this board.  Your constant abbreviation of 'your' to 'yr' is clear proof that when it comes to the class struggle you are a man at least in as much of a hurry as Lenin.



as would be checking yr spelling no?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Okay okay.  I can see now that you are not the slightest bit interested in yourself when it comes to the content of what you post on this board.  Your constant abbreviation of 'your' to 'yr' is clear proof that when it comes to the class struggle you are a man at least in as much of a hurry as Lenin.


and on that note i think we can nail down the coffin-lid.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 4, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> as would be checking yr spelling no?





Beet you too it.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 4, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> i agree i have started some apolitical threads - in books, health, community and so on - but i didn't think we were talking about other fora.
> 
> do you understand _now_?





No - you do it on this one as well.


----------



## montevideo (Mar 4, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> No - you do it on this one as well.



just so we know where we stand, your politics are....?

(as brief or indepth as you like. Relate it to anarchism & its faults if you like). 

This is third time i've asked you directly about your politics.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 4, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> i can't think of anything memorable you posted there.
> 
> you also seem to be confusing posting here with political activity irl. why?





Everything I posted there was a statement on behalf of the working class.  As is everything that I post here.  Something that I hadn't realised until it was pointed out to me by the Guardians of the Faith when I made an innocuous criticism of anarchism.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> No - you do it on this one as well.


have you some sort of memory problem?

we've been through this, you produced fuck all evidence to substantiate yr allegation, and that's where we left it. now, if you have suddenly happened upon something you can produce, then for fuck's sake OUT WITH IT.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 4, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> just so we know where we stand, your politics are....?
> 
> (as brief or indepth as you like. Relate it to anarchism & its faults if you like).
> 
> This is third time i've asked you directly about your politics.





" Me? I'm an anarchist babe.  An' I'll be an anarchist till the day I die..."


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 4, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> have you some sort of memory problem?
> 
> we've been through this, you produced fuck all evidence to substantiate yr allegation, and that's where we left it. now, if you have suddenly happened upon something you can produce, then for fuck's sake OUT WITH IT.





Jesus, go and have a bevvy or something eh?

's Friday afternoon.


----------



## montevideo (Mar 4, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> " Me? I'm an anarchist babe.  An' I'll be an anarchist till the day I die..."



take that as a declined offer then. I can see how you got the better of the bnp types, with that kind of robust defence of your particular brand of leftism.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> take that as a declined offer then. I can see how you got the better of the bnp types, with that kind of robust defence of your particular brand of leftism.


some years ago, i visited a university-owned house in highgate. it seemed that the house had come with a tied tenant, a lady who threw any gone-off food out the window into the garden. the last i heard, the university had sold the house in part to rid themselves of the pesky tenant. 

it would not surprise me if the red action boards had been shut down - in part - for a similar reason, to banish lletsa's unwelcome posts.


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 5, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Don't put it in a reply to me then if you don't want me to answer.



Sorry son, i post as i please and you certainly ain't gonna stop me


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 5, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> Again, i do not see anarchism as an end, a goal, the ultimate solution, but a method in which we work.
> 
> If we are to recognise class as one of relationship, not only one we have towards the means of production but with every other person who exists, so class articulates itself through a commonality of experience, by means in which common interest is sought & identified, both between ourselves but also towards those whose interests are antagonistic & in opposition to ours. This happens through experience, awareness, realisation & ultimately self-acknowledgement. I am working class not because i choose it as a category but because of the sum total accumulation of my experiences. People experience class culturally, politically, socially & intellectually, but it is experienced as a relationship. Class then is not a position we hold, but one we live through.This is what I believe. And to develop it further, and paraphrasing EP Thompson, and Karl Marx;
> 
> ...



You forgot to reply to this letsa, and I will continue to remind you until you do. As a self proclaimed spokesman for the entire working class, you know what they all think/feel/experience  after all, so you should have no problem with a sensible position on the above???? (smirks, grins, laughs - oh the fun of these boards)                                        not...


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 5, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> So why do you continue doing so?



To prove I was right to myself and to anybody else watching...


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 5, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Everything I posted there was a statement on behalf of the working class.  As is everything that I post here.  Something that I hadn't realised until it was pointed out to me by the Guardians of the Faith when I made an innocuous criticism of anarchism.



The above post contains; Pseudo sincerity, 'my role is thrust upon me', Martyr seeking, fake innocence... 

It is therefore; BULLSHIT


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 6, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> The above post contains; Pseudo sincerity, 'my role is thrust upon me', Martyr seeking, fake innocence...
> 
> It is therefore; BULLSHIT


is that the real tbh or the fake one?


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 6, 2005)

Attica said:
			
		

> The above post contains; Pseudo sincerity, 'my role is thrust upon me', Martyr seeking, fake innocence...
> 
> It is therefore; BULLSHIT





No - it was a joke.

Just a joke.

Sigh.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 6, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> is that the real tbh or the fake one?




Again, the very fact that you have to even ask such a question says it all....


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 6, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> take that as a declined offer then. I can see how you got the better of the bnp types, with that kind of robust defence of your particular brand of leftism.





I have no intention of presenting my personal political manifesto a la Flowers in the Attica and certain others.  But there is no need to; for what it is worth I have already made it clear, in this thread and others, what I agree with politically.  Perhaps you only see what you want to see.

The old left is dead.  Anarchism as a movement never got started.  Both could probably go on repeating the same old stuff and doing the same old things ad infinitum.  As far as I am concerned, the only group that truly recognises that times have changed since the seventies and eighties and is thus in any way viable is the IWCA. (This is not to say that individual anarchists do not see the need to organise in the same way.)


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 6, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> the only group that truly recognises that times have changed since the seventies and eighties and is thus in any way viable is the IWCA.


so, in yr view, red action wasted a fuck of a lot of time chasing fascists and supporting the ira?


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 6, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> so, in yr view, red action wasted a fuck of a lot of time chasing fascists and supporting the ira?





No.  But what's that got to do with anything I say in my last post?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 6, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> No.  But what's that got to do with anything I say in my last post?


why is electoralism so good?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 6, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> No.  But what's that got to do with anything I say in my last post?


ra only changed from their fash-bashing and 'ra -supporting in the mid-90s. you seem to suggest they should have done so five or six years earlier.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 6, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> why is electoralism so good?





Where do I say that electoralism is particularly good?  Or even mention it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 6, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Where do I say that electoralism is particularly good?  Or even mention it?


do you support the iwca's participation in local government elections?


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 6, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> ra only changed from their fash-bashing and 'ra -supporting in the mid-90s. you seem to suggest they should have done so five or six years earlier.






How can you draw this bizarre conclusion from my stating that the IWCA seem to me the only group that recognises that times have changed since the 1970's and '80's? 

By the way, I didn't notice that RA had withdrawn support for the IRA.  Where did they issue a statement?  I must have missed it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 6, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> How can you draw this bizarre conclusion from my stating that the IWCA seem to me the only group that recognises that times have changed since the 1970's and '80's?
> 
> By the way, I didn't notice that RA had withdrawn support for the IRA.  Where did they issue a statement?  I must have missed it.


whatever happened to the 1990s?


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 6, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> do you support the iwca's participation in local government elections?





Yes indeed.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 6, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> whatever happened to the 1990s?





All right, if you insist, I'll revise what I said to include the nineties as well. 

However, what I was actually getting at was that the final nail in the coffin of the old Bolshevik - inspired left, already sick and exhausted in the seventies and eighties, came with the fall of the Communist regimes. Since then, I feel that that left has attempted to limp on while pretending that this had nothing much to do with their own way of thinking and organising. They have, in short, drawn few worthwhile conclusions, and are destined to go on repeating the same old things ad infinitum, probably with fewer and fewer new recruits. Anarchism, meanwhile, seems set to continue to merely define itself against the Leninist left and to remain in the political ghetto in which it has spent most of its existence. 

In that respect the nineties was pretty much the same as today for both.  But, as I say, I'll include them if you prefer.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 6, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> so, in yr view, red action wasted a fuck of a lot of time chasing fascists and supporting the ira?





In any case, why are you and so many others on here so obsessed with RA?

Even to the extent of demanding comment from me about them.  I'm just an individual who happened to post on their discussion page, that's all.


----------



## montevideo (Mar 6, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> I have no intention of presenting my personal political manifesto a la Flowers in the Attica and certain others.  But there is no need to; for what it is worth I have already made it clear, in this thread and others, what I agree with politically.  Perhaps you only see what you want to see.
> 
> The old left is dead.  Anarchism as a movement never got started.  Both could probably go on repeating the same old stuff and doing the same old things ad infinitum.  As far as I am concerned, the only group that truly recognises that times have changed since the seventies and eighties and is thus in any way viable is the IWCA. (This is not to say that individual anarchists do not see the need to organise in the same way.)



yet you insist anarchists must present their politics for you to examine & criticise? No matter.

So in regard to the old left, iwca & its way of organising is the new leftism? 

Essentially the iwca have given up on the workplace as the primary source of class antagonism & re-orientated itself in a defined yet unspecified geographical area. The Working Class no longer come into being by their work activity but by where they live. This means their experience of capitalism ceases to be a direct political one but & instead becomes simply a social one, or a means of winning measures against The Council/Local Government. The Council/Local Government thus replaces capitalism as the class enemy. Long term of course the iwca are building party political support, that, as with all leftism, is the motivation behind its methods. In the mean time people are encouraged to accept reformism as a way of empowering themselves. 

The one & only progressive thing about the iwca is its structure, lifted almost completely from anarchist organising technique. No surprises there then.

Again with all leftism, old & new, the need to control is paramount. As i've said before 'rule' is not in there accidentally. If the iwca was genuinely interested in the needs of working class people beyond political capital, then you'd used the slogan 'working class self-organisation as self-emanicipation' 

But if that was the case, we would have no need for 'parties' would we?


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 6, 2005)

*"Working on the same plantation, chanting the same recitation...."*




			
				montevideo said:
			
		

> 'working class self-organisation as self-emanicipation'





Go down a storm on the estates that one.  And in the workplaces for that matter....


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 6, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> So in regard to the old left, iwca & its way of organising is the new leftism?





Where did I say that?

And where did I say that I was speaking in any way for the IWCA?  

What I was saying was that I like what they are doing and see nobody doing anything that's better.  Or even coming close.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 6, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> yet you insist anarchists must present their politics for you to examine & criticise? No matter.





No. What I have been asking throughout this thread is why the anarchists have been so defensive and abusive about what was a mild criticism of anarchism - which I was, incidentally, not the only one, or even the first one, to make. Arising from that was the query as to why they seem, if this thread is anything to go by, to have nothing beyond this to say.  Far be it from me to request that anarchists present the whole body of theory 'for my examination and criticism.' Perish the thought: "I'd rather see Dave Lee Travis play MacBeth."

You, on the other hand seem to have been positively straining at the leash to do precisely that for pages and pages now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 6, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> In any case, why are you and so many others on here so obsessed with RA?
> 
> Even to the extent of demanding comment from me about them.  I'm just an individual who happened to post on their discussion page, that's all.


the more you post, the more i feel i was correct that getting rid of you was one of the reasons they've ceased having a discussion page.


----------



## swarthy thug (Mar 6, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> the more you post, the more i feel i was correct that getting rid of you was one of the reasons they've ceased having a discussion page.



 Hardly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 6, 2005)

swarthy thug said:
			
		

> Hardly.


yr probably another reason.


----------



## swarthy thug (Mar 6, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> yr probably another reason.


 Did you ever show yer anarcho guff there.Letssas right the ra boards might have been bombaded with right wing knuckleheads,but there where never as irritible as some on hear.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 6, 2005)

swarthy thug said:
			
		

> Did you ever show yer anarcho guff there.Letssas right the ra boards might have been bombaded with right wing knuckleheads,but there where never as irritible as some on hear.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 6, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> the more you post, the more i feel i was correct that getting rid of you was one of the reasons they've ceased having a discussion page.





Actually they emailed me and informed me that I was the sole reason for their decision.  In fact, it was in anticipation of my posting on their future website that they began to look at different ways of responding to the fash. So I can be viewed as ultimately responsible for the formation of the IWCA.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 6, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Actually they emailed me and informed me that I was the sole reason for their decision.  In fact, it was in anticipation of my posting on their future website that they began to look at different ways of responding to the fash. So I can be viewed as ultimately responsible for the formation of the IWCA.


and returning unwillingly to the real world...


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 6, 2005)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> and returning unwillingly to the real world...





Sometimes I can't help but get the feeling that you and some others on here think that this IS the real world.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 6, 2005)

Originally Posted by swarthy thug
'Did you ever show yer anarcho guff there.Letssas right the ra boards might have been bombaded with right wing knuckleheads,but there where never as irritible as some on hear.'




			
				Pickman's model said:
			
		

>



Translation:

Did you post on the RA boards?

The fascists who posted on the RA boards were stupid, but not as annoying as some who post on here.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 6, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> Again with all leftism, old & new, the need to control is paramount. As i've said before 'rule' is not in there accidentally. If the iwca was genuinely interested in the needs of working class people beyond political capital, then you'd used the slogan 'working class self-organisation as self-emanicipation'





Point out where on the IWCA website they outline their ambition to rule OVER the working class. Or what even implies that.


----------



## montevideo (Mar 6, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Go down a storm on the estates that one.  And in the workplaces for that matter....



why? People on estates & in workplaces don't understand long words? 

_"yeah comrade, rule, the proles understand rule, everyone understands a bit of ruling"_


----------



## montevideo (Mar 6, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Where did I say that?
> 
> And where did I say that I was speaking in any way for the IWCA?
> 
> What I was saying was that I like what they are doing and see nobody doing anything that's better.  Or even coming close.



it was a question. Because you don't come out with what you actually think beyond platitudes & vague assertions, i have to ask to find out just where you're coming from.

No-one's saying you are speaking on behalf of the iwca, least of all me.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 6, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> Essentially the iwca have given up on the workplace as the primary source of class antagonism & re-orientated itself in a defined yet unspecified geographical area. The Working Class no longer come into being by their work activity but by where they live. This means their experience of capitalism ceases to be a direct political one but & instead becomes simply a social one, or a means of winning measures against The Council/Local Government. The Council/Local Government thus replaces capitalism as the class enemy. Long term of course the iwca are building party political support, that, as with all leftism, is the motivation behind its methods. In the mean time people are encouraged to accept reformism as a way of empowering themselves.
> 
> The one & only progressive thing about the iwca is its structure, lifted almost completely from anarchist organising technique. No surprises there then.
> 
> ...






Similarly, please point out where they say that it is not capitalism that is the enemy but local government. 

Have you ever considered the possibility that they might be involved in the activity that they are because, rather than clinging to the comfort blanket of age-old theory, they are trying to present some kind of alternative to real people - many of whom are responding positively. I see nothing in their publicity that implies a 'leave it to us' mentality.  Are they not involved in encouraging people to take action for themselves?  Is it not the IWCA that, alone among all political organisations, as far as I can see, actually continues to campaign on the issues on which it tries to get its representatives elected regardless of whether they actually are? You, on the other hand, substitute the left's 'build the party' fetish with a sometime-never faith that working class people will spontaneously embrace the organisational methods, if not the theories, of anarchism.


----------



## montevideo (Mar 6, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Point out where on the IWCA website they outline their ambition to rule OVER the working class. Or what even implies that.



Which is in essense all down to what is meant by rule. Any ideas? 

The below could have been equally applicable wouldn't you say

Working class control in working class areas

Working class power in working class areas

Working class priority in working class areas

yet we get rule?


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 6, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> No-one's saying you are speaking on behalf of the iwca, least of all me.








			
				montevideo said:
			
		

> Again with all leftism, old & new, the need to control is paramount. As i've said before 'rule' is not in there accidentally. If the iwca was genuinely interested in the needs of working class people beyond political capital, then you'd used the slogan 'working class self-organisation as self-emanicipation'





....


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 6, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> Which is in essense all down to what is meant by rule. Any ideas?
> 
> The below could have been equally applicable wouldn't you say
> 
> ...





Yes: 'WORKING CLASS rule in working class areas.'

Sigh....


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 6, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> Which is in essense all down to what is meant by rule. Any ideas?
> 
> The below could have been equally applicable wouldn't you say
> 
> ...





If the working class was controlling an area, or exercising power in an area, then who exactly would be ruling that area? 

As for 'working class priority,' what does that mean?


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 6, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> why? People on estates & in workplaces don't understand long words?
> 
> _"yeah comrade, rule, the proles understand rule, everyone understands a bit of ruling"_





Think about it - who, among any of the parties, uses such language in campaigning?  Understanding it is neither here nor there.

Who are you quoting in the last sentence?  Not me nor anything I've ever read about the IWCA.  Desperate.


----------



## reallyoldhippy (Mar 6, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> This means their experience of capitalism ceases to be a direct political one but & instead becomes simply a social one, or a means of winning measures against The Council/Local Government


That's a bit of a jump, isn't it. Just because an organisation dismisses workerism, doesn't mean it jumps in bed with liberals. There is more to working class than work, you know.





> The one & only progressive thing about the iwca is its structure, lifted almost completely from anarchist organising technique.


You mean they've stolen it? "how dare they use non-hierarchical structure, the bastards"


----------



## montevideo (Mar 6, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Think about it - who, among any of the parties, uses such language in campaigning?  Understanding it is neither here nor there.
> 
> Who are you quoting in the last sentence?  Not me nor anything I've ever read about the IWCA.  Desperate.



But that's not what you said, nothing to do with parties. You said [ironically] it would down a storm on estates & workplaces. Why do you think people on estates or in workplaces would react badly to self-organisation or indeed self-emancipation?




			
				LLETSA said:
			
		

> Yes: 'WORKING CLASS rule in working class areas.'
> 
> Sigh....



i'll keep it simple: why do you think the iwca used the word 'rule' in their slogan rather than some equally applicable alternatives? What do you think the iwca mean when they use the term 'rule'?


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Mar 6, 2005)

Anyone of you anarchists attend this talk at the Glasgow Anarchist Day School last November?

'ANARCHISM AND MARXISM: Exploding the mythology behind the apparent polar oppositions in the left and some suggestions for how we can avoid the childish "yah-booh" sloganeering which has coloured our relations with our comrades in the socialist parties, without compromising on our politics. (Thomas - Glasgow based Libertarian Socialist)'


----------



## montevideo (Mar 6, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Anyone of you anarchists attend this talk at the Glasgow Anarchist Day School last November?
> 
> 'ANARCHISM AND MARXISM: Exploding the mythology behind the apparent polar oppositions in the left and some suggestions for how we can avoid the childish "yah-booh" sloganeering which has coloured our relations with our comrades in the socialist parties, without compromising on our politics. (Thomas - Glasgow based Libertarian Socialist)'



it was you slagging off 'the anarchists' for a website despite no relation to anarchism wasn't it chuck? 

Anarchism & marxism aren't polar opposites. Anarchism & uk leftism, now there's a different kettle of poisoned indifference.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Mar 6, 2005)

No, I was slagging off the type of anarchism that was on a website that bore a striking resemblance to the type of anarchism on the web by Manchester anarchists. Probably by  some typical ship in the night sorts that inhabit that weird and wonderful world.

So enlighten me , what is the difference between Marxism and uk leftism ?


----------



## montevideo (Mar 6, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> No, I was slagging off the type of anarchism that was on a website that bore a striking resemblance to the type of anarchism on the web by Manchester anarchists. Probably by  some typical ship in the night sorts that inhabit that weird and wonderful world.
> 
> So enlighten me , what is the difference between Marxism and uk leftism ?



ah yes. The type of anarchism that hides away & expresses nothing remotely connected with anarchism, in fact not even recognising itself as anarchism of any sort that type of anarchism chuck?

And just what was it, sherlock, that told you it was 'the anarchists' wot did it? That's right your narrow-minded knee-jerk reactionary bullshit prejudices. 

Some anarchists see in marxism (that is the writings of marx) some useful, parallel & complementary ideas. Uk leftism on the other hand is simply party politics played out in the arena of self-interest.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Mar 6, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> ah yes. The type of anarchism that hides away & expresses nothing remotely connected with anarchism, in fact not even recognising itself as anarchism of any sort that type of anarchism chuck?



Probably the most dangerous sort Monty.





			
				montevideo said:
			
		

> And just what was it, sherlock, that told you it was 'the anarchists' wot did it? That's right your narrow-minded knee-jerk reactionary bullshit prejudices.



The Manchester Evening News described them as anarchists.I expect them to check their facts. And try not to get too personal.




			
				montevideo said:
			
		

> Some anarchists see in marxism (that is the writings of marx) some useful, parallel & complementary ideas. Uk leftism on the other hand is simply party politics played out in the arena of self-interest.



Which anarchists? 
Don't understand the last bit at all.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 7, 2005)

"The Manchester Evening News described them as anarchists.I expect them to check their facts"
It's in the paper, so it must be true.
Yeah, right.


----------



## kropotkin (Mar 7, 2005)

....to be honest, they were clearly the sort of people who would call themselves "anarchists". I don't see what is to acheived in denying that.

I don't identify with them.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 7, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> But that's not what you said, nothing to do with parties. You said [ironically] it would down a storm on estates & workplaces. Why do you think people on estates or in workplaces would react badly to self-organisation or indeed self-emancipation?





They would, like most people, in their majority react badly to the text-book nature of the language you choose to use.

And maybe report you to the Campaign for Plain English.  Or whatever it's called.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 7, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> i'll keep it simple: why do you think the iwca used the word 'rule' in their slogan rather than some equally applicable alternatives? What do you think the iwca mean when they use the term 'rule'?





Two of the alternatives you put forward are no different in content than 'rule.' 

I'll put it equally simply: where do the IWCA imply that 'Working Class Rule in Working Class Areas' means 'IWCA Rule over Working Class Areas'?


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 7, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> ....to be honest, they were clearly the sort of people who would call themselves "anarchists". I don't see what is to acheived in denying that.
> 
> I don't identify with them.





The interesting thing about threads like this is that the adherents of anarchism, like the adherents of Leninism, seem to imagine that they are part of a living movement that has some kind of impact on those outside it. It does not seem to have struck too many of them that they are merely arguing the toss with each other over the finer points of dead ideologies. 

The ideologies of yesteryear lost the battle. Progressive politics is nowhere at present. Yesterday's ideogies will not revive it.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 7, 2005)

And neither will a warmed over municipal Leninism without Lenin


----------



## kropotkin (Mar 7, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> The interesting thing about threads like this is that the adherents of anarchism, like the adherents of Leninism, seem to imagine that they are part of a living movement that has some kind of impact on those outside it. It does not seem to have struck too many of them that they are merely arguing the toss with each other over the finer points of dead ideologies.
> 
> The ideologies of yesteryear lost the battle. Progressive politics is nowhere at present. Yesterday's ideogies will not revive it.


 if only people would just listen to you, eh?

It must be very hard to concentrate on real life with this Messianic fervour of Truth.


----------



## montevideo (Mar 7, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Two of the alternatives you put forward are no different in content than 'rule.'
> 
> I'll put it equally simply: where do the IWCA imply that 'Working Class Rule in Working Class Areas' means 'IWCA Rule over Working Class Areas'?



which is entirely my point. Again why _do you_ think the iwca choose rule instead some some other word equally applicable? What do you imagine the significance, if any, of the word rule?

I have, as yet, not mentioned, or even implied, rule over, that is entirely your construction. Though a revealing one.




			
				LLETSA said:
			
		

> They would, like most people, in their majority react badly to the text-book nature of the language you choose to use.



would they indeed. Because you know what The Working Class think don't you? You are more than happy to define 'them' aren't you, use them as a category to make a point, tell us how 'they' would react.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 7, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> if only people would just listen to you, eh?
> 
> It must be very hard to concentrate on real life with this Messianic fervour of Truth.





On the contrary; I was just stating the bleeding obvious. If I had any kind of Messianic fervour do you think I'd be wasting time posting on here?  This is entertainment more than anything else.

Anything to say about your politics?


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 7, 2005)

Anything to say about yours.?


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 7, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> And neither will a warmed over municipal Leninism without Lenin




Every one of your posts contains the most convincing case for anarchism that I have ever seen.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 7, 2005)

What? Every one on this thread, or every one full stop?


----------



## kropotkin (Mar 7, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Every one of your posts contains the most convincing case for anarchism that I have ever seen.


 Do you know what anarchism is?
How do you think it differs most from your politics?


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 7, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> The interesting thing about threads like this is that the adherents of anarchism, like the adherents of Leninism, seem to imagine that they are part of a living movement that has some kind of impact on those outside it. It does not seem to have struck too many of them that they are merely arguing the toss with each other over the finer points of dead ideologies.
> 
> The ideologies of yesteryear lost the battle. Progressive politics is nowhere at present. Yesterday's ideogies will not revive it.


Do you mean in Britain, or internationally. Do you know much about the state of progressive politics, in say, France, Italy, or Eastern Europe?


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 7, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> Anything to say about yours.?





That one again?  Don't you read each others' posts?  I've already said to Montevideo that he should read back through the thread.  You'll see that I have mentioned what I agree with on a number of occasions.  Short and to the point.  Unlike some windbags I could mention. 

Having said that I consider the old ideologies to be dead, I'm hardly likely to keep posting up Attica -style stream of consciousness half-baked regurgitated theory.  Am I?


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 7, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> Do you mean in Britain, or internationally. Do you know much about the state of progressive politics, in say, France, Italy, or Eastern Europe?





Internationally.  Neo liberalism brushes off any challenge with ease more or less everywhere.  Not that that challenge isn't stronger in some countries than in others.


----------



## kropotkin (Mar 7, 2005)

I think the old ideologies are dead too
I think your politics are stuck in the past, and are based on an old ideology


Oooh, it is fun, this, isn't it? I can see why you've stuck with it for so long.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 7, 2005)

Let's leave Attica out of this. Some of your posts have been pretty long, but I wouldn't use the low blow of calling you a windbag. Indulge me a little, and give me a little recap of what you think should be done. Not much to ask, is it?


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 7, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> What? Every one on this thread, or every one full stop?





On this thread.  Don't recall reading any others in which you feature, although I dare say there are plenty. (Not meaning that in a derogatory way.)


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 7, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Do you know what anarchism is?
> How do you think it differs most from your politics?





It's clear from much of this thread that some anarchists don't seem to know what anarchism is.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 7, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Internationally.  Neo liberalism brushes off any challenge with ease more or less everywhere.  Not that that challenge isn't stronger in some countries than in others.


But don't you think there may be qualitative differences between here, and , say France. Do you know much about the state of either the Left or of anarchism there? And how about Eastern Europe- do you know much about what's goin on there?


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 7, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> It's clear from much of this thread that some anarchists don't seem to know what anarchism is.


Whether that is or is not the case,
do you know what anarchism is?
And how does it differ from your politics? That shouldn't take too much of an effort, should it?


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 7, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> On this thread.  Don't recall reading any others in which you feature, although I dare say there are plenty. (Not meaning that in a derogatory way.)


Why can that not be understoood in anything but a derogatory way, unless you just mean there are plenty of threads in which I feature?


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 7, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> Let's leave Attica out of this. Some of your posts have been pretty long, but I wouldn't use the low blow of calling you a windbag. Indulge me a little, and give me a little recap of what you think should be done. Not much to ask, is it?





Call me a windbag if you want.  None of those petit bourgeois scruples here!

And if you want a recap there's a post I put on only yesterday, in response to exactly the same demand from Monte. You can go back and read it and come back with another stunning 'warmed -up Leninism' jibe (without anything to back it up.)


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 7, 2005)

*Back to Beckett....*




			
				charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> Why can that not be understoood in anything but a derogatory way, unless you just mean there are plenty of threads in which I feature?





I mean exactly what the words on the page say.  

Anyway, I thought you were advising people to stay away from this thread.


----------



## kropotkin (Mar 7, 2005)

So does your evasive behaviour mean that I too can say if your politics can't even stand up to a little probing, what do you expect them to do when faced with real opposition?

Oooh it is fun. You don't even need to say anything, and my posts don't have to connect in any way with your actual opinions! Brilliant. In fact, there is little/no need for you to write anything at all, as I can assume that I already know everything you think!

Time saving, if nothing else


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 7, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Call me a windbag if you want.  None of those petit bourgeois scruples here!
> 
> And if you want a recap there's a post I put on only yesterday, in response to exactly the same demand from Monte. You can go back and read it and come back with another stunning 'warmed -up Leninism' jibe (without anything to back it up.)


I looked at yesterday's posts and I couldn't find anything from you saying what you actually stood for, only that the IWCA was the One True Way. So maybe just a little effort? Come on, sweetheart, you know you want to.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 7, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> But don't you think there may be qualitative differences between here, and , say France. Do you know much about the state of either the Left or of anarchism there? And how about Eastern Europe- do you know much about what's goin on there?





And in France working class politics are in the ascendancy?  There are differences between the situation there and in the UK, to be sure, but what you hear seems to mostly more of the same old same old. 

As for Eastern Europe, it will take a very long time to repair the damage done to the name of any politics that have the working class interest at heart by the old ruling ideologies. For example, 'the masses' were on the streets in enormous numbers quite recently in Ukraine, were they not?  Any enthusiasm for those they were there in support of?  No, me neither. But I bet they dwarfed the crowds at any anarchist or left event.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 7, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> I mean exactly what the words on the page say.
> 
> Anyway, I thought you were advising people to stay away from this thread.


It's Humpty Dumpty!!
And what happened to him?


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 7, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> And in France working class politics are in the ascendancy?  There are differences between the situation there and in the UK, to be sure, but what you hear seems to mostly more of the same old same old.
> 
> As for Eastern Europe, it will take a very long time to repair the damage done to the name of any politics that have the working class interest at heart by the old ruling ideologies. For example, 'the masses' were on the streets in enormous numbers quite recently in Ukraine, were they not?  Any enthusiasm for those they were there in support of?  No, me neither. But I bet they dwarfed the crowds at any anarchist or left event.


What you hear? And what exactly do you hear? Please tell.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 7, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> I looked at yesterday's posts and I couldn't find anything from you saying what you actually stood for, only that the IWCA was the One True Way. So maybe just a little effort? Come on, sweetheart, you know you want to.





I claim that the old ideologies are dead.

I say that I admire the IWCA for attempting to get the ball rolling by, uniquely as an organisation in this country, directly approaching working class people, wherever they are able to.  I acknowledge that this is small beginnings, if relatively successful up to now.

Two and two. Together. Put. (Reassemble as you wish.)


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 7, 2005)

A bit skeletal. Care to put any flesh on the bones?


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 7, 2005)

*Patience is my main virtue....*




			
				charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> A bit skeletal. Care to put any flesh on the bones?





I'll say it again only more slowly (as they say....) 

I see nothing to convince me that the old ideologies are not dead.

I look at the IWCA and like what I see because, in this climate of the historic defeat of those ideologies and the supposed irrelevance of working class politics, it is the only organisation in this country, as far as I can see, that is directly approaching working class people and winning support from significant numbers of them on policies designed to address working class interests.  Intriguing, to say the least. What will develop out of all this I cannot say, and neither can you, but the the beginnings look healthy enough. 

Now, having said that, why should I give you some Attica-style body of pie-in-the-sky theory?


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Mar 7, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> "The Manchester Evening News described them as anarchists.I expect them to check their facts"
> It's in the paper, so it must be true.
> Yeah, right.



Lighten up Charlie, I paraphrased that from Bill Murray in THE LIFE AQUATIC WITH STEVE ZISSOU.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 7, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> So does your evasive behaviour mean that I too can say if your politics can't even stand up to a little probing, what do you expect them to do when faced with real opposition?
> 
> Oooh it is fun. You don't even need to say anything, and my posts don't have to connect in any way with your actual opinions! Brilliant. In fact, there is little/no need for you to write anything at all, as I can assume that I already know everything you think!
> 
> Time saving, if nothing else





What is evasive about what I say to charlie and Montevideo in response to their demands that I get theorising like a good 'un?


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 7, 2005)

Sorry to be so slow and thick.
And you have the nerve to accuse others here of having no grasp of reality.
If people asked you to explain what you wanted "I'll say it more slowly" would go down like a lead balloon. On any estate or at work. 
So yeah, you say you support the IWCA. Yeah, OK.
But just how do you think getting through to the working class means., what do you say. around what issues, with what goals in mind and where do you see this ultimately leading?
Go on, imagine you're out on the stump doing IWCA work. Try and convince me you're right.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 7, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> Lighten up Charlie, I paraphrased that from Bill Murray in THE LIFE AQUATIC WITH STEVE ZISSOU.


Didn't see it. Don't really want to. So why should I know about a quote from a film that's only just come out?


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 7, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> Sorry to be so slow and thick.
> And you have the nerve to accuse others here of having no grasp of reality.
> If people asked you to explain what you wanted "I'll say it more slowly" would go down like a lead balloon. On any estate or at work.
> So yeah, you say you support the IWCA. Yeah, OK.
> ...





Never said you were either slow or thick.

Nor would I speak to people on estates or in a workplace in the same way as I do to leading members General Synod of the High Church of Anarchism.  Surely you can take it after all these years.  In the name of Makhno it's an internet forum, that's all. 

Now, haven't I already said that I wouldn't like to speculate about the future of the IWCA?  It's early days.  Who knows what will happen in years to come?  As for 'getting through to the working class', they seem to be doing a pretty good job of it in the areas where they are organised. Around issues that you can read about quite freely if you go to one of their web sites.  Which does seem to rankle with certain anarchists....


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 7, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> And in France working class politics are in the ascendancy?  There are differences between the situation there and in the UK, to be sure, but what you hear seems to mostly more of the same old same old.
> 
> As for Eastern Europe, it will take a very long time to repair the damage done to the name of any politics that have the working class interest at heart by the old ruling ideologies. For example, 'the masses' were on the streets in enormous numbers quite recently in Ukraine, were they not?  Any enthusiasm for those they were there in support of?  No, me neither. But I bet they dwarfed the crowds at any anarchist or left event.


At the last general election in 2002 in France the joint Trotskyist vote was over 10%. And look I'm a convinced anti-electoralist and think Leninism as an ideology is as dead as you do. But if you're thinking in terms of votes, and it looks like the IWCA does, then this is a bit more than the combined IWCA municipal vote isn't it?
On my own terrain, the French CNT (anarchosyndicalist union)has grown considerably over the last 3-4 years and is organising among workers not organised before.
Incidentally, do you think organising in the workplace is now a write-off or should as much effort be put into this as organising in the neighbourhood?


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 7, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Never said you were either slow or thick.
> 
> Nor would I speak to people on estates or in a workplace in the same way as I do to leading members General Synod of the High Church of Anarchism.  Surely you can take it after all these years.  In the name of Makhno it's an internet forum, that's all.
> 
> ...


Doesn't rankle with me. I've gone on record as saying that the IWCA have done some good work. Doesn't mean I can't criticise the electoralism bit ( but I spose that's dogma and dead ideology. eh?)
You're still being incredibly evasive. I don't really know what you actually think apart from being against dead ideologies.


----------



## rednblack (Mar 7, 2005)

standing in elections is not the same as electoralism


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 7, 2005)

Really?


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 7, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> At the last general election in 2002 in France the joint Trotskyist vote was over 10%. And look I'm a convinced anti-electoralist and think Leninism as an ideology is as dead as you do. But if you're thinking in terms of votes, and it looks like the IWCA does, then this is a bit more than the combined IWCA municipal vote isn't it?
> On my own terrain, the French CNT (anarchosyndicalist union)has grown considerably over the last 3-4 years and is organising among workers not organised before.
> Incidentally, do you think organising in the workplace is now a write-off or should as much effort be put into this as organising in the neighbourhood?





Got nothing against people organising in the workplace, of course, but the days of the giant employer have largely gone (big departments of white collar workers, are no substitute for the old large -scale blue collar workplaces.)  Thousands of small employers, increasingly non-unionised, is the reality of today. It is no basis on which to relaunch a viable working class politics.

The Trotskyists in France might have got 10% of the vote but it was on the basis of a failed politics. Like their British counterparts, they have no significant ongoing presence in working class communities.

Can't comment on the anarcho-syndicalist union.  Maybe you could enlighten me on its achievements (a sincere request.) But if you are going to compare either to the IWCA you would have to take into account the disparity in material resources and years of experience in what they are actually doing at the present moment.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 7, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> Doesn't rankle with me. I've gone on record as saying that the IWCA have done some good work. Doesn't mean I can't criticise the electoralism bit ( but I spose that's dogma and dead ideology. eh?)
> You're still being incredibly evasive. I don't really know what you actually think apart from being against dead ideologies.





Can you quote the bit where the IWCA says that elections are the be-all and end-all of their activity?


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 7, 2005)

But there's still the post, transport (tube, buses, rail). Don't you think something viable cannot be organised there and don't you think it is still possible to oeganise amongst people never organised before the way the old IWW used to. French anarchosyndicalism in its early days organised as much in small workplaces as in large industries.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 7, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Can you quote the bit where the IWCA says that elections are the be-all and end-all of their activity?


No. I never said they said that. I just don't think electoral politics has anything to offer in terms of promoting genuine self-activity in our class.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 7, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> Sorry to be so slow and thick.
> And you have the nerve to accuse others here of having no grasp of reality.
> If people asked you to explain what you wanted "I'll say it more slowly" would go down like a lead balloon. On any estate or at work.
> So yeah, you say you support the IWCA. Yeah, OK.
> ...



He was in some sect (that he has never named - I wonder why?), which had wormed it's way into the Labour Party - entryist stylee. The 'great' Marxist 'tide' that some allegedly believed was 'sweeping' Britain during the 80's and 90's never materialised. Neither did capturing the 'commanding heights' of the economy, that ended up more entrenched than ever. LLETSA and others are rightly pissed off at this and look around for something 'different'. They find it - 'municipal socialism' (wasn't that something that had already experienced?). They don't actually join this 'new' political force, but rather send it a fiver now and then whilst they get on with their lives - work, family and posting sarcastic comments on an internet forum.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 7, 2005)

What, you mean Thoroughly Rotten Millie?
Right, I see. Now the tone makes a lot more sense. I had to suffer from some of these bods in the 60s through to the 90s. Thought that style was familiar.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 7, 2005)

MC5 said:
			
		

> He was in some sect (that he has never named - I wonder why?), which had wormed it's way into the Labour Party - entryist stylee. The 'great' Marxist 'tide' that some allegedly believed was 'sweeping' Britain during the 80's and 90's never materialised. Neither did capturing the 'commanding heights' of the economy, that ended up more entrenched than ever. LLETSA and others are rightly pissed off at this and look around for something 'different'. They find it - 'municipal socialism' (wasn't that something that had already experienced?). They don't actually join this 'new' political force, but rather send it a fiver now and then whilst they get on with their lives - work, family and posting sarcastic comments on an internet forum.





Nice to see representatives of both of the bankrupt ideologies of yesteryear embrace each other.

The sunset's thataway>  (He says as both join hands and walk off into it.)


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 7, 2005)

Hardly an embrace- although mebbe in your fevered imagination.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 7, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> But there's still the post, transport (tube, buses, rail). Don't you think something viable cannot be organised there and don't you think it is still possible to oeganise amongst people never organised before the way the old IWW used to. French anarchosyndicalism in its early days organised as much in small workplaces as in large industries.





Where are the anarchists in modern-day Britain organising these people 'in the way the old IWW used to'? 

As for French anarchosydicalism, that tells me hardly anything at all.  They are allowed to have their 'early days' but the IWCA are to be condemned right from the off?


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 7, 2005)

Anyway, back to my question. So you think organising in the workplace is only of marginal importance these days?


----------



## hibee (Mar 7, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Got nothing against people organising in the workplace, of course, but the days of the giant employer have largely gone (big departments of white collar workers, are no substitute for the old large -scale blue collar workplaces.)  Thousands of small employers, increasingly non-unionised, is the reality of today. It is no basis on which to relaunch a viable working class politics.



The change in my attitude to workplace-based activity has been one of the biggest shifts in my politics since I started looking for life beyond Leninism. I'm a shop steward and I was attracted to the SWP by it's supposedly pro-union rhetoric.

That proved a joke, of course, but while I take my role extremely seriously and work hard for those i represent, I've become all too aware of the limitations of that type of organisation. Most importantly, so many working class people never see the inside of a workplace like mine. I don't have the opportunity to speak up for people who are housebound, or unemployed, or work in non-union trades.

Industrial organisation will always be important. But one of the reasons I've become so interested in the IWCA (not that I'm a member, for reasons too boring to go into here) is that they realise the greatest opportunity for uniting the working class is in the community.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Mar 7, 2005)

MC5 said:
			
		

> He was in some sect (that he has never named - I wonder why?), which had wormed it's way into the Labour Party - entryist stylee. The 'great' Marxist 'tide' that some allegedly believed was 'sweeping' Britain during the 80's and 90's never materialised. Neither did capturing the 'commanding heights' of the economy, that ended up more entrenched than ever. LLETSA and others are rightly pissed off at this and look around for something 'different'. They find it - 'municipal socialism' (wasn't that something that had already experienced?). They don't actually join this 'new' political force, but rather send it a fiver now and then whilst they get on with their lives - work, family and posting sarcastic comments on an internet forum.



I think a short look at the IWCA site would completely dismiss the idea that it is about 'municipal socialism' .


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 7, 2005)

In reply to hibee
Well I say the same thing myself, don't jump to conclusions that I'm an anarcho-syndicalist. Classic anarcho-syndicalism put too much emphasis on the workplace to the detriment of organising among other areas, including the neighbourhoods. ( although any examination of the Spanish CNT reveals that they organised a series of rent-strikes in Barcelona, not to mention the ongoing educational/cultural work they did via the ateneos and peoples' universities and night schools.)


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 7, 2005)

MC5 said:
			
		

> He was in some sect (that he has never named - I wonder why?), which had wormed it's way into the Labour Party - entryist stylee. The 'great' Marxist 'tide' that some allegedly believed was 'sweeping' Britain during the 80's and 90's never materialised. Neither did capturing the 'commanding heights' of the economy, that ended up more entrenched than ever. LLETSA and others are rightly pissed off at this and look around for something 'different'. They find it - 'municipal socialism' (wasn't that something that had already experienced?). They don't actually join this 'new' political force, but rather send it a fiver now and then whilst they get on with their lives - work, family and posting sarcastic comments on an internet forum.





What's up with you anyway?  Piles playing up today?

Never did I believe that 'a great Marxist tide' was sweeping even the pavement where we'd stand selling papers on Saturday mornings, let alone the rest of the country.  While you lot were being cossetted by the Great Leaders with their 'downtur(d) theory', is this what they told you the rest of the left was saying?  Not the bit that I was involved in (which I don't name; I wonder why....), whatever its faults; far from it. As for 'capturing the commanding heights of the economy,' I saw the writing on the wall for the old left as early as the defeat of the miners' strike.  So far from being disappointed by its failure, I was not in the least bit surprised by the time its historic defeat was confirmed indisputably, 1989-91. Up until two or three years ago I could see no way forward for working class politics.  Then I came acrossthe intriguing example of the IWCA, which I find much more convincing than any of the alternatives on offer. The fact that your understanding of the IWCA is as a re-run of municipal socialism says more about you than it does about them.  Nothing mysterious about the fact that I haven't formally joined them - simply, they have no members where I live.  If they did I'd apply to join.  And over the past couple of years I have sent them considerably more than the odd fiver.  Not that I have to justify anything to the likes of you.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 7, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Nice to see representatives of both of the bankrupt ideologies of yesteryear embrace each other.
> 
> The sunset's thataway>  (He says as both join hands on walk off into it.)



Ah, the end of ideology. So, have you swallowed the triumph of capitalism argument then? Defeats have quite an affect on the psychology. Can lead to  a move to the right, a move to ultra-leftism, giving up all together and even cynicism.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 7, 2005)

MC5 said:
			
		

> Ah, the end of ideology. So, have you swallowed the triumph of capitalism argument then? Defeats have quite an affect on the psychology. Can lead to  a move to the right, a move to ultra-leftism, giving up all together and even cynicism.




Yes - capitalism has for the time being triumphed. Try taking a look around you. It's finding the opposition somewhat of a pushover given the state of it. 

It's possible to be cynical without giving up all together though....


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 7, 2005)

But whenever wasn't capitalism triumphant during it's coupla hundred years of existence?


----------



## audiotech (Mar 7, 2005)

Chuck Wilson said:
			
		

> I think a short look at the IWCA site would completely dismiss the idea that it is about 'municipal socialism' .



OK, what is the idea then?


----------



## audiotech (Mar 7, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Yes - capitalism has for the time being triumphed. Try taking a look around you. It's finding the opposition somewhat of a pushover given the state of it.
> 
> It's possible to be cynical without giving up all together though....



Capitalism is fucked from where I'm looking. The opposition is also fucked. So, where does that leave one?


----------



## audiotech (Mar 7, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> But whenever wasn't capitalism triumphant during it's coupla hundred years of existence?



It had it's wobbly moments.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 7, 2005)

Yes it did, but they were brief moments in its history. That's not to say it can't eventually be destroyed but right now capitalism in its market form is triumphant and in the process has won out over its state capitalist variant.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 7, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> What's up with you anyway?  Piles playing up today?
> 
> Never did I believe that 'a great Marxist tide' was sweeping even the pavement where we'd stand selling papers on Saturday mornings, let alone the rest of the country.  While you lot were being cossetted by the Great Leaders with their 'downtur(d) theory', is this what they told you the rest of the left was saying?  Not the bit that I was involved in (which I don't name; I wonder why....), whatever its faults; far from it. As for 'capturing the commanding heights of the economy,' I saw the writing on the wall for the old left as early as the defeat of the miners' strike.  So far from being disappointed by its failure, I was not in the least bit surprised by the time its historic defeat was confirmed indisputably, 1989-91. Up until two or three years ago I could see no way forward for working class politics.  Then I came acrossthe intriguing example of the IWCA, which I find much more convincing than any of the alternatives on offer. The fact that your understanding of the IWCA is as a re-run of municipal socialism says more about you than it does about them.  Nothing mysterious about the fact that I haven't formally joined them - simply, they have no members where I live.  If they did I'd apply to join.  And over the past couple of years I have sent them considerably more than the odd fiver.  Not that I have to justify anything to the likes of you.



Cossetted bollocks more like. Difficulties dumping your we did more than you schoolyard mentality learned in Militant school don't you think? If you've dumped the ideology why not the all the crap?

My misunderstanding of the IWCA as a 're-run of municipal socialism' is because I'm still not clear where it does stand? I don't hear much in the way of explanation from you after all.

My piles are and always have been fine thanks.


----------



## reallyoldhippy (Mar 7, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> The interesting thing about threads like this is that the adherents of anarchism, like the adherents of Leninism, seem to imagine that they are part of a living movement that has some kind of impact on those outside it. It does not seem to have struck too many of them that they are merely arguing the toss with each other over the finer points of dead ideologies.


Ideology?  You haven't quite grasped it. Anarchism is not an "ideology" in as much as it tries to impose the "truth" on others, but more an explanation of what's going on. I am part of a "living movement" because all round the world I see people struggling against hierarchy, against authority and against government.


----------



## montevideo (Mar 7, 2005)

fuck it


----------



## swarthy thug (Mar 7, 2005)

reallyoldhippy said:
			
		

> Ideology?  You haven't quite grasped it. Anarchism is not an "ideology" in as much as it tries to impose the "truth" on others, but more an explanation of what's going on. I am part of a "living movement" because all round the world I see people struggling against hierarchy, against authority and against government.



 And against decomposing hippys.


----------



## reallyoldhippy (Mar 7, 2005)

swarthy thug said:
			
		

> And against decomposing hippys.


That goes without saying.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Mar 7, 2005)

MC5 said:
			
		

> OK, what is the idea then?



Read the site yourself, even better send off for an information pack.


----------



## Chuck Wilson (Mar 7, 2005)

reallyoldhippy said:
			
		

> Ideology?  You haven't quite grasped it. Anarchism is not an "ideology" in as much as it tries to impose the "truth" on others, but more an explanation of what's going on. I am part of a "living movement" because all round the world I see people struggling against hierarchy, against authority and against government.



Anarchism isn't an ideology? No set of rules or ideas that constitute what it is to be an anarchist? That's what it seems like to those of us who aren't anarchists!


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 8, 2005)

MC5 said:
			
		

> Capitalism is fucked from where I'm looking. The opposition is also fucked. So, where does that leave one?





Care to elaborate on that one?


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 8, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> But whenever wasn't capitalism triumphant during it's coupla hundred years of existence?





1917-1991.

For a large part of that period nearly a half of humanity lived under a non-capitalist system. It might not have been a particularly attractive non-capitalist system, but non-capitalist it certainly was.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 8, 2005)

MC5 said:
			
		

> My misunderstanding of the IWCA as a 're-run of municipal socialism' is because I'm still not clear where it does stand? I don't hear much in the way of explanation from you after all.





Perhaps it would be a good idea to read their site.  It's perfectly understandable.  You are even free to draw your own conclusions.


----------



## sipriano (Mar 8, 2005)

Where was/is this non capitilist system ? russia no, cuba no, north korea no, china no, albania no. All have/had a class system, wage labour, production for profit, money ect, all the things that exist in our own capitilist society, very different kinds of places to here to be sure, but still capitilist. So where does it, has it existed ?


----------



## sipriano (Mar 8, 2005)

Oh yes, spain 1936, briefly.


----------



## charlie mowbray (Mar 8, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> 1917-1991.
> 
> For a large part of that period nearly a half of humanity lived under a non-capitalist system. It might not have been a particularly attractive non-capitalist system, but non-capitalist it certainly was.


Ah trained at the Militant cadre school. No, it wasn't non-capitalist, it was a form of capitalism, state capitalism. Or are you still gripped by the dead hand of ideology?


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 8, 2005)

charlie mowbray said:
			
		

> Ah trained at the Militant cadre school. No, it wasn't non-capitalist, it was a form of capitalism, state capitalism. Or are you still gripped by the dead hand of ideology?





I've never been in Militant. 

You don't have to be in the grip of ideology to recognise that capitalism had actually been abolished throughout that part of the world where the Communists were in power.  Where was the profit motive?  The economy was planned to meet social needs (how successfully these were met is a different question.) State functionaries were paid a wage - most of them not a significantly bigger one than the workers.  Their privileges came in the form of perks and special treatment, but the gap in wealth wasn't as wide as that which exists under capitalism. 

Before you make that headlong rush to accuse me of Stalinist sympathies consider this: the Communist- ruled countries carried out the only serious attempt that has been made so far to organise a social and economic system within which most of the rules of capitalism did not apply.  

It is far too easy, not to mention lazy, to dismiss the Soviet experiment and all that followed from it as just another form of capitalism.  It doesn't let those who claim it off the hook, because everybody else - including, crucially, those who administered the Communist system and those who lived under it - agree that it was an attempt to live outside the capitalist system.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 8, 2005)

sipriano said:
			
		

> Oh yes, spain 1936, briefly.





Spain in 1936 was very much a capitalist country.  They'd have been pretty fast workers, those anarchists, if they'd managed to actually abolish capitalism during their brief time in the sun.


----------



## JoeBlack (Mar 8, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Where was the profit motive?



Promotion within the bureaucracy (and for a period under Stalin not getting shot/jailed) was dependent on meeting your production quotas. A profit motive of sorts you could claim.




			
				LLETSA said:
			
		

> The economy was planned to meet social needs



This is a huge claim to make and outside of some very limited periods very, very hard to produce evidence for.  For most of the time the economy was planned to meet the targets set for the bureaucrats.  More often that not these targets were to do with industralisation and militarisation rather than social needs.

This also raises the question of who identifies what a 'social need' is and how it is filled.




			
				LLETSA said:
			
		

> State functionaries were paid a wage - most of them not a significantly bigger one than the workers.  Their privileges came in the form of perks and special treatment, but the gap in wealth wasn't as wide as that which exists under capitalism.



Depends by what you mean be 'wealth'.  If you mean money in the bank your right but this is because most consumer goods were in short supply.  Having money is of little use if you have nothing to spend it on.  Having goods was far more dependent on having access to special sources of supply then having money. In other words access to the party shops, allocation of better housing etc.



> Before you make that headlong rush to accuse me of Stalinist sympathies consider this: the Communist- ruled countries carried out the only serious attempt that has been made so far to organise a social and economic system within which most of the rules of capitalism did not apply.



I guess this really boils down to as what you see as the important rules of capitalism to overcome when you talk of a socialist society.  For anarchists ending the division between boss and worker would be as important as the more abstract equalisation of wages (Although in fact even under Lenin there were some 200 different categories of wage/ration access).

For a good part this is because we recognise that if you leave a minority with power over the majority then that power in itself will be used by that minority to enrich themselves to the loss of the majority.  Formal legal forms are quite secondary to that process as was demonstrated by the Bolsehvik experiment.

But your right to say its an important experiment to examine.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 8, 2005)

sipriano said:
			
		

> Where was/is this non capitilist system ? russia no, cuba no, north korea no, china no, albania no. All have/had a class system, wage labour, production for profit, money ect, all the things that exist in our own capitilist society, very different kinds of places to here to be sure, but still capitilist. So where does it, has it existed ?





On the contrary: Russia da, Cuba si, North Korea er...yeah, Albania po. 

The class system in those countries was/is not the same as that which exists under capitalism, if it can even be called a class system in the real sense of the word.  There was the state bureaUcracy and its offshoots and the workers.  No owners of the means of production. 

Wage labour?  Maybe - but the vast majority, including the state bureaucracy was paid a fixed amount. Whether this increased or not was the decision of state planners, not market forces or even of individual capitalists - of whom there were (officially) none. 

No production for profit: one gripe of the pro-market reformers who gained the upper -hand in the late-eighties/early nineties was that the state-run economies were so sick because there was nobody interested in seeing that enterprises made a profit. If an enterprise was failing it would not go to the wall but be bailed out from the state coffers.


----------



## JoeBlack (Mar 8, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Spain in 1936 was very much a capitalist country.  They'd have been pretty fast workers, those anarchists, if they'd managed to actually abolish capitalism during their brief time in the sun.



To claim the whole of republican Spain transcended capitalism is going to far.  For the most part the anarchists had to work within a pretty rotten political compromise.  That said for a period of up to 2 years over quite a significant area not only was the market (and frequently money itself) abolished but so too was the division into bosses and workers.  Because the Spanish revolution involved both (and indeed economically also went quite a bit further than the 'war communism' period in Russia) even mainstream historians describe it as the greatest experiment in workers self management the world has yet seen.

BTW I think Ernie deserves some sort of troll of the year award for kicking off the thread.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 8, 2005)

JoeBlack said:
			
		

> Promotion within the bureaucracy (and for a period under Stalin not getting shot/jailed) was dependent on meeting your production quotas. A profit motive of sorts you could claim.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





As I said to Charlie, don't mix me up with admirers of the system.  I deliberately didn't go into the disparity between the official claims of the system and the realities, although the very fact that very many social needs were actually met demonstrates the huge amount of sincerity in the official aim. The hijacking of production targets for their own ends by bureaucrats was incidental to this and had many causes. 

Again - don't confuse me with an admirer of the system it ran, but when the party identified those social needs it did so with both its own interests and the elevation of people from working class backgrounds to positions of influence in society in mind.  

I never said that these were socialist societies.  What I said was that it is all too easy to dismiss them as just another varient of capitalism.  As if Communism could have consumed the lives of so many millions without a genuine desire to construct an alternative to capitalism and the belief- including among the highest leaders - that they were actually doing so. These people were not stupid; they knew that what they were involved was not merely a huge conjuring trick, and the best of them recognised that the system constantly fell short of its claims.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 8, 2005)

JoeBlack said:
			
		

> BTW I think Ernie deserves some sort of troll of the year award for kicking off the thread.





The powers of that man are staggering!


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 8, 2005)

JoeBlack said:
			
		

> To claim the whole of republican Spain transcended capitalism is going to far.  For the most part the anarchists had to work within a pretty rotten political compromise.  That said for a period of up to 2 years over quite a significant area not only was the market (and frequently money itself) abolished but so too was the division into bosses and workers.  Because the Spanish revolution involved both (and indeed economically also went quite a bit further than the 'war communism' period in Russia) even mainstream historians describe it as the greatest experiment in workers self management the world has yet seen.





Maybe so, but I was answering the over-simplistic remark made by Sipriano.


----------



## JoeBlack (Mar 8, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> As I said to Charlie, don't mix me up with admirers of the system.



I don't - I do however think its a mistake to confuse the Russian experiment with any sort of libertarian socialism.  It's failings were very much the failings of a command economy no matter what the motivations of those making the decisions.

And I feel that the 'state capitalist' label first used in the early 20's by libertarians as a short hand for this new system is quite useful as a summary.  You can if you wish then have a taxanomic arguments about what you mean by capitalism and what aspects of this the USSR contained.  Its actually much more useful to have that argument seperated from a defence of the actual regime.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 8, 2005)

JoeBlack said:
			
		

> I don't - I do however think its a mistake to confuse the Russian experiment with any sort of libertarian socialism.  It's failings were very much the failings of a command economy no matter what the motivations of those making the decisions.
> 
> And I feel that the 'state capitalist' label first used in the early 20's by libertarians as a short hand for this new system is quite useful as a summary.  You can if you wish then have a taxanomic arguments about what you mean by capitalism and what aspects of this the USSR contained.  Its actually much more useful to have that argument seperated from a defence of the actual regime.





Nowhere have I said that I regard the Communist -run system as in any way 'libertarian socialist' and nowhere have I defended the regimes. (What's more, I have actually said this more than once in my posts!) But the state capitalist label is useless in as much as it is used as a cover for various kinds of socialist and anti-capitalist, enabling them to avoid being implicated in the only significant non-capitalist experiment that has so far taken place.  Whether their organisations can be formally implicated or not is neither here nor there - nobody who is opposed to capitalism will ever avoid coming under pressure from their opponents regarding the crimes of the Communist regimes.


----------



## JoeBlack (Mar 8, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Nowhere have I said that I regard the Communist -run system as in any way 'libertarian socialist' and nowhere have I defended the regimes.



Err your being a little bit defensive here - not have I not accused you of either of these crimes I've actually posted twice that I accept you are not a defender of these regimes.  And count this as a third time.




			
				LLETSA said:
			
		

> But the state capitalist label is useless in as much as it is used as a cover for various kinds of socialist and anti-capitalist, enabling them to avoid being implicated in the only significant non-capitalist experiment that has so far taken place.



To be fair I think if your part of a tendency that was denouncing what Lenin and the boys were up to by mid 1918 and which had spent the previous 50 years warning against such an experiment then you are not all that implicated in the experiment at all.  This isn't the SWP your addressing here who waited for some 30+ years after the event to discover that russia was state capitalist.

On the other hand your right that opponents of socialism will still try and implicate you.  And that you need a clarity as to why this is not the case that goes beyond whining 'no they were state capitalist'.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 8, 2005)

JoeBlack said:
			
		

> Err your being a little bit defensive here - not have I not accused you of either of these crimes I've actually posted twice that I accept you are not a defender of these regimes.  And count this as a third time.





Okay.  But when you said:




			
				JoeBlack said:
			
		

> Its actually much more useful to have that argument seperated from a defence of the actual regime.



I thought that you might have been assuming I was.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 8, 2005)

JoeBlack said:
			
		

> To be fair I think if your part of a tendency that was denouncing what Lenin and the boys were up to by mid 1918 and which had spent the previous 50 years warning against such an experiment then you are not all that implicated in the experiment at all.  This isn't the SWP your addressing here who waited for some 30+ years after the event to discover that russia was state capitalist.
> 
> On the other hand your right that opponents of socialism will still try and implicate you.  And that you need a clarity as to why this is not the case that goes beyond whining 'no they were state capitalist'.





Exactly.


----------



## JoeBlack (Mar 8, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Okay.  But when you said



OK I can see why you read it that way - I was actually trying to say this discussion was more useful then arguing with a trot/stalinist.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 8, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Care to elaborate on that one?



I'm waiting for 'a clarity' on your position of course.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 8, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Perhaps it would be a good idea to read their site.  It's perfectly understandable.  You are even free to draw your own conclusions.



Workers councils it is then.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 8, 2005)

MC5 said:
			
		

> I'm waiting for 'a clarity' on your position of course.





Eh?  What I was asking you to elaborate on was:




			
				MC5 said:
			
		

> Capitalism is fucked from where I'm looking. The opposition is also fucked.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 8, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Eh?  What I was asking you to elaborate on was:






			
				MC5 said:
			
		

> Capitalism is fucked from where I'm looking. The opposition is also fucked.



In it's present form, capitalism with all it's contradictions lumbers on until the next crisis. As boom turns to bust, it will be workers who will bear the brunt of this economic madness.

There is another possibility of course, whereby organised workers, both in the community and workplace, resist any attacks on them and unite politically to pose an alternative.


----------



## montevideo (Mar 9, 2005)

MC5 said:
			
		

> In it's present form, capitalism with all it's contradictions lumbers on until the next crisis. As boom turns to bust, it will be workers who will bear the brunt of this economic madness.
> 
> There is another possibility of course, whereby organised workers, both in the community and workplace, resist any attacks on them and unite politically to pose an alternative.



just to clarify, organised being a euphemism for unionised? Or do you mean self-organised?


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 9, 2005)

MC5 said:
			
		

> In it's present form, capitalism with all it's contradictions lumbers on until the next crisis. As boom turns to bust, it will be workers who will bear the brunt of this economic madness.
> 
> There is another possibility of course, whereby organised workers, both in the community and workplace, resist any attacks on them and unite politically to pose an alternative.





If capitalism is set to 'lumber on until its next crisis', and if 'workers will bear the brunt....', how does what you say in your second paragraph stand any chance of coming about if, as you say in one of your posts, 'the opposition to capitalism is fucked' as well? And if capitalism lumbers from one crisis to the next without ever encountering a decisive challenge, how is it, as you say, also 'fucked'?


----------



## rednblack (Mar 9, 2005)

MC5 said:
			
		

> In it's present form, capitalism with all it's contradictions lumbers on until the next crisis. As boom turns to bust, it will be workers who will bear the brunt of this economic madness.



that is not a sign of capitalism being fucked, if it gets to lumber on in the same way for the next 500 years, how is it fucked? especially as it us bearing the brunt and not the capitalists. and given that capitalists who do suffer in general accept is as part of the natural order of things - i can't see them considering it to be fucked either.

capitalism is far from fucked globally - especially with china further opening it's markets, and affluence increasing in south america, eastern europe, and asia (bar the asian crisis and similar hiccups which should turn to boom once more following the boom and bust cycle)


----------



## audiotech (Mar 9, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> just to clarify, organised being a euphemism for unionised? Or do you mean self-organised?



Organised politically.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 9, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> If capitalism is set to 'lumber on until its next crisis', and if 'workers will bear the brunt....', how does what you say in your second paragraph stand any chance of coming about if, as you say in one of your posts, 'the opposition to capitalism is fucked' as well? And if capitalism lumbers from one crisis to the next without ever encountering a decisive challenge, how is it, as you say, also 'fucked'?



By 'fucked' I meant that capitalism cannot deliver even the most basic of needs to a large part of the world. Added to that is the environmental damage of unregulated market operations.

The opposition is as usual too busy fighting amongst itself to make any real impact at present. But I did say that there is another possibility, whereby organised workers, both in the community and workplace, resist any attacks on them and unite politically to pose an alternative.


----------



## rednblack (Mar 9, 2005)

MC5 said:
			
		

> By 'fucked' I meant that capitalism cannot deliver even the most basic of needs to a large part of the world. Added to that is the environmental damage of unregulated market operations.



capitalism is not about providing for the world, it is surely about providng for capitalists while claiming to try it's best and provide for the world so that the rest of us remain supportive or at least not in open opposition??


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 9, 2005)

MC5 said:
			
		

> The opposition is as usual too busy fighting amongst itself to make any real impact at present. But I did say that there is another possibility, whereby organised workers, both in the community and workplace, resist any attacks on them and unite politically to pose an alternative.





Something that is easier said than done when a majority of those who seek to do the organising, even if they don't refuse to recognise that the only example of an alternative that has so far existed is utterly discredited, continue to be infatuated with the organisational methods and rhetoric of those who created it. 

And expecting total spontaneity on the part of the workers is also pie-in-the-sky.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 9, 2005)

MC5 said:
			
		

> By 'fucked' I meant that capitalism cannot deliver even the most basic of needs to a large part of the world. Added to that is the environmental damage of unregulated market operations.





The way things are looking at the moment this could run and run.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 9, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Something that is easier said than done when a majority of those who seek to do the organising, even if they don't refuse to recognise that the only example of an alternative that has so far existed is utterly discredited, continue to be infatuated with the organisational methods and rhetoric of those who created it.
> 
> And expecting total spontaneity on the part of the workers is also pie-in-the-sky.



I didn't say it would be easy. However, there is the opportunity now to forge a left radical, political alternative to what has existed before. Rather than sitting back and bemoaning what is, I feel it would be more constructive to go out and actually engage in that alternative.


----------



## montevideo (Mar 9, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Something that is easier said than done when a majority of those who seek to do the organising, even if they don't refuse to recognise that the only example of an alternative that has so far existed is utterly discredited, continue to be infatuated with the organisational methods and rhetoric of those who created it.
> 
> And expecting total spontaneity on the part of the workers is also pie-in-the-sky.



so the alternative to spontaneity on the part of the workers would be? 

Compulsory organisation? Enforced organisation?


----------



## audiotech (Mar 9, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> capitalism is not about providing for the world, it is surely about providng for capitalists while claiming to try it's best and provide for the world so that the rest of us remain supportive or at least not in open opposition??



Capitalism is a system that produces and provides a world of plenty. It is the way that 'plenty' is distributed which is the problem.


----------



## rednblack (Mar 9, 2005)

MC5 said:
			
		

> Capitalism is a system that produces and provides a world of plenty. It is the way that 'plenty' is distributed which is the problem.



which is what i said


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 9, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> so the alternative to spontaneity on the part of the workers would be?
> 
> Compulsory organisation? Enforced organisation?




Do you really believe that the only choice is between waiting forever for your spontaneous workers' uprising (or whatever) and compulsory or enforced organisation?  Even Leninists don't actually try to force people into joining their organisations.

The alternative?  Surely some combination consisting of organisations made up of working class people that do not consider themselves some kind of vanguard of the class but also aren't afraid to attempt to articulate working class interests and give a lead -and also give the best possible encouragement to those that do take action for themselves without looking first to outside organisations. 

Notice how I said organisation(s). However I await your accusations of closet Leninism.


----------



## rednblack (Mar 9, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> The alternative?  Surely some combination consisting of organisations made up of working class people that do not consider themselves some kind of vanguard of the class but also aren't afraid to attempt to articulate working class interests and give a lead -and also give the best possible encouragement to those that do take action for themselves, without looking first to outside organisations.



can't say i disagree with that! (what a surprise)


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 9, 2005)

MC5 said:
			
		

> I didn't say it would be easy. However, there is the opportunity now to forge a left radical, political alternative to what has existed before. Rather than sitting back and bemoaning what is, I feel it would be more constructive to go out and actually engage in that alternative.





I never advocated 'sitting back and bemoaning what is.'  What I questioned was the formulistic nature of your post. It was, at best, typical lefty-speak.


----------



## montevideo (Mar 9, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Do you really believe that the only choice is between waiting forever for your spontaneous workers' uprising (or whatever) and compulsory or enforced organisation?  Even Leninists don't actually try to force people into joining their organisations.
> 
> The alternative?  Surely some combination consisting of organisations made up of working class people that do not consider themselves some kind of vanguard of the class but also aren't afraid to attempt to articulate working class interests and give a lead -and also give the best possible encouragement to those that do take action for themselves without looking first to outside organisations.
> 
> Notice how I said organisation(s). However I await your accusations of closet Leninism.



*articulate working class interests and give a lead* So individuals articulating working class interests & give a lead isn't vanguardism? 

So what you're suggesting is these particular indivduals, who have taken it upon themselves to articulate the interests of a class because working class people are not as yet able to articulate their own interests themselves? They don't have the same insight as your articulaters or leaders of working class interest?

This is, of course, on the undertsanding these particular individuals know exactly what these class interests are, above & beyond everybody else?

You putting yourself up as one of these individuals who is attempting to articulate working class interest & give a lead?

History is littered with indiviudals trying to encourage, educate, articulate, lead, inspire The Working Class in their own best interests. Wouldn't call them closet leninist, would call them patronising fuckers.


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 9, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> *articulate working class interests and give a lead* So individuals articulating working class interests & give a lead isn't vanguardism?





Not when it is done in consultation with the people whose interests they are trying to further - and encouraging those people to take action for themselves.

Ask yourself this - I'm sure you're not so sectarian that you would claim that the IWCA in, say, Oxford, are not doing work that is of benefit to the local working class population? Nor that they are not doing their best to involve people who are not IWCA members?  Now would any of that activity be taking place had the IWCA not got organised there in the first place?


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 9, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> *So what you're suggesting is these particular indivduals, who have taken it upon themselves to articulate the interests of a class because working class people are not as yet able to articulate their own interests themselves? They don't have the same insight as your articulaters or leaders of working class interest?*


*



No. As I say in my previous post, in the kind of example I am thinking of, the organisation consults people who are, in their own way, 'articulating their own interests themselves' when they respond. I am not saying that spontaneous organisation doesn't sometimes arise, but these examples are relatively rare.

There is nothing wrong with an organisation seeking to give some kind of lead as long as it does not place itself above the rest of the class and place the latters' interests behind those of the party.*


----------



## hibee (Mar 9, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> ...and place the latters' interests behind those of the party.



Or assume that the two are one and the same.


----------



## montevideo (Mar 9, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Not when it is done in consultation with the people whose interests they are trying to further - and encouraging those people to take action for themselves.
> 
> Ask yourself this - I'm sure you're not so sectarian that you would claim that the IWCA in, say, Oxford, are not doing work that is of benefit to the local working class population? Nor that they are not doing their best to involve people who are not IWCA members?  Now would any of that activity be taking place had the IWCA not got organised there in the first place?



Okay, the questions i would ask are these:

why does the iwca have to be a membership organisation? Regardless of their ulimate agenda, the iwca has already created a two-tier system; those inside the party & those outside. If it was a genuine association of working class people, promoting self-determination & more importantly non-reliance on others, be it the council, political parties (however they disguise themeselves, whatever their class composition) or local government agencies, then maybe you could consider that a starting point towards creating an 'alternative'.  

Your last question's a strange one. Are you saying without the iwca in oxford, working class people wouldn't/couldn't get up off their arses & do something for themselves?


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 9, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> Your last question's a strange one. Are you saying without the iwca in oxford, working class people wouldn't/couldn't get up off their arses & do something for themselves?




Whether they would or not, the fact remains that the particular stuff that is going on there was initiated by the IWCA. What's more, they did it at a time when working class self-confidence is at an all-time low and in a political atmosphere when any kind of pro-working class politics is almost universally-held to be a non-starter. 

Surely their example can only encourage any working class people considering 'getting up off their arses and doing something for themselves' to actually do so, rather than the reverse?


----------



## LLETSA (Mar 9, 2005)

montevideo said:
			
		

> why does the iwca have to be a membership organisation? Regardless of their ulimate agenda, the iwca has already created a two-tier system; those inside the party & those outside. If it was a genuine association of working class people, promoting self-determination & more importantly non-reliance on others, be it the council, political parties (however they disguise themeselves, whatever their class composition) or local government agencies, then maybe you could consider that a starting point towards creating an 'alternative'.





Rather than being indignant that activity that is actually going in does not fit the ideological blueprint,perhaps you would be better approaching people who have voted for the IWCA in Oxford and asking them whther they mind that the IWCA organises in the way that it does.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 9, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> which is what i said



Alright, we fucking agree   Jesus


----------



## audiotech (Mar 9, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> I never advocated 'sitting back and bemoaning what is.'  What I questioned was the formulistic nature of your post. It was, at best, typical lefty-speak.



'sitting back and bemoaning what is.' This wasn't aimed at you personally. A general observation LLETSA - honest!

I don't go along with your description of my post as 'lefty-speak' however. Now that is clearly aimed at me.


----------



## Ryazan (Mar 10, 2005)

LLETSA said:
			
		

> Whether they would or not, the fact remains that the particular stuff that is going on there was initiated by the IWCA. What's more, they did it at a time when working class self-confidence is at an all-time low and in a political atmosphere when any kind of pro-working class politics is almost universally-held to be a non-starter.
> 
> Surely their example can only encourage any working class people considering 'getting up off their arses and doing something for themselves' to actually do so, rather than the reverse?



Aye.


----------



## OldThreadRevive (Aug 2, 2019)

This thread has hereby formally revived. Please continue to discuss.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 2, 2019)

It’s easy to find out: ask them the HSE rules on hi viz.


----------



## OldThreadRevive (Aug 2, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> It’s easy to find out: ask them the HSE rules on hi viz.


Careful, Red Sky will call you an ID prole.


----------



## Serge Forward (Aug 2, 2019)

I'm not reading 36 pages. What do they mean by "working class" anyway? The opening post looked a bit too identity politics to me.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 2, 2019)

Serge Forward said:


> I'm not reading 36 pages. What do they mean by "working class" anyway?



Milk and four sugars minimum.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2019)

8ball said:


> Milk and four sugars minimum.


milk is a bourgeois deviation


----------



## treelover (Aug 2, 2019)

Who was Old Thread Revived?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 2, 2019)

treelover said:


> Who was Old Thread Revived?


Someone who knew this thread existed.


----------



## Gromit (Aug 2, 2019)

treelover said:


> Who was Old Thread Revived?


Penry? The mild mannered janitor?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Someone who knew this thread existed.


ah - but from before or after they arrived? i wonder if the mods can see the searches that have been made.


----------



## Serge Forward (Aug 2, 2019)

I'll get my little cloth cap.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 2, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> ah - but from before or after they arrived?


I suppose he remembered starting it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> I suppose he remembered starting it.


I don't think it's auld ernie


----------



## binka (Aug 2, 2019)

They don't make politics threads like they used to


----------

